Jimmystats: Starts by Class and Stars Comment Count

Seth

Meta: Hokepoints is now alternating bi-weekly features. Jimmystats is the one where we play with Excel, H4 is the one where we play with Playmaker or get misty-eyed. Thank you readers who submitted name ideas.

15746331171_8bdac39ed4_k

Not all upperclassmen are good, but having upperclassmen is good. [Fuller]

I keep a few different databases on Michigan players for various uses, and Bosch's transfer initiated a two-day time sink into updating the big roster one. It now includes number of starts each guy since the 1993 class had in his career, along with the recruiting profile and career summary. Have at it, diarists:

Some stuff I generated with it:

The Holy Balls 2010 attrition chart:

Retention rate

Bigging it makes it clicker.

The retention rate isn't the number of players who stuck, it's the number of total eligible seasons the class would have produced if every freshman played four (and every junior transfer played two, etc.). If somebody ever says there was nothing good about the Hoke era, point at the 2012-2014 classes. I do expect the transition costs and other levies of time will reduce those triple towers eventually, but that is a very good start, especially the 2012 group who came in after 11-2 and got not that since.

The flipside of course is that 2010 class, which spent exactly half of its eligibility not on Michigan's roster. And that was followed by the 2011 "process" class, which more on that in a minute. I also tracked the reasons for losses:

[Jump for that a bunch more charts and tables you can use to wow your friends, like the average number of starts for a 5-star recruit]

attrition by class

Cligging it makes it blickier.

I tried to use heat colors to show the level to which the coach and the program were at fault, with red and orange for years lost to recruiting guys who couldn't get in academically or were dismissed for behavioral things. Yellows are transfers of different varieties, and blues are the things you usually can't control, from those who left football to injuries and finally early NFL departures.

The 2011 class has just about everything to demonstrate why this chart isn't dead-on-balls accurate. Among those categorized as "personal transfers" are Chris Barnett, who didn't even make it to campus, Greg Brown who might have been playing time if you could believe Michigan had a cornerback depth chart before 2011, and Kellen Jones, who was injured. The class also "gave up football" Tony Posada, and zero lost years for Frank Clark even though his career summary lists him as "dismissed." Thomas Rawls, Chris Rock (NTCR), Tamani Carter, Chris Bryant, and Antonio Poole are the rest of the losses from the transition class.

Again: Brady Hoke's tenure in this regard is stark against Rodriguez. Only the Class of 1998 (shout out to my year!) had as little attrition as Hoke's classes. Unfortunately of the four dudes to not use up their eligibility in my class, three were consensus 5-stars: David Terrell went to the NFL early, Henson went to the Yankees, and Justin Fargas transferred to USC. The last was Dave Armstrong, an unrenewed 5th.

The 2013 Class is Just Young Chart

Starts vs Recruiting

The blue bars are the percent of total starts that each class accounted for over (roughly) their course of eligibility. That is calculated as 1/4 times games their freshman year, 3/4 of games their fifth season, and 100% of the sophomore, junior, and senior years. Your expectations for a class should be they use about 25% of the starts over their tenure.

The classes with eligibility remaining aren't downgraded for games not played yet, but since starts tend to be weighted heavily toward the end of starters' careers, the 2013 class is very much on pace to produce more than its share of starts, even bracketed by two good classes.

I overlaid the start bars with total recruiting stars, a sum of the average stars given recruited members of the class. The average is of whatever Rivals, Scout, ESPN, 247, Lemming star rating I could find. Better classes did tend to produce more starts, but it wasn't exact at all. I can show that with the…

Table of Recruiting Star Power

As Recruit Players Avg starts RS as Fr Avg lost yrs
★★★★★ 23 19.8 26% 0.57
★★★★.5 34 15.7 66% 0.76
★★★★ 103 11.6 54% 0.76
★★★.5 99 10.0 61% 0.90
★★★ 109 6.9 63% 0.91
★★.5 25 9.8 71% 0.84
★★ 10 2.7 78% 1.20

mouseover headers for explanation

Matt Hinton can thank me for that 3rd column when he's looking for yet another way to prove that recruiting rankings do matter. The average 5-star, in 3.4 seasons of eligibility, gave Michigan about 20 starts; it's half that once you're getting into the 4- and higher 3-star guys, and another drop-off for the two's. Also note the consensus 5-stars were far less likely to redshirt than other dudes.

It is therefore my recommendation that Harbaugh recruit as many 5-stars as possible.

How Old the Starters Were:

avg class of starters

ickingclay akesmay ityay iggerbay

UPDATE: There was a major error in the 2012 defense data here.

The above is the average eligibility of those who contributed starts. This is a total and divide thing; if a redshirt sophomore and a junior both started 13 games I had that as 13x2.0 + 13x3.0 divided by 26 = 2.5 average. Obvious redshirt problem is obvious, but it's still a fair enough representation of the relative experience of Michigan squads over the years.

For 2015 I showed the best possible scenario: if Morris, Green/Smith, Darboh, Chesson, Norfleet, Butt, Cole, Kalis, Miller, G.Glasgow, and Braden/Mags start all season on defense, and R.Glasgow, Henry, Taco, Ojemudia, Morgan, Bolden, Ross/Countess, J.Lewis, Peppers, Hill, and Wilson start all year on defense. That won't happen of course. Maybe for a future thing I'll look at what we expected going into the season versus what we're expecting, say, by next August.

Another thing you can see in the chart above is the tragedy and the excuse of the Hoke years. Excuse because the 2013 and 2014 teams and the 2012 defense were extraordinarily young. The tragedy because the offense in 2011 and 2012 should have been magnificent—minus some interior OL problems of course. It's further evidence that Hoke did most of the damage to himself by having Borges as his offensive coordinator, digging a hole his recruiting or his own coaching ability couldn't get him out of.

In table form:

Season DEFENSE OFFENSE Avg Starter
Fr So Jr Sr Defense Fr So Jr Sr Offense
1997 1 56 45 30 2.79 26 12 40 54 2.92 2.76
1998 6 24 68 32 2.97 2 43 42 56 3.06 3.00
1999 10 16 27 79 3.33 1 22 54 55 3.23 3.21
2000 21 46 37 28 2.55 4 19 31 78 3.39 2.85
2001 7 22 70 33 2.98 2 44 34 51 3.02 2.91
2002 3 16 50 74 3.36 4 25 65 50 3.12 3.16
2003 9 25 44 52 3.07 2 42 35 64 3.13 3.01
2004 0 34 37 61 3.20 28 23 46 35 2.67 2.77
2005 7 22 77 24 2.91 4 36 35 57 3.10 2.94
2006 0 29 31 83 3.38 1 8 79 55 3.31 3.18
2007 10 18 66 48 3.07 21 13 12 97 3.29 2.88
2008 2 23 36 71 3.33 40 25 46 21 2.36 2.61
2009 23 36 33 41 2.69 7 44 35 46 2.91 2.57
2010 22 41 27 51 2.76 10 47 59 25 2.70 2.59
2011 24 14 57 48 2.90 0 34 42 64 3.21 3.04
2012           0 19 53 75 3.38  
2013 7 54 42 40 2.80 31 33 22 55 2.72 2.71
2014 3 45 43 33 2.85 19 44 45 23 2.55 2.65
2015 13 0 65 65 3.27 0 13 91 39 3.18 3.32

Comments

Ron Utah

January 7th, 2015 at 11:02 AM ^

This is one of the reasons I would expect us to compete in every game this fall, and finish #2 or #3 in the East division.  With some bounces, I do believe we could have a 10-win regular season.

Also: This is why I love Seth.  GREAT data and analysis.

814 East U

January 7th, 2015 at 9:41 AM ^

Really liked the % of starts by recruiting class. Really brings to light the disparity of recruiting classes. That is college football and recruitng I suppose. 

Salinger

January 7th, 2015 at 11:54 AM ^

I know this is a thing, but not all pundits think this. David Pollack was on Mike and Mike this morning and he thought that Harbaugh should take a good step righting the ship as early as next year. 

I tend to agree too. He'll take a good step. We need a QB though. Time will tell what he can get out of the guys on our roster. I for one can't wait for September 3rd to come.

BlueLikeJazz

January 7th, 2015 at 12:06 PM ^

There is so much talent and experience on both sides of the ball that a first year reminiscent of Hoke's first (2011) isn't out of the question...without all the luck Hoke needed, of course.

But the QB uncertainty is the one thing that makes me leery of predicting that.  If Hogan transfers in, or one of the guys currently on campus makes a huge leap, then not only is 10-2 very possible, but Harbaugh will truly be a QB wizard.

stbowie

January 7th, 2015 at 10:20 AM ^

I think the poster above is referring to the argument that more 1st rounders become NFL starters because 1st rounders get more practice time, starts, etc., which results in faster development and more opportunities to prove himself. Whereas a 5th or 6th rounder may have only a very few opportunities to prove himself before he's cut from the team.

Recruiting rankings can have a similar bias - 5 stars come in with certain expectations and consequently may end up higher on the depth chart, with more starts, more time on the 1st or 2nd team, etc.. You don't have the same issues of being cut from the team as you do in the NFL (at least not at Michigan), but the difference in starting position on the depth chart can be meaningful in terms of development.

VectorVictor05

January 7th, 2015 at 11:00 AM ^

Although I see where you and the poster above are going, I would guess the college impact would be significantly less.  The main reason being money.

In the NFL, 1st/2nd round picks with big contracts and guaranteed money already attached to them will bring certain attention and opportunity given the front office / head coach wanting that investment to pan out (maybe not so much now with the rookie salary cap, but still).  You don't have that at all in college with recruits - they either pan out or they don't and the 5 star is getting the same aid/scholarship as the low 3 star.

The other side of this is pure ego of front office types who will stick with "their guy" to the end because they were the ones who picked them 10 spots before where other teams had that player on their boards. This may play a role with college coaches who attach themselves to a "program saving" blue-chip recruit, but that is so rare it's not really worth mentioning.

westwardwolverine

January 7th, 2015 at 9:58 AM ^

Its weird to consider the 2012 defense "young". 

SR Roh

SR Campbell

JR Washington

JR Black

SR Demens

SR Floyd

SR Kovacs

JR Gordon

That's 8 upperclassmen starting the Nebraska game looking at the UFR from that year. (Possibly 9 if you include JR Courtney Avery, not sure if he started that game or not). 

Edit: I guess its possible that not all these guys started, but they all contributed significantly according to the UFR. 

Seth

January 7th, 2015 at 5:19 PM ^

Something got messed up with my data for 2012 because these are the starts I had on defense:

 

Player Last Year Pos 2012
Frank Clark 2014 DE 13
Jibreel Black 2013 DE/DT 13
Jake Ryan 2014 SAM 13
Raymon Taylor 2014 CB 11
Desmond Morgan 2015 WLB 11
Thomas Gordon 2013 SS 10
Brennen Beyer 2014 DE/SAM 9
Keith Heitzman 2015 DE 7
Courtney Avery 2013 CB 6
Quinton Washington 2013 NT 6
Josh Furman 2014 SS 3
James Ross III 2015 MLB 2
Cameron Gordon 2013 SAM 2
Blake Countess 2015 CB 1

Seth

January 7th, 2015 at 5:42 PM ^

Yeah something go REALLY messed up with 2012. On Bentley too:

http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fbteam/2012fbt.htm

I'm gonna have to do some major scrubbing. Sorry. Here's the correct 2012 start data:

 

Player Elig Pos 2012
Thomas Gordon Jr* DB 13
Jordan Kovacs Sr* DB 13
J.T. Floyd Sr* DB 12
Raymon Taylor So DB 11
Courtney Avery Jr DB 4
Blake Countess Fr DB 1
Craig Roh Sr DL 11
William Campbell Sr DL 11
Brennen Beyer So DL 10
Quinton Washington Jr* DL 10
Frank Clark So DL 3
Jibreel Black Jr DL 3
Jake Ryan So* LB 13
Kenny Demens Sr* LB 13
Desmond Morgan So LB 11
James Ross Fr LB 2
Cameron Gordon Jr* LB 2

Seth

January 7th, 2015 at 11:03 PM ^

I've been deep in the start data and there's all sorts of weirdness. Each season should have exactly as many starters as the number of games times 22 (unless we were playing 10 man football), but most years are off, meaning I gotta go find lots of little problems.

Right now here's how it matches up (with 2012 repaired):

  • 2014: +3
  • 2013: +9
  • 2012: good
  • 2011: -3
  • 2010: -4
  • 2009: +1
  • 2008: good
  • 2007: good
  • 2006: good
  • 2005: -2
  • 2004: good
  • 2003: -6
  • 2002: +1
  • 2001: -1
  • 2000: good
  • 1999: good
  • 1998: -13
  • 1997: good

The 1993-96 data are incomplete--I forgot those were only there to show the historical starts for players on the 97 team.

Gulo Blue

January 7th, 2015 at 9:59 AM ^

Good set of charts to point to when people complain about Lloyd Carr offering to sign transfer letters. RR's recruits transfered significantly more than the guys from Lloyds last 4 years, which were up from the years just prior, but similar to the amount of transfers '93-96.

maize-blue

January 7th, 2015 at 10:04 AM ^

2015 was a season that a lot have pointed to as a time when things should start taking off, Hoke or no Hoke. The absolute smashing of optimism that Hoke provided in 2014 had a lot to do with his dismissal. He just couldn't be trusted to take this team to higher heights. Hoke did build a solid base and I think if the QB situation gets figured out, then 9 wins should be a floor for this team. 

tolmichfan

January 7th, 2015 at 10:24 AM ^

Seth,
I'm glad you keep records of this stuff. To me it is very useful info, I think another colum in your chart should include wins and losses. To no ones surprise when we have an older team they tend to have better years. 2011, 2006, and the early 1999 to 2003 stand out to me. If my memory serves me correctly those were some of the best years Michigan has had in the time period you charted.

This is why I am excited for next year. I would have been excited for next year even if Hoke was still our coach. If we have the normal amount of attrition this offseason we will have two solid years of "older" teams. Hoke brought this team roster stability, something we needed, and I hope Harbaugh will be able to continue.

cutter

January 7th, 2015 at 10:30 AM ^

Besides inheriting some real depth problems at offenslve line, Hoke also had two starting quarterbacks at Michigan who won't be playing the position in the NFL.  Denard Robinson is a running back for the Jacksonville Jaguars and Devin Gardner is projected as a late round draft pick as a wide receiver.

Harbaugh is inheriting a program that is going to be much more balanced in terms of upperclassmen/underclassmen numbers than what Hoke had in place when he took over for Rodriguez.  The one big problem he probably has is at quarterback, with Morris and Bellomy having proven essentially nothing at the position while Speight and Malzone (who literally just arrivedon campus) are largely unknowns (outside of practice reports and recruiting highlights).

With Funchess headed to the draft, the WR position is probably the next place where there's not a lot of talent or experience to work with at this point.  Darboh, Chesson, Norfleet, Jones and Canteen are the "veterans".  The rest of the players haven't had much or any game time (such as Drake Harris).  Having Brian Cole enroll early helps, but this is a position that could use a second elite talent in thie recruiting class.

We'll see what happens.  The 2015 non-conference schedule is something of an upgrade from last season (which included Appalachian State and Miami-Ohio).  At Utah, Oregon State, UNLV and BYU are the four games there, and while Nevada-Las Vegas isn't an especially good program, the other three include two P12 teams and a major independent.  We'll see how those programs look over the summer, with BYU getting their starting QB back from injury, Oregon State having a new HC and Utah apparently having some coaching turmoil.

Northwestern and at Minnesota are the two Big Ten West games,  UM hosts Michigan State, Rutgers and Ohio State and plays at Penn State, at Maryland and at Indiana from the Big Ten East.  

tolmichfan

January 7th, 2015 at 11:02 AM ^

I hate that argument. I agree that he was a more than capable college QB. But when Borges had him, denard had a staff infection for a couple games in 2011, and in 2012 he had his ulner nerve injury. What we don't know is how long those injuries were effecting his play. I suspect in 2012 his nerve was bad around the ND game considering how many turnovers he had.

93Grad

January 7th, 2015 at 11:29 AM ^

the 2011 games against MSU and Iowa and the 2012 game against ND?  It was pretty clear they did not know how to effectively use Denard or they refused to run what he did best.  Even the 2012 gameplan against OSU was poorly designed.  Denard was well enough to play, but they telegraphed what they were going to run by alternating him and Devin rather than playing them together. 

tolmichfan

January 7th, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feioff2011

If they were so bad at using denard then why did our O finish 9 in FEI the one year they had him for a full year. Also during this year he had a staff infection that is rumored to have happened before the Minnesota game. I'm no Doctor but I would guess it takes a couple weeks to get over a staff infection, after it is actually diagnosed. MSU was two weeks after Minny and Iowa was I think 5 weeks after. So if the game plan at Iowa was "bad" maybe it was because he couldn't throw the ball and the coaches were trying to go against their tendencies to throw Iowa off.

I got nothing for the OSU game that was just dumb and they should have utilized some swing passes to denard.

Jonesy

January 7th, 2015 at 3:08 PM ^

Because Denard is a generational talent?  You really don't think Denard would have been even more productive if the zone reads were actual zone reads and not pre-determined run plays that look like zone reads and go out of their way to block the defender you're supposed to option?  If they kept running qb oh noes, if they kept running bubble screens, if they actually had constraint plays?  Our entire offense under Borge was 'put Denard in a bad position, hope he still pulls us through.'

west2

January 7th, 2015 at 10:43 AM ^

shortcomings, not to beat a dead horse, were exactly what, in your opinion? Asking this generally more to contrast this with the new coaching staff. Its been rehashed-the lack of development, Borges, OL youth etc, but really was it Hokes easy going nature, lack of disipline or lack of attention to detail, what personality issues caused hoke's dissapointing performance and why do you think Harbaugh will be successful?

The data indicates M has talent certainly as much as msu and similar to osu. Watching the Meyer/buckeye pressors and listening to his approach to players-e.g. you come to osu to win championships-what is so different about the meyers/sabans of the world besides the Xs & Os, jimmys & joes that sets them apart?

alum96

January 7th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^

The unbalanced classes is a bit of an issue.  In a sentence or two what UM fan needs to prepare for down the road is a massive 2017 recruiting class .... but a very young 2 deep in 2017. 

Examples - every RB not named Ty Isaac will graduate in 2016, every DT not named Mone and Hurst will be gone, if none of this year's starters on OL lose their job this year every starting OL not named Cole will be gone (that assumes Cole is not an early entry to the NFL and leaves with the others in 2016), every safety not named Kinnel will be gone etc

So we have another "donut hole" situation of sorts coming down the pike at a few positions.

Again this is only 2 years away.   We need a big hit rate on players in the 2015 and 2016 classes... while the 2017 class can have a lot of misses because it is going to be massive.

Obviously attrition is a touchy subject but longer term we need better balance across the classes - losing 3-4 little utilized players this offseason, especially older ones and having them funnel into the 2015 recruiting class would be helpful from a class balance perspective.

93Grad

January 7th, 2015 at 10:50 AM ^

you are talking about this off season, but I think most of it will be too late to help the 2015 class.  If I were Harbaugh, I would not save any spots right now for walk-ons like the Glasgows and Kerrige, knowing that in all likelihood those spots will open up again by this fall. In other words, we should use every last available scholarship in 2015 assuming we have enough quality recruits willing to commit this late in the game.

AZBlue

January 7th, 2015 at 11:39 AM ^

are year-to-year*, this is truly the case for walk-ons.  Each year any open scholarships are given those walk-ons that most earned it.

In the case of the Glasgows, they really have "earned" a guaranteed scholarship with their play on the field, the OP is just saying due to attrition M should (say 95%) have schollies for them by the fall even if you recruit 2015 as if they weren't getting them.

* Although discussed a lot recently - I don't think the 4-yr scholarship is a reality yet,

sj

January 7th, 2015 at 12:28 PM ^

It seems like a terrible precedent to remove the scholarships of people who have substantial playing time. Non-scholarship players are so important to practice and development even when they don't turn out to be as good as the Glasgows. A team doesn't want a reputation as being disrespectful to them. 

alum96

January 7th, 2015 at 12:02 PM ^

I can't see us taking away scholarships from either Glasgow brother - those are 2 of our 22 starters.  The message it would send is just wrong IMO.  Even Kerridge, in a Harbaugh offense, is a key guy.  These guys earned their scholarship - more so than a lot of guys who have been sitting in shadows for multiple years contributing little.

Anyone on the 2 deep IMO should have a scholarship - however they arrived at UM.

My larger point is right now even with Bosch and Ferns gone our class is 12.  If those 2 had stayed it would be 10 (!) before any further attrition and assuming Glasgows and Kerridge retain theirs.

Meanwhile the 2017 class is currently 27 spots.  And that's before any attrition.  This is all an offshoot of that damn 2010 class.

Any players that do leave between now and Feb 2016 can be a scholarship that cycles into the 2015 and 2016 classes and at least incrementally help balance things out.  Losing 27 out of 85 scholarship players in 1 year (post 2016) is going to  be a not great thing.  But we're going to be a quite veteran club for the next 2 years at least.

funkywolve

January 7th, 2015 at 10:53 AM ^

it almost becomes a cycle.  You pull 25 recruits one year, 25 the next, 17 the next and then 14.  Unless you have attrition and early NFL departures it's hard to get out of that cycle quickly.  So far based upon the OP there hasn't been much attirtion and Funchess is the only early NFL departure.