yes plz
Is The Defense Approaching Average? - *The Statistics Say Yes*
As a follow up to my last diary entry(Statistical Analysis of the Defense During B10 Play), I decided to do a comparitive analysis to a team considered an average defense generally speaking. For this particular comparison, I decided to use Penn State's defense as a baseline, based on the fact that they play in the same conference(hence some direct comparison), currently rank #52 nationally in total defense, #6 in B10 in total defense, and #38 nationally in points allowed.
Data - I used the 6 metrics used in the diary mentioned above, and compared UM & PSU on a game by game basis during conference play:
a.) Yards/Drive
b.) Stop Percentage - defined as a drive by the opposition that doesn't yield points
c.) Punt Percentage -
d.) 3 and out Percentage
e.) Points/Drive
f.) Didn't put this on the actual chart, but analysis will follow
Format - The following chart lists the the Iowa & Illinois games first based on the fact that both UM & PSU have played both teams(a direct comparison), followed by the game vs. each other. After that, I decided to do a side by side comparision of the UM & PSU defenses according to quality of competition. Ex - comparison of UM's defensive performance against MSU vs. that of PSU's defense against OSU. It would be ill advised to do a side by side comparison of UM's defensive performance against Purdue vs. that of PSU's defensive performance of OSU, etc. Although this certainly doesn't control for variation in competition quality in an absolute manner, it does somewhat cut down the inflation due to inferior opposition.
Results - I think many will be very surprised to see the chart below, and certainly the averages for B10 game will shock some in comparison to PSU. It may suggest that the defense really isn't bad at all.
|
Game |
Yard/Drive |
Stop % |
Punt % |
3 & Out % |
Points/Drive |
|
Iowa |
MICH 383/11 = 34.8
PSU 349/10=34.9 |
MICH5/11=45.5
PSU 7/10 = 70 |
MICH 5/11 = 45.5
PSU 6/10 = 60 |
MICH 5/11 = 45.5
PSU 3/10 = 30 |
MICH 38/11 =3.45
PSU 17/10 = 1.7 |
|
Illinois |
MICH 486/14 = 34.7
PSU 437/9 =48.6 |
MICH 8/14=57.1
PSU 3/9 = 33.3 |
MICH 6/14 = 42.8
PSU 2/10 = 20 |
MICH 4/14 = 28.6
PSU 1/9 = 11.1 |
MICH 45/14 = 3.2
PSU 26/9 = 2.89 |
|
Each Other |
MICH 435/9 = 48.3
PSU 423/10=42.3 |
MICH2/9 = 22.2
PSU 5/10 = 50 |
MICH 2/9 = 22.2
PSU 3/10 = 30 |
MICH 1/9 = 11.1
PSU 2/10 = 20 |
MICH 41/9 = 4.56
PSU 31/10 = 3.1 |
|
MICH/MSU
PSU/OSU |
MICH 536/10 = 53.6
PSU 453/10=45.3 |
MICH 4/10 = 40
PSU 6/10 = 60 |
MICH 4/10 = 40
PSU 4/10 = 40 |
MICH 2/10 = 20
PSU 2/10 = 20 |
MICH 34/10 = 3.4
PSU 24/10 = 2.4 |
|
MICH/Ind
PSU/NW |
MICH 568/13 = 43.7
PSU 369/11=33.6 |
MICH7/13 = 54
PSU 8/11 = 73 |
MICH 4/13 = 30.8
PSU 4/11 = 36 |
MICH 1/13 = 7.7
PSU 4/11 = .36 |
MICH 35/13 =2.69
PSU 21/11 = 1.9 |
|
MICH/Pur
PSU/Minn |
MICH 244/15 = 16.3
PSU 433/13=33.3 |
MICH 12/15 =80
PSU 10/13 =77 |
MICH 7/15 = 47
PSU 5/13 = 38 |
MICH 4/15 = 27
PSU 2/13 = .15 |
MICH 9/15 = .6
PSU 21/13 = 1.6 |
|
B10 Averages |
MICH2652yds/72drives = 36.83yds/drive
PSU 2464yds/63drives =39.11 yds/drive |
MICH 38/72=53
PSU 39/63=62 |
MICH 28/72 = 39
PSU 24/63 = 38 |
MICH 17/72 = 24
PSU 14/63 = 22 |
MICH 202/72 =2.81
PSU 140/63 = 2.22 |
Looking at the above statistics begs the question - how is it that Michigan's defense allows less yards per drive, forces punts at a higher rate, forces 3-and-outs at a higher rate, and yet still they have a lower stop percentage and allow more points per drive?
Now for the all important metric - FIELD POSITION.
Game Average - I accumulated total yards in terms of field position for each game, and divided that by the total number of drives for each game.
B10 average - Simply adding the averages for each game and dividing by number of games would be flawed since each game is weighted differently because the number of possessions in each game varies. I totaled the field position for each individual drive(ex starting at your own 20 would yield an input of 20 yards, while starting at the opposition's 20 would yield an input of 80 yards) of each individual game, and divided by the total number of drives for the duration of B10 games.
Here's the Chart:
UM
|
Game |
Starting Field Position for UM Opposition |
|
Iowa |
419/11 = 38.09 |
|
Illinois |
566/14 = 40.43 |
|
PSU |
340/9 = 37.78 |
|
MSU |
301/10 = 30.1 |
|
Indiana |
342/13 = 26.31 |
|
Purdue |
539/15 = 35.93 |
|
Average |
2507/72 = 34.82 |
PSU
|
Game |
Starting Field Position for PSU Opposition |
|
Iowa |
225/10 = 22.5 |
|
Illinois |
228/9 – 25.33 |
|
Michigan |
254/10 = 25.4 |
|
OSU |
253/10 = 25.3 |
|
NW |
300/11 = 27.27 |
|
Minnesota |
305/13 = 23.46 |
|
Average |
1565/63 = 24.8 |
FACTORS:
Drives per Game - Looking at the stats above, you can see that Michigan's opponents have started 72 drives in 6 games, which means that Michigan's opponents get an avearge of 12 drives per game. On the other hand, PSU's opponents have only had 63 drives for 6 games, an average of 10.5 drives per game. This essentially means that our offense simply scores too quick, and total yards is not a metric for which our defense should be judged by. Since our defense yields an average of 36.83 yards/drive, you would simply multiply 36.83 yards by 1.5, which comes out to 55.24 yards per game that we give up simply because our offense scores quickly. If we used the PSU average of 10.5 drives per game, the defense would allow 378.6 yards per game, which would be good for #64 nationally. For comparison purposes, if PSU opponents averaged 12 drives per game, they would give up 469 yards per game based on their average of 39.11 yards/drive, which would be #120 nationally.
Field Position - special teams and TO's are the things that are most detrimental to our defense right now. The opponents average starting field position against our defense is basically the 35 yard line. We allow on average 36.83 yards per drive. Using the averages, opponents will get to the Michigan 28 yard line on each possession, and that is FG range for most kickers in the B10. Compare that with PSU's defense that allows 39.11 yards per drive, but their opponents starting field position is around the 25 yard line on average. Using the PSU averages, the opponents average drive would end around the PSU 36 yard line, which is not with FG range for most B10 kickers(53yd FG). This explains why our points/drive and stop% metrics are lower than PSU's despite the fact that we win almost every other category.
Conclusion:
Simply put, the defense isn't as bad as we currently think. The defense is put in a position to fail nearly every time they take the field. Whether it is the poor field position that we allow, or TO's, you simply can not allow the opposition to have a 65 yard field and expect good results.
Our offense is so explosive that it puts our defense at a disadvantage because it forces the defense to be on the field for more drives than an average team. Second, with the average field position we allow opponents due to Special Teams and TO's, the stats above indicate that we will yield 3 at least 3 points on almost every drive by the opposition.
What Does This Mean?
Our defense certainly isn't good, but it's not as bad as some think. To be honest, I was shocked at how favorably we stacked up against PSU's defensive numbers. Our defense is in fact approaching average, if the appropriate metrics are used. To use an analogy - basketball defensive statistics are often inflated by teams such as Boston simply because they play a slow game, which means the opposition doesn't have as many FG attempts, and hence a lower point total. A more realistic portrayal of a particular defense is FG% and points per possession.
The same can be said for Michigan's defense, we need to use metrics such as yards per drive, and take field position into account as well in order to get a true guage of their performance.
November 17th, 2010 at 4:27 PM | 
Fantastic stuff
Fantastic stuff
November 17th, 2010 at 8:11 PM |
this is really good and challenges the received wisdom
this is really good and challenges the received wisdom
on the subject. Hope it will be widely noted, and debated; thanks for your work.
November 17th, 2010 at 4:43 PM |
At the risk of getting
At the risk of getting
At the risk of getting MGoCrucified: The problem is that, due to turnovers, the M offense is seemingly getting more average as well except, in that case, it's a bad thing. Hence losing to Iowa after a decent defensive outing.
Everest from Old Spice helps mask the smell of fear during Wolverine attacks on Icy terrain.
November 17th, 2010 at 4:55 PM |
Possessions per game
Possessions per game
I am inclined to agree with you. However, I seem to remember Brian debunking this theory by pointing out that we actually have an average number of possessions per game. Perhaps Penn State is below average? Is that analysis from Brian (or perhaps another diary entry) outdated?
I am no good at pulling these numbers so I'm not much help . . . .
I like your train of thought though.
“We accept reality so readily, perhaps because we sense that nothing is real.”
November 17th, 2010 at 5:53 PM |
Not So Much
Not So Much
Possessions per game WERE pretty much average until the last 2 games. Then with 19 in the Illinois game (16 w/o OT) and 16 against Purdue, they increased considerably.
I've been playing with the idea of adjusting possessions for TOs. Each TO in essence creates an extra possession.
Life should not be a journey to the grave to arrive safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What A Ride!" HST
November 17th, 2010 at 4:57 PM |
Another Comparison?
Another Comparison?
Would it be possible to do this comparison against an elite defense like OSU and see how they stack up?
This is only a request and doesn't need to be addressed if the original PSU comparison took too much time.
November 17th, 2010 at 5:44 PM |
Problem with the PSU comparison
Problem with the PSU comparison
PSU's defensive performance in conference play is pretty bad. They performed very well out of conference (save the Alabama game), which is making their season averages seem decent. In conference play, they really haven't been that good - particularly on the ground.
November 17th, 2010 at 5:55 PM |
progress
progress
I can see see the defensive progress in the Illinois and Purdue game.
One part of me thinks it makes sense since the season is winding down for our young D. At some point things have to start clicking after so many games right? I'm not saying our defense is good, but I have seen progress.
The other part of me knows that the Illini offense wasn't that good and Purdue's offense is just plain bad.
I think this weekend's game will be a good measuring stick for our defense. Wiscy's offense can hang with any top defense in the nation.
"I'm not a vegetarian b/c I love animals. I'm a vegetarian b/c I hate plants"
November 17th, 2010 at 6:02 PM |
Excellent angle on our D
Excellent angle on our D
I really like what you've done here. I do think the amount of optimism needs to be tempered with the fact that you only reference PSU as a comparison, however.
It is definitely hurting our D that we put them in so many bad situations with turnovers and special teams. But they haven't exactly helped by creating turnovers of their own. How many drives has our offense started in good field position this year?
AC-1997
November 17th, 2010 at 7:10 PM |
On the other hand, does good
On the other hand, does good
On the other hand, does good field position for our opponents limit their yardage? Length of drive is only limited by starting point at times with our D. I just think to say we are approaching average is nuts and am looking for a reason other than being an eye witness to explain it.
November 17th, 2010 at 11:56 PM |
Not Really
Not Really
When you take into account that our defense allows 36.83 yards per drive, the only way it would "shorten" the oppositions drives on average would be if the opposition started inside the Michigan 35 yard line.
The field position kills us in terms of points/drive - essentially the opposition only has to pick up 35 yards to get within field goal range, and since we give up an average of 36.83, you can obviously see the consequences that result accordingly. This is why the discrepancy exists between PSU allowing a lower points/drive ratio despite the fact that they allow more yards per drive on average.
November 17th, 2010 at 7:36 PM |
It's all good...
It's all good...
The team has progressed enough to take care of business against Illinois and Purdue. Next year, they will have to add a few more teams to that list. The defense will get better with experience. Better special teams will help, too. Hopefully, RR can get a few QC guys back next year to work with the defense and kicking game.
November 17th, 2010 at 7:40 PM |
Given Michigan is #100 in total Defense
Given Michigan is #100 in total Defense
I'd say No.
"They're stuck with that quarterback (sophomore Braxton Miller) for the next two or three years, that's fine with me. He throws worse than (Tim) Tebow. - Steve Everitt
November 17th, 2010 at 7:40 PM |
Given Michigan is #100 in total Defense
Given Michigan is #100 in total Defense
I'd say No.
"They're stuck with that quarterback (sophomore Braxton Miller) for the next two or three years, that's fine with me. He throws worse than (Tim) Tebow. - Steve Everitt
November 17th, 2010 at 7:54 PM |
Great diary.
Only one
Great diary.
Only one
Great diary.
Only one quibble, but it's a big one, we haven't played any of the top 3 offenses in the conference. (Michigan, OSU and Wisco)
http://www.cfbstats.com/2010/leader/827/team/offense/split07/category09/sort01.html
http://www.cfbstats.com/2010/leader/827/team/offense/split07/category10/sort01.html
Galileo was also chastised.
November 18th, 2010 at 12:03 AM |
Aren't We Michigan?
Aren't We Michigan?
S-o-o-o-o-o,...I'm guessing we only have to worry about two of the top three offenses in the league, whew! Thank God for that!
November 17th, 2010 at 8:14 PM |
Stretch
Stretch
That's a whole lot of math just to avoid the simple "overall defense" statistic that says, no, our defense is not approaching average. It's bad...and we're about to play the best in the conference.
November 17th, 2010 at 10:06 PM |
We'll see
We'll see
I believe one of the kickers will emerge next year. Hagerup will just become Zoltan 2.0 if he keeps banging 72 yarders! I think we can get one of the last two games, if we don't turn the ball over. Good times for us Michigan fans! I would prefer to beat the suckeyes!
:)
November 17th, 2010 at 10:22 PM |
sorry but UM's defense isn't
sorry but UM's defense isn't
sorry but UM's defense isn't approaching average
75th in rush defense and tackles for loss
86th in pass efficiency defense
91st in sacks
93rd in scoring defense
100th in total defense
103rd in turnover margin
114th in pass defense
average is 60th, maybe, maybe the dline is approaching average at 75th in rush D and TFL but thats it.
ND has a worse time of possession than UM and total defensive rating of 66th, thats equal to allowing 50 yards less per game with an entirely new defensive staff and ND has played a stronger schedule.
UM defense at a whole isn't approaching average
Current Smug rating: "lethal"
November 17th, 2010 at 10:39 PM |
stats
stats
Most of these are all per game metrics. What would it look like on a per possession?
I agree with premise that this D isn't great (and likely not exactly good), but if our games are averaging 33% more possessions than the average, our D should be giving 33% more yards and points on average.
Anyone got the time and data to check it out?
November 17th, 2010 at 11:16 PM |
Per Drive = Per Possession
Per Drive = Per Possession
The defense allows an average of 36.83 yards per drive, and 2.81 points per drive. See the charts above
November 19th, 2010 at 9:38 AM |
I got that
I got that
I was curious on a nation-wide view, not just B10.
Thanks for the analysis.
November 18th, 2010 at 1:53 AM |
"ND has played a stronger
"ND has played a stronger
"ND has played a stronger schedule."
I assume you base that soley on the fact that you played Stanford? I admit that trumps Iowa.
... Otherwise I see the UM schedule as comparing favorably (even as of now)... Navy and Tulsa have 3 losses despite ridiculously easy schedules... Utah just got exposed by TCU and then ND (their biggest win was over Pitt). They'll probably fall out of the rankings even if they win this week at San Diego State. Overrated would be putting it mildly.
Your second toughest game this year (that UM doesn't share) probably comes in two weeks against an unranked USC.
November 18th, 2010 at 7:58 AM |
Agree
Agree
But I really can't read your post due to that picture.
What...the.heck.are we...talking about again?
Fuck it, Dude, let's go bowling.
November 18th, 2010 at 10:47 PM |
sagarin.com
sagarin.com
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm?loc=interstitialskip this is why I said ND had a stronger schedule
ND has played against the: 2nd (stanford), 19th (MSU), 27th (Utah), 38th (UM), 41st (Pitt), 49th (navy), 54th (tulsa), 70th (BC), 93rd, (purdue), and 123rd (WMU) ranked teams
UM has played against the: 19th (MSU), 20th (Iowa), 39th (ND), 43rd (UI), 47th (PSU), 72nd (UConn), 93rd (Purdue), 94th (Umass), 109th (IU), and 148th (bowling green) ranked teams
Now the nitty gritty, So MSU and Purdue cancels themselves out, add in pitt and illinois, UM and ND, Navy and PSU, and UConn and BC probably as well. That leaves:
ND with 2, 27, 54, 123 vs UM with 20, 94, 109 and 148. Going to go with ND on this one
Current Smug rating: "lethal"
November 17th, 2010 at 10:50 PM |
According to Mark Twain there
According to Mark Twain there
According to Mark Twain there are three kinds of lies:
Lies
Damned Lies
Statistics
Homer? Who is Homer? My name is Wolverine Incognito.
November 18th, 2010 at 3:57 PM |
So what you're saying is...
So what you're saying is...
Our offense isn't as good as the stats say they are?
November 18th, 2010 at 12:35 AM |
We're about to get two real tests of just how "average"
We're about to get two real tests of just how "average"
our defense really is. Being hopeful and optimistic as a fan is one thing, but betting a chunk of money that our numbers will improve against UW and OSU is another thing entirely.
November 18th, 2010 at 1:10 AM |
We are Michigan
We are Michigan
Average isn't good enough.
As long as we are moving in the right direction, I'm all in for this team.
GMAT score =800 = Defensive POTY
November 18th, 2010 at 10:32 AM |
The defense needs more players.
The defense needs more players.
The offense does put the defense on the field at a faster rate. The offense sputters when it shouldn't be, and three and outs puts those guys right back out there. But the defense needs to produce more three and outs themselves. Holding teams to 3rd and 11, then giving up 25 yards doesn't make for a good defense ever!
There should be a real infuses on DE and LB in this years recruiting class, as well as a new defensive coordinator. Someone who will bring real enthusiasm to a low octane defense. Someone who will make this defense a punishing defense.
HAIL TO THE VICTORS!
November 18th, 2010 at 3:55 PM |
Really?
Really?
Bold AND italics?
November 18th, 2010 at 1:31 PM |
Illinois game
Illinois game
With your yds/drive for the Illinois game, did you use the 3 possessions Illinois had in overtime?
That would automaticly skew the numbers lower since they start on UM's 25 in ot.
November 18th, 2010 at 3:19 PM |
OT Not Included
OT Not Included
That would've tainted the numbers when comparing the defense to an "average" defense such as PSU, especially in terms of points/drive, considering that most teams score at least a FG in the overtime due to field position.
November 19th, 2010 at 12:24 AM |
I do not think one good game against a crappy Purdue team counts
I do not think one good game against a crappy Purdue team counts
Combining all the big ten games minus Purdue, the opposition had 372 plays on offense total. Out of that 372 plays we forced 21 punts, 2 t/o, gave up 8 field goals, and 24 tds. Thats not very good guys.
As far as the Purdue game went they had 69 plays on offense. Out of those 69 plays we forced them to punt 7 times, had 5 t/0's 3 f/gs and 1 td. Those are deffinately better numbers but just keep in mind who we were going up against.
Don't get me wrong, I will take anything I can get to improve our numbers overall, lets just keep things in perspective alittle bit.
Suckeyes roasting over an open fire, do doo do do do doo
Piggybacking off yours and another's who said that coaches were going for it on 4th down more often. Doesn't field position make this decision. If coaches are 10 yards further back those decisions become much harder. IE that 4 th and 4 from the 35 is from the 45 and the 4th and 1 from the 50 is 4th and 1 from your own 40.
Kicking problems, and the offenses's sometimes feast or famine style puts the defense in some bad positions.
I expect nothing and therefore never disappointed.