2013 Turnover Analysis – Updated Thru Minnesota
Zip, Zero, Nada, None, Null: For the first time in 2 years (!) Michigan did not have a giveaway. Coincidently, the last time was also against Minnesota in 2011. However, giveaways usually come in bunches so it is still too early to say the problem is solved. Let's hope good Devin is here to stay. Michigan improved to #20 in scoring offense and #21 in scoring defense. Manball continues with a 66% run play percentage for the game and 60.3% for the year (ranked #20).
Synopsis: Michigan's TOM for the game was +2 and for the year it is now – 3 (– 0.60 per game) which is ranked #95. Illinois, Indiana, and Penn State are the only other B1G teams with negative TOM for the year. Turnovers were not a primary factor in determining which team won the game but Michigan had an advantage of 10.5 expected points for the two takeaways. Countess had his fourth interception of the year and is tied for #1 in the nation. Blake also has 149 interception return yards and leads the nation. Black had a forced fumble which was recovered by Ross III.
Player Details: Here is the overall summary for all games by player (data in yellow was affected by this week's game). .
National Rankings: All rankings include games between two FBS teams ONLY and are from TeamRankings except for forced fumbles which is from CFBStats. 
The four columns with *** show the best correlation to offense and defense (per Advanced NFL stats).
Turnovers And Winning: This chart shows turnover margin (TOM) at the end of the season versus the percentage of teams with a +4 WLM (8-4 record) or better. [WLM = Win/Loss Margin = Wins – Losses]
Expected Points: The impact of each turnover depends upon the down, the spot the turnover is lost, and the spot the turnover is gained. 
This chart shows Expected Points for various yard lines.
This chart shows the basis of EP calculations for each turnover.
October 8th, 2013 at 12:16 PM ^
Hmm, where does our next opponent stand in the TOM stats...can you give us a comparison of them and us?
October 8th, 2013 at 5:56 PM ^
Here are the other B1G TOMs/game:
Nebraska = +1.0
NW = +1.0
MSU = +0.8
ohio = +0.6
Wiscy = +0.2
Minny = +0.2
Iowa = +0.2
Illinois = -0.2
Indiana = -0.2
Penn State = -0.6
Purdue = -1.2
Notice anything? After looking at TOs for the last 5 years, I have concluded that TOs are more a reflection of a team's overall performance rather than a determining factor of a team's performance (good teams have better TOMs, poor teams have worse TOMs).
October 8th, 2013 at 2:35 PM ^
you can easily cite two answers: turnovers and inexperience. One is usually the result of the other. And even though we don't think of Gardner as being inexperienced, he hasn't even had a full season as a starter at his position.
But because the expectations for his performance are so high, we think he will perform as if he's played for multiple seasons and can draw on that to avoid making so many errors or repeatabale mistakes, like not securing the ball or running back into the end zone when cornered.
Michigan has never been challenged in any game this season in which it trailed in turnover margin. It's had difficulty in beating anyone when it loses the turnover battle. Why?
Because turnovers impact momentum, change emotion, field position and opporunity to prevent a likely score, alter the current score or ensure the final score and victory.
Turnovers that you create or come your way, are always positive. Turnovers that you give up can only have only one beneficial effect in their outcome: survival without scoring impact. Otherwise they are almost always an emotional negative changeup in energy and scoring opportunity.
So, if you win in spite of continuing to lose this battle, there is one thing that you know about your team: it is pretty resillient and able to deal with adversity without folding.
Even if you think Michigan should be better than it has shown, you must at least acknowledge that this team is learning how to win under any circumstance. And that isn't a bad thing even if you aren't satisfied by the performance.
Comments