“He passes, he makes other guys better and he can score the ball as well. With that freshman adjustment, it’s all about how quickly you adjust to the speed of the game and the length of the players on the court,” Jordan said. “We know he has good vision and passing ability. Kids come in as freshmen like Trey and they don’t know what to say from a leadership standpoint, so they’re just listening and that’s where the other guys come in and show them the ropes.”
Defensive statistical charts, 1998-present
Filed under:
Thanks to MGoUser Enjoy Life, my attention was drawn to the statistics available on mgoblue.com. This has allowed me to increase the historical depth of my analysis. (As usual, click on each graph to embiggen).
We'll begin with scoring defense, the strength of this year's defense. (I've removed the numbers from the WMU game):
This is incredibly impressive, especially given that this defense isn't nearly as good when it comes to yards per play:
Although the average yards per play have improved (note especially how much better we are against the pass), they are still not as good as the averages from the Carr years, which basically were 5.0 yars per play or better (excepting 2000).
Finally, here are the statistics for total yards per game. In order to make the curves comparable, I've expressed each as a percentage of the 2010 stastics. The drop-off is pretty intense. (Yes, those numbers from 2006 are right. Michigan allowed 43 rushing yards per game that year.)
The overall result is that this defense is (overall) about average for a Michigan defense during this span:
|
Average, 1998-2010 |
Average, 1998-2007 |
2011 |
|
|
PPG |
22.1 |
19.6 |
16.1 |
|
avg per rush |
3.5 |
3.3 |
4 |
|
avg rush per game |
129.8 |
118.9 |
127.4 |
|
average per pass |
6.7 |
6.4 |
6.4 |
|
avg pass per game |
215.2 |
208.5 |
190.5 |
|
average per play |
5.0 |
4.8 |
5.2 |
|
average per game |
345.0 |
327.5 |
317.9 |
Here is a link to my spreadsheet, based on the statistics from mgoblue.com.
November 14th, 2011 at 8:26 PM | 
If anyone has it
If anyone has it
November 14th, 2011 at 9:38 PM |
not in history, but the last decade
not in history, but the last decade
I can't find anything that has complete historical data, but I did find it for data since 2000.
Here are the three best improvements since 2000:
1) South Florida: 2004, 34.4 ppg ranked 102; 2005, 19.4 ppg ranked 19 (from very bad to great)
2) Eastern Michigan (i know, right?): 2004, 42.7 ppg ranked 115; 2005, 26.8m ranked 63 (so from absolutely awful to barely mediocre, but still...it's an improvement)
and by far the best improvement.........
Nebraska: 2008, 28.5 ppg ranked 74; 2009, 10.4(!) ppg, ranked 1(!). WOW!!! from below average to by far the best in the nation. FWIW, the 2nd ranked defense that year was TCU at 12.1.
So, I'd say we compare pretty well to Nebraska. I mean going from 104th to 5th is about as big of a jump as you can get. Nebraska is as close as it comes I'd say.
- The Team, The Team, The Team.
November 15th, 2011 at 12:22 PM |
Depending on how you want to look at it
Depending on how you want to look at it
you could say we're even more impressive:
(2010) 35.2 - (2011) 15.5 = 19.7 ppg is slightly better than Nebraska's 18.5 ppg improvement.
Of course, we have 3 more games coming up and they started at a slightly less porous rate. Either way, incredibly impressive performance by Hoke, Mattison, staff and players.
November 15th, 2011 at 8:10 PM |
Neb
Neb
They went from probably the worst defense of any BCS-league team in 2007 to the best in 2009. In 2007 they gave up 76 points to Kansas and 65 to Colorado (both in regulation) among other atrocities.
November 14th, 2011 at 8:38 PM |
Yeah, that first graph just
Yeah, that first graph just
Yeah, that first graph just looks rediculous. Well, they all kinda do. Our 2006 defense was disgusting, and the fact that this defense even gets to be in the same discussion is awesome.
The coolest part is that although the 2006 defense had a ton of talent leave for the NFL after that year, we'll bring back all but 3 starters (not counting Woolfolk) from this D next fall and nearly every back up - Woolfolk and a few rarely used LBs are the only senior back-ups.
November 14th, 2011 at 8:56 PM |
I worry about next year...
I worry about next year...
We get a bunch returning, but losing RVB and MM is huge. I'm hoping that another year of coaching makes up for it, but I personally think the most critical players, after the QB, are the centers and interior defensive line. On the other hand, I think we have some talent there that could blossom given rep's and better technique.
"Mattison must break you. Jake Ryan is his tool."
November 14th, 2011 at 9:11 PM |
We'll probably regress a bit
We'll probably regress a bit
but I don't see us going back into the dark ages. It will probably be around 23-25 PPG with a few raw players.
It comes down to physical conditioning and strength which typically takes a few years of college to optimize.
GMAT score =800 = Defensive POTY
November 14th, 2011 at 9:26 PM |
Agreed
Agreed
I think Mattison will put a floor underneath our defense. I wouldn't venture a guess on ppg, there is too much that is happenstance (e.g. recovered fumbles) and how long they are left on the field by the offense, but with this coaching staff, I can't see us back to the days of players looking so lost in their assignments. The last few years, by late in the season, it seemed like the D looked defeated before they even took the field. I'm amazed at how they withstood the adversity and have shown such ferocity and character (and a willingness to learn) this year.
"Mattison must break you. Jake Ryan is his tool."
November 14th, 2011 at 10:03 PM |
Brutal Schedule
Brutal Schedule
I think we also have to account for the brutal schedule we play next year.
Bama
OSU/ Nebraska Away
Doesn't get much tougher than that.
GMAT score =800 = Defensive POTY
November 15th, 2011 at 11:47 AM |
If we regress any, it will be
If we regress any, it will be
If we regress any, it will be only slightly. After 2005 we lost Gabe Watson in the middle, and our defense improved by a good amount.
I don't know who our DTs will be next fall, but the pool to choose from is solid. Recruiting ranking-wise, it's probably the deepest on the team (which might say more about the rankings than our depth, but bare with me). One of the likely starters is BWC, and we all know about his hype. Two other candidates are Q Washington and RIchard Ash, both 4 star recruits. Neither have looked like 4 stars yet, but both are young. Ondre Pipkins is almost certain to get immediate playing time, and he's a top-50 four star, could even be a 5 star by the end. The dark horse is Kenny Wilkins, another 4 star, who hasn't seen any play time or praise, but is still a redshirt freshmen and is probably still getting used to playing football at 280 pounds.
That leaves us with four 4-stars and a 5-star to build a DT rotation from, and maybe someone like Chris Rock or Matt Godin becomes a pleasant surprise early in their careers. This won't leave us with an elite DT group, but for the worst unit on the team, it won't be that bad.
November 14th, 2011 at 10:11 PM |
Love this blog. Smart stuff,
Love this blog. Smart stuff,
Love this blog. Smart stuff, dnak438.
November 14th, 2011 at 11:55 PM |
2010 was ugly, ugly, in every
2010 was ugly, ugly, in every
2010 was ugly, ugly, in every defensibe category, and much worse than the previous 2 seasons. But we already knew that. Still, it's hard to look at when graphed.
November 14th, 2011 at 11:56 PM |
1997...
1997...
Thanks for the great graphic. The tease is what was 1997 like? In my mind, the '97 Defense was the best ever. I only vaguely remember the '85 D. I remember doing a briefing for a "presentation" in a class and the '97 D lead the Nation in every category. Just unbelievable how good they were and how much fun to watch.
November 15th, 2011 at 12:08 AM |
I was actually thinking
I was actually thinking
that it was a good thing to leave 1997 off because it would be such an outlier. For instance, the 1997 defense allowed an average of 9.5 points per game! But mgoblue solved that problem for me by only collecting statistics from 1998 and on.
November 15th, 2011 at 4:02 PM |
What could have been for RR
What could have been for RR
I think it starts to show, that even with all of the other issues, a decent defense would have made a world of difference. Looking at this in an incredibly oversimplified way (I'd be interested in knowing if the stat geniuses on this site have a better way to do this) you can start to quantify the impacts that a better defense would have had.
If you assume that a good defensive coordinator could have allowed the same number of points per game as the worst Michigan defense in terms of points per game (2004 at 23.2) then assumed each team on the schedule scored that many fewer points and adjustbthe win/loss record, you start to see the impact. In 2008, that means teams would have scored on average 5.7 points less, enough for victories over Utah and Toledo, a 5-7 record. In 2009, 4.3 points less a game equals wins over Iowa and Purdue and a 7-5 record. In 2010, the 12 point differential nets wins over Iowa and Penn State and 9-4.
If Instead of the worst defense 98-2007, we assume an average defense, things get even better. A 9.3 point differential in 2008 adds wins over Purdue and Northwestern. With a 7-5 record, the bowl streak and the winning record streaks stay alive. A 7.9 point differential gets us the elusive win over Michigan State and an 8-4 record. An average defense doesn't net us any more wins in 2010.
You can be blue and still be green
I'd love to know what the biggest drop in scoring defense from one season to the next is. It's completely ridiculous that we've basically cut three touchdowns off per game from last season.