Enjoy Life

Restating What You Already Knew: For the second time this year, turnovers were the primary cause for losing the game (ND was the other). The Turnover Margin of –2 for the game resulted in a net of 8.92 expected points benefitting ohio. God dammit! Michigan ends the regular season with a dismal TOM of –8 (ranked #101).

Michigan Football: Michigan had 20 pass attempts and 27 rushing attempts for a 58% run play percentage. For the year, M has a 61% run play percentage overall (ranked #18). In 2011 M ranked #11 at 65% run play %.

Synopsis for Turnovers: Here is the overall summary for all games by player (data in yellow was affected by this week's game).

Robinson recovered the fumbled punt to add his name to the list of takeaways for defensive players. Clark recovered the other ohio fumble while Avery and Ryan both forced fumbles. There are now 17 different M players that have either forced a fumble, recovered a fumble, or intercepted a pass.

For giveaways, Michigan plummeted to #27 in fumbles, #33 in fumbles lost,  and remains at #124 in interceptions thrown %.

For takeaways, M improved to #50 in forced fumbles, #55 in fumbles recovered, #83 in takeaway fumble recovery %, and fell to #90 in interceptions.

Synopsis for Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Turnovers resulted in a net of 8.92 expected points benefitting ohio.

The folks at Football Outsiders – FEI are also doing weekly "Revisionist Box Scores" that strips out TOs, Special Teams, and Field Position. FEI calculates the value generated by each drive and then lost on the drive up until the turnover, as if the drive had concluded at that spot on the field. Thru Week #12, FEI has 16% of games where TOs were significant.

(See the Section on Gory Details below for how the adjustment for Expected Points (EP) is calculated.)

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).

The Gory Details

Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Basically, the probability of scoring depends on the line of scrimmage for the offense. Therefore, the impact of a TO also depends on the yard line where the TO is lost and the yard line where the TO is gained. Each turnover may result in an immediate lost opportunity for the team committing the TO and a potential gain in field position by the opponent. Both of these components can vary dramatically based upon the down when the TO occurred, the yards the TO is returned, and whether the TO was a fumble or an interception.

Here are the details for the game.

The analysis is a bit tricky because: (A) the TO may directly result in lost EP for the offense but (B) only modifies the EP for the team gaining the TO because the team gaining the TO would have gotten another possession even without the TO (due to a punt, KO after a TD, KO after a field goal, etc.). The Net EP Gain must take into account the potential EP gain without the TO. The EP gain without the turnover is based on where the field position would have been for the next possession if the TO had not occurred.

The expected point calculations are based on data from Brian Fremeau at BCFToys (he also posts at Football Outsiders). Fremeau's data reflects all offensive possessions played in 2007-2010 FBS vs. FBS games. I "smoothed" the actual data.

Prediction for ohio: The FEI Forecast for this Saturday is ohio 31 – Michigan 20 with a 77% Probable Win Expectation for that team down south. Michigan's offense continues to be excellent (3.92 PPPo) against poor teams (AFA, UMass, Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa) but has struggled (0.91 PPPo) against every good team (Alabama, ND, MSU, Nebraska). That team down south is ranked #23 in DFEI. Based on yardage, ohio is ranked #17 in rushing defense but is #77 in passing defense. M is ranked #47 in rushing defense and #1 in passing defense. This game will require the two-headed monster to be in full on beast mode and the TOM to be +2 or better.

Strength of Schedule: Michigan's SoS for Out of Conference games is much harder than the B1G games. This is quite unusual and because of the OOC Strength of Schedule, M is actually doing better in B1G games versus OOC for both offense (3.0 vs. 2.5 PPPo) and defense (1.4 vs. 2.0 PPPo).

Fremeau Efficiency Index: Michigan improved slightly in overall FEI, improved significantly in offense FEI, and declined slightly in defense FEI. In the detailed chart below, GE represents the raw data for FEI before adjustments for opponents.

The S&P Ratings (Also from Football Outsiders) is a play based analysis (rather than possession based) and M is ranked #15 overall, #9 in offense, and #30 in defense. The S&P ratings DO include games against non-FBS opponents (go figure).

The FEI is a drive based analysis considering each of the nearly 20,000 drives each year in FBS vs. FBS college football. The data is filtered to eliminate garbage time (at the half or end of game) and is adjusted for opponent. A team is rewarded for playing well against good teams (win or lose) and is punished more severely for playing poorly against bad teams than it is rewarded for playing well against bad teams.

National Rankings: The rankings for offense and defense are based on scoring (yardage statistics are inherently flawed). These are simply raw numbers without any adjustments for opponent, garbage time, or anything else. The data is from TeamRankings and includes only games between two FBS teams.

FEI Details: Here are the FEI numbers for Michigan and their opponent ( Football Outsiders FEI ).

Points Per Possession: Cumulative PPPo is 2.8 for the offense and 1.6 for the defense. M finished 2011 outscoring opponents by almost a 2:1 margin with PPPo for offense of 2.8 and defense of 1.4. The 2 charts show the raw data for offense and defense with the number of possessions adjusted for "kneel downs" at the half or end-of-game (maximum deduction = 2).

Using Scoring Offense and Scoring Defense National Rankings for the past 5 years (FBS AQ teams only), this table shows the percentage of teams that finish the season with a +WLM and a +5 WLM. For example, teams that finished in the Top 40 in both offense and defense had a 100% chance to be +WLM and an 82% chance to be +5 WLM (9-4 or better).

Preseason Prediction (Not Happening!): Michigan will end the year with a +8 Turnover Margin (TOM) or better (2011 was +7). The prediction for TOM for M for this year is based on the prediction that M will be a very good team again this year and is not based on the actual TOM of last year. (Very good teams will have a TOM of +5 or better.) Turnover Margin for the year is currently – 6.

Defying the Odds: Over the past decade, only 8% of all FBS teams with a turnover margin of – 5 or worse have had a record of 8-4 or better (only 28% of teams with a TOM of – 5 or worse have even had a winning record).  With a TOM for the year of – 6, Michigan is definitely defying the odds (yea!!).

Michigan Football: Michigan had 23 pass attempts and 39 rushing attempts for a 63% run play percentage. For the year, M has a 61% run play percentage overall (ranked #15). In 2011 M ranked #11 at 65% run play %.

Synopsis for Turnovers: Here is the overall summary for all games by player (data in yellow was affected by this week's game).

Ryan forced a fumble but is was recovered by Iowa. Gardner threw the one pick and had a fumble recovered by M. Michigan has 16 different players that have either forced a fumble, recovered a fumble, or intercepted a pass.

For giveaways, Michigan is ranked #14 in fumbles and #9 in fumbles lost but remains at #124 in interceptions thrown %. The good news is that in B1G games, Robinson/Gardner have been much better with an interception % of 2.9% (which would be ranked #70).

For takeaways, M is ranked #65 in forced fumbles, #74 in fumbles recovered, #96 in takeaway fumble recovery %, and #89 in interceptions.

Synopsis for Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Turnovers resulted in a net of 2.9 expected points benefitting Iowa.

The folks at Football Outsiders – FEI are also doing weekly "Revisionist Box Scores" that strips out TOs, Special Teams, and Field Position. FEI calculates the value generated by each drive and then lost on the drive up until the turnover, as if the drive had concluded at that spot on the field. Thru Week #12, FEI has 16% of games where TOs were significant.

(See the Section on Gory Details below for how the adjustment for Expected Points (EP) is calculated.)

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).

The Gory Details

Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Basically, the probability of scoring depends on the line of scrimmage for the offense. Therefore, the impact of a TO also depends on the yard line where the TO is lost and the yard line where the TO is gained. Each turnover may result in an immediate lost opportunity for the team committing the TO and a potential gain in field position by the opponent. Both of these components can vary dramatically based upon the down when the TO occurred, the yards the TO is returned, and whether the TO was a fumble or an interception.

Here are the details for the game.

The analysis is a bit tricky because: (A) the TO may directly result in lost EP for the offense but (B) only modifies the EP for the team gaining the TO because the team gaining the TO would have gotten another possession even without the TO (due to a punt, KO after a TD, KO after a field goal, etc.). The Net EP Gain must take into account the potential EP gain without the TO. The EP gain without the turnover is based on where the field position would have been for the next possession if the TO had not occurred.

The expected point calculations are based on data from Brian Fremeau at BCFToys (he also posts at Football Outsiders). Fremeau's data reflects all offensive possessions played in 2007-2010 FBS vs. FBS games. I "smoothed" the actual data.

Prediction for Iowa: The FEI Forecast for this Saturday is Michigan 28 – Iowa 16 with a 78% Probable Win Expectation for Michigan. Michigan's offense continues to be excellent (4.81 PPPo) against poor teams (AFA, UMass, Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern) but has struggled (0.90 PPPo) against every good team (Alabama, ND, MSU, Nebraska). Iowa is ranked #88 in OFEI and #30 in DFEI. Looks like FEI has it just about right this week.

Strength of Schedule: Michigan's SoS for Out of Conference games is much harder than the B1G games. This is quite unusual and because of the OOC Strength of Schedule, M is actually doing better in B1G games versus OOC for both offense (2.7 vs. 2.5 PPPo) and defense (1.3 vs. 2.0 PPPo). The defense had their worst game (2.8 PPPo) since Alabama.

Fremeau Efficiency Index: Michigan improved in both overall and offense FEI with defense basically unchanged. In the detailed chart below, GE represents the raw data for FEI before adjustments for opponents.

The S&P Ratings (Also from Football Outsiders) is a play based analysis (rather than possession based) and M is ranked #19 overall, #18 in offense, and #27 in defense. The S&P ratings DO include games against non-FBS opponents (go figure).

The FEI is a drive based analysis considering each of the nearly 20,000 drives each year in FBS vs. FBS college football. The data is filtered to eliminate garbage time (at the half or end of game) and is adjusted for opponent. A team is rewarded for playing well against good teams (win or lose) and is punished more severely for playing poorly against bad teams than it is rewarded for playing well against bad teams.

National Rankings: The rankings for offense and defense are based on scoring (yardage statistics are inherently flawed). These are simply raw numbers without any adjustments for opponent, garbage time, or anything else. The data is from TeamRankings and includes only games between two FBS teams.

FEI Details: Here are the FEI numbers for Michigan and their opponent ( Football Outsiders FEI ).

Points Per Possession: Cumulative PPPo is 2.6 for the offense and 1.6 for the defense. M finished 2011 outscoring opponents by almost a 2:1 margin with PPPo for offense of 2.8 and defense of 1.4. The 2 charts show the raw data for offense and defense with the number of possessions adjusted for "kneel downs" at the half or end-of-game (maximum deduction = 2).

Using Scoring Offense and Scoring Defense National Rankings for the past 5 years (FBS AQ teams only), this table shows the percentage of teams that finish the season with a +WLM and a +5 WLM. For example, teams that finished in the Top 40 in both offense and defense had a 100% chance to be +WLM and an 82% chance to be +5 WLM (9-4 or better).

Preseason Prediction (Not Happening!): Michigan will end the year with a +8 Turnover Margin (TOM) or better (2011 was +7). The prediction for TOM for M for this year is based on the prediction that M will be a very good team again this year and is not based on the actual TOM of last year. (Very good teams will have a TOM of +5 or better.) Turnover Margin for the year is currently – 5.

Whew!: A spectacular last second catch by Roundtree and thoughts of brunettes by Gibbons saved Michigan from a second loss this year due to turnovers (ND was the one). At the end of regulation, turnovers had cost Michigan 8.1 expected points!

Michigan Football: Michigan had 30 pass attempts and 32 rushing attempts for a 51% run play percentage. This dropped M to a 62% run play percentage overall (ranked #16). NW is ranked #112 in passing defense and #28 in rushing defense – so, yeah. In 2011 M ranked #11 at 65% run play %.

Synopsis for Turnovers: Here is the overall summary for all games by player (data in yellow was affected by this week's game).

Black forced a fumble that was recovered Bolden. Gardner threw the one pick that drew a collective SHIT from all of us. Michigan now has 16 different players that have either forced a fumble, recovered a fumble, or intercepted a pass.

For giveaways, Michigan is ranked #15 in fumbles and #9 in fumbles lost but remains at #124 in interceptions thrown %. Even if you take out the 4 interceptions thrown by Bellomy, M would still be ranked #123 in interceptions thrown %. The good news is that in B1G games, Robinson/Gardner have been much better with an interception % of 2.6% (which would be ranked #52).

For takeaways, M is ranked #82 in forced fumbles, #66 in fumbles recovered, #85 in takeaway fumble recovery %, and #83 in interceptions.

Synopsis for Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Turnovers resulted in a net of 8.1 expected points benefitting Northwestern.

The folks at Football Outsiders – FEI are also doing weekly "Revisionist Box Scores" that strips out TOs, Special Teams, and Field Position. FEI calculates the value generated by each drive and then lost on the drive up until the turnover, as if the drive had concluded at that spot on the field. Thru Week #11, FEI has 16% of games where TOs were significant.

(See the Section on Gory Details below for how the adjustment for Expected Points (EP) is calculated.)

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).

The Gory Details

Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Basically, the probability of scoring depends on the line of scrimmage for the offense. Therefore, the impact of a TO also depends on the yard line where the TO is lost and the yard line where the TO is gained. Each turnover may result in an immediate lost opportunity for the team committing the TO and a potential gain in field position by the opponent. Both of these components can vary dramatically based upon the down when the TO occurred, the yards the TO is returned, and whether the TO was a fumble or an interception.

Here are the details for the game.

The analysis is a bit tricky because: (A) the TO may directly result in lost EP for the offense but (B) only modifies the EP for the team gaining the TO because the team gaining the TO would have gotten another possession even without the TO (due to a punt, KO after a TD, KO after a field goal, etc.). The Net EP Gain must take into account the potential EP gain without the TO. The EP gain without the turnover is based on where the field position would have been for the next possession if the TO had not occurred.

The expected point calculations are based on data from Brian Fremeau at BCFToys (he also posts at Football Outsiders). Fremeau's data reflects all offensive possessions played in 2007-2010 FBS vs. FBS games. I "smoothed" the actual data.

Here is a summary of the smoothed expected points.

Preseason Prediction: Michigan will end the year with a +8 Turnover Margin (TOM) or better (2011 was +7). The prediction for TOM for M for this year is based on the prediction that M will be a very good team again this year and is not based on the actual TOM of last year. (Very good teams will have a TOM of +5 or better.) Turnover Margin for the year is currently – 4.

Psychic?: From last week "This is a recurring problem that is not going away and it is very likely that Denard will miss major portions of the next 4 games." Gardner started out shaky but after not playing QB for over a year what else could we have expected? If Gardner had not made that one spectacular play (which seemed to turn everyone's confidence around), it may have been a very scary game.

I am as confused as everyone else as to why the coaches decided to gamble with Bellomy as the backup this year. I had (erroneously) thought that Bellomy had shown himself to be the better QB. That hardly seems likely based on the immediate switch to Gardner for this game. Yes, Denard had never missed an entire game but running QBs are always at risk and DRob is not the biggest in physical size. Just another question we will never know the real answer to.

Michigan Football: Michigan had just 18 pass attempts and 41 rushing attempts for a 66% run play percentage. Overall M has a 62% run play percentage (ranked #11). In 2011 M ranked #11 at 65% run play %.

Synopsis for Turnovers: Here is the overall summary for all games by player (data in yellow was affected by this week's game).

M forced 2 more fumbles (Kovacs & Clark) and recovered one (Avery). The fumble recovery was at 2:49 of the 4th quarter and was completely meaningless. Gardner threw the one pick. Michigan now has 14 different players that have either forced a fumble, recovered a fumble, or intercepted a pass.

For giveaways, Michigan is ranked #14 in fumbles and #6 in fumbles lost but is #124 in interceptions thrown %. Even if you take out the 4 interceptions thrown by Bellomy, M would still be ranked #123 in interceptions thrown %. The good news is that in B1G games, Robinson/Gardner have been much better with an interception % of 2.4% (which would be ranked #45).

For takeaways, M is ranked #71 in forced fumbles, #67 in fumbles recovered, #90 in takeaway fumble recovery %, and #66 in interceptions.

Synopsis for Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Turnovers resulted in a net of 0.41 expected points benefitting Michigan. Eliminating the meaningless fumble recovery at the end of the game, turnovers benefitted Minnesota by 3.41 EP.

The folks at Football Outsiders – FEI are also doing weekly "Revisionist Box Scores" that strips out TOs, Special Teams, and Field Position. FEI calculates the value generated by each drive and then lost on the drive up until the turnover, as if the drive had concluded at that spot on the field. Thru Week #10, FEI has 16% of games where TOs were significant.

(See the Section on Gory Details below for how the adjustment for Expected Points (EP) is calculated.)

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).

The Gory Details

Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Basically, the probability of scoring depends on the line of scrimmage for the offense. Therefore, the impact of a TO also depends on the yard line where the TO is lost and the yard line where the TO is gained. Each turnover may result in an immediate lost opportunity for the team committing the TO and a potential gain in field position by the opponent. Both of these components can vary dramatically based upon the down when the TO occurred, the yards the TO is returned, and whether the TO was a fumble or an interception.

Here are the details for the game.

The analysis is a bit tricky because: (A) the TO may directly result in lost EP for the offense but (B) only modifies the EP for the team gaining the TO because the team gaining the TO would have gotten another possession even without the TO (due to a punt, KO after a TD, KO after a field goal, etc.). The Net EP Gain must take into account the potential EP gain without the TO. The EP gain without the turnover is based on where the field position would have been for the next possession if the TO had not occurred.

The expected point calculations are based on data from Brian Fremeau at BCFToys (he also posts at Football Outsiders). Fremeau's data reflects all offensive possessions played in 2007-2010 FBS vs. FBS games. I "smoothed" the actual data.

Here is a summary of the smoothed expected points.