best wishes
How Many Wins Was Troy Woolfolk Worth?
I more or less c/p'd this from the comments of MCal's most recent post. Read it if you haven't, because it's great. He's great.
Anyway, I was just idly thinking about how Troy Woolfolk's injury in an instant dashed our Motor City Bowl dreams, worrying that 3 wins would be more humiliating than 4. But unless my method sucks, it looks like most college football starters simply can't do that much* to affect their team's chances.
Let's say on average the worst team in college football wins 1 game. Call that replacement level. Every school in college football has at least the talent level this worst team does. That means an average team has 5 wins above replacement. Football Outsiders breaks wins down using a 40/40/20 rule. That is, 40% of wins are attributable to defense, 40 to offense, 20 to special teams. So an average defense will be worth 2 WAR (40% times 5 WAR). If each player is about as important as the other (probably true on defense), then an average defense will feature a unit of ~.2 WAR players (2/11, rounded). Average defensive players are worth just 1/5 of a win above the talent of the worst college football team.
To round out that scale, we should still try to get some idea of how good the best players are. The approximate range for defense yards per game allowed is about 200 ypg to 500, with 350 about average. The difference between best and worst is twice as much as the difference between average and worst. As long as we assume that yards convert linearly to wins, it looks like the best defense (4 wins better than the worst team) would have on average ~.4 WAR players. Even the very best defenders are going to max out in all likelihood around 1 win above the worst players.
So Woolfolk in himself won't mean the end of the season...unless we can't supply replacement level players. And given our depth, maybe that could be problematic? On the other hand, as MCal pointed out, are we really going to be worse than various other terrible outfits around the country? Northwestern and Indiana are always dealing with these kinds of problems. Achieving replacement level should not be a significant hurdle.
On the other hand, let's look at what we can expect from the defense this year given what we now know. The offense last year was about average. Special teams were above. Exactly how bad was the defense? Wholly average teams get 2 WAR from defense, 2 from offense and 1 from special teams. So let's say we got a full 2 WAR from offense and 1.25 ST wins. If we were a true talent 5 win team (i.e. Michigan won 5 games because they weren't unduly lucky either way), that means 1.75 wins from the defense. I think we can probably assume BG was worth .75 wins in himself. Martin, RVB, Roh, Brown, Woolfolk, Warren were varying degrees of not horrifying. Kovacs, Floyd, Ezeh and Mouton were all near replacement level. In fact, let's run with that. 1 win split among the actual contributors (Martin et al.) still means slightly below average talent in that group. If BG's dominance was not so great, they'd come out better of course. This isn't the most robust analysis ever, but I think most observers would paint BG's season as seriously that good.
And if there's one thing we're sure of, it's that losing one dynamic player isn't that big a deal. Depth can absolutely make up for a lack of stars at the top end if all you're trying to achieve is competence. I happen to think the offense will be well above average and ST will be fine. The question, I think, comes down to how dominant the DL can be and, after that, finding guys who can do a couple things who maybe have some flaws in their game. Moundrous may have trouble walling off a slot receiver on a vertical, but if he can stuff the run he'll have value over Ezeh last season. And then maybe Demens can do the pass drops/blitzes on passing downs. Piece by piece, use everybody. That's the way we'll have to do it. And just maybe we'll see a bowl game this year.
*Exceptions granted for quarterbacks and, in case Brandon Graham is reading, Brandon Graham.
August 24th, 2010 at 2:42 PM | 
This is...
This is...
August 24th, 2010 at 2:54 PM |
Second that.
Second that.
Second that.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:48 PM |
Cagliyan?
Cagliyan?
Is that you?
August 24th, 2010 at 2:50 PM |
I didn't read most of this
I didn't read most of this
I didn't read most of this because it seemed stupid from the beginning.
You need to learn the value of a thesis statement. I don't even know what your conclusion is from this.
August 25th, 2010 at 5:15 AM |
I agree with you
I agree with you
but...
But unless my method sucks, it looks like most college football starters simply can't do that much* to affect their team's chances.
...sort of counts. Doesn't mean it didn't lack cohesion or structure, just pointing out what could be considered a thesis or at least introductory theme sentence.
Mike Martin told me he loves me. My life is quite possibly complete.
Join the bone marrow donor registry today: www.dkmsamericas.org (do it.)
August 24th, 2010 at 2:52 PM |
+1 to Kurdak for apparently
+1 to Kurdak for apparently
+1 to Kurdak for apparently signing up to make this comment.
EDIT: After further review, he's been a member for quite sometime but is just a bit quiet.
August 24th, 2010 at 2:52 PM |
This whole post is based on
This whole post is based on
This whole post is based on what ifs (something I hate) from a event/season that hasn't even happened yet!
This would make a little more sense in January, when you could say ok we won this # and maybe would have won this # if we had TW. But right now this is an exercise in futility IMO.
What is we go 12-0 this season? How many wins was he worth then?
What if we go 0-12? Does it matter how many wins he was worth (because there is no way it will be 6 or more)?
I appreciate the work you put into this, but these kinds of things do absolutely nothing for me.
Those Who Stay...
August 24th, 2010 at 3:45 PM |
What is we go 12-0 this season?
What is we go 12-0 this season?
I'll take "Ecstasy" for 1200 Alex.
Answer: "This will cause simultaneous Michigasms for hundreds of thousands of individuals across the world."
August 25th, 2010 at 5:16 AM |
I wouldn't be ecstatic yet
I wouldn't be ecstatic yet
Until we sealed win number 13. Then we can go apeshit.
Mike Martin told me he loves me. My life is quite possibly complete.
Join the bone marrow donor registry today: www.dkmsamericas.org (do it.)
August 24th, 2010 at 3:00 PM |
Let's say on average the
Let's say on average the
Let's say on average the worst team in college football wins 1 game. Call that replacement level. Every school in college football has at least the talent level this worst team does.
This is the basis of your calculation and it couldn't be more false.
or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:06 PM |
make it 0 then!
make it 0 then!
it doesn't change the calculation significantly. oy vey.
...the Canadians make up for it with their emotion and classic ice-dancing skill.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:19 PM |
You are trying to find the
You are trying to find the
You are trying to find the "value in wins" of a player of a specific position yet your basis for wins is a team value = 1 (or zero). This still does not make sense to me.
What if the worst team has a stud corner back who will likely be an NFL player, but the rest of the team is terrible and they win zero games. That would really screw up your calculations for a corners worth, right? Am I missing something? I know what you are trying to do, but I don't think you went about it in the correct manner.
or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:13 PM |
Then your average defender is worth a little more
Then your average defender is worth a little more
I used 5 instead of 6 because it breaks down nicely when you use the .4/.4/.2 split.
I'm not sure what the objection is. If a team played a single season and won 0 games, I wouldn't call it a 0 true talent team necessarily. If you mean that on average a completely talentless team with a single all-everything corner would remain a 0 win team if you played the season a million times, I'm guessing that's not true. I think there would be a measurable effect on the yards gained by the opposition.
Unless you need a lot of talent on a team before you start seeing an impact for an individual, I don't think this screws up the idea that yards allowed and points allowed are linearly related, nor does it mess with the idea that if you add some measured talented player, there will be a similar actual change in the defense's output.
...the Canadians make up for it with their emotion and classic ice-dancing skill.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:28 PM |
actually
actually
you hit the nail on the head with your last paragraph. you do need talent throughout the roster to be successful. if you have glaring holes, they will be exploited. UM's defense last year is a prime example. glaring holes at safety and LB meant a bad defense. Yet, i would say we had significant talent overall on that side of the ball.
it's easy to argue that you're as strong as your weakest link. this philosphy could work in a baseball analysis, but not as well for football, imo.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:03 PM |
"on average the worst team"
"on average the worst team"
Are we talking about an average team or the worst team? Should I keep reading past this?
August 24th, 2010 at 3:03 PM |
Well, I'd like to think that,
Well, I'd like to think that,
Well, I'd like to think that, based on last years statistics, that coaches would be able to exploit this scrub 80% of the time. To gauge this, I used the 80/10/10 approach. Where 80 is the amount of coaches who could expose the single scrub on a team for a win, 10 being the amount of coaches who could not do this, and the other 10 being Charlie Weiss.
I think that one player does not a team make, however one player can break a team. Especially if that player is being scorched for 2 TD's a game.
Hail.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:03 PM |
I've been resisting
I've been resisting
I've been resisting writing comments in about 90% of the threads I see that would essentially be variations on "BLERG SEPTEMBER 4th GET HERE NOW." But yeah, this one did me in.
BLERG SEPTEMBER 4th GET HERE NOW.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:15 PM |
So who likes pie? I like
So who likes pie? I like
So who likes pie? I like pie.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:31 PM |
I like pie as well, not cake
I like pie as well, not cake
I like pie as well, not cake though. The cake is a lie.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:33 PM |
Beer
Beer
I like beer.
August 25th, 2010 at 10:32 AM |
beer pie?
beer pie?
August 24th, 2010 at 3:20 PM |
What if Drew Henson and David
What if Drew Henson and David
What if Drew Henson and David Terrell had come back for their senior seasons??????? See, while it can be interesting to play What If's, it can also be depressing.
2013 the year Michigan wins........well, everything!
August 24th, 2010 at 3:45 PM |
What if my mother had balls??
What if my mother had balls??
What if my mother had balls?? She would be my father
"Everybody want's to be a bodybuilder but no one want's to lift no heavy ass weights, I DO!!! " Ronnie Coleman
August 25th, 2010 at 8:59 AM |
If your mom had balls...
If your mom had balls...
you wouldn't exist.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:48 PM |
Wow, thats 3 minutes of my
Wow, thats 3 minutes of my
Wow, thats 3 minutes of my life i'll never get back.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:49 PM |
i actually skipped the whole segment to read
i actually skipped the whole segment to read
the first comment..thank you, for you have saved 3 minutes of mine..The Team The Team The Team
Bo' Money Bo' Problems
August 24th, 2010 at 4:35 PM |
3 minutes? Wow you're a quick
3 minutes? Wow you're a quick
3 minutes? Wow you're a quick reader.
"When your team is winning, be ready to be tough, because winning can make you soft. On the other hand, when your team is losing, stick by them. Keep believing."
-- Bo Schembechler
August 24th, 2010 at 3:48 PM |
Everyone knows
Everyone knows
Everyone knows Troy Worldfork was worth 2.352 (repeating) wins this year.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:55 PM |
We have some people around here
We have some people around here
like mathlete who write diaries which explain the secrets of the universe and the meaning of life. Then we also have this.
Wasting away in Ohio, a Wolverine in a sea of red and grey
August 24th, 2010 at 3:56 PM |
Good points, but I would add a few nuances
Good points, but I would add a few nuances
I agree that if Michigan goes 7-5, with two losses attributable primarily to defense, it would be ridiculous to attribute more than a fraction of that to one player.
But the responsibility on defense is not evenly distributed. For one thing, errors in the secondary tend to have a MUCH more pronounced effect. A misplay by a safety or a cornerback is usually a long gainer or six points. A misplay by a defensive tackle isn't usually as huge (unless someone else screws up too).
In addition, the secondary is generally believed to be Michigan's weakest defensive unit, so it is likely to bear a heavier burden for the team's losses. Bearing those factors in mind, it is entirely possible that the difference between Woolfolk and his replacement is more than just 1/11th of the responsibility for however many "defensive losses" Michigan has this year.
Marc Shepherd
New York, NY
August 24th, 2010 at 4:26 PM |
That misplay
That misplay
isn't entirely his fault. There are 10 other players on that play. A typical defensive coordinator is going to align his players so that the holes are harder to find. If you have one good player and a bunch of meh, you move the good player around, give him more responsibilities, etc.. You have a bunch of good players and one black hole, you rotate the strength of the defense toward the black hole. Defensive liabilities are spread across the whole defense by scheme.
...the Canadians make up for it with their emotion and classic ice-dancing skill.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:56 PM |
I'm worried that our weak
I'm worried that our weak
I'm worried that our weak secondary will not be a 'hole that's hard to find' regardless of scheme. Every deep receiver on the opposing team will be frolicking in it all game.
I see what you mean about scheming around deficiencies (hopefully some zone coverages and pass rush will help) but defense is often gauged by the strength of its weakest link and I'm not sure that's been accounted for.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:03 PM |
Okay
Okay
And some people say cucumbers taste better pickled.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:38 PM |
Especially...
Especially...
fried pickled cucumbers mmmmmmmm.
I'm kind of a big deal in Oblivia.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:43 PM |
is it Sept 4th yet?
is it Sept 4th yet?
It will nice when the season starts and there is actually something to talk (read) about. Can't wait when the threads are talking about Troy only when refering to his recovery and The Game in reference to actually playing it instead of when it will be played or if it divisional. Where is that old man with the Dolorian?
"he finds a little seam... 20, 25... there he goes"
August 24th, 2010 at 4:46 PM |
Appreciate the analysis -
Appreciate the analysis -
Appreciate the analysis - good effort. However, what if one of these freshman steps in and is awesome? It isn't like that never happens and it would make the entire argument moot. Personally I am hoping for the best and expecting something at least pretty good.
I know Woolfolk was our most experienced secondary player and a good worker and leader, but at this point I can't see attributing any wins or losses to his absence (or wins to his assumed presence).
August 24th, 2010 at 5:11 PM |
Exactly
Exactly
You're right. Woolfolk's injury might cause some initial let down in the schemes and ability to match up, but it's difficult to put a win or loss to it. And, if this results in more experienced under classmen - which will translate to a better 2011 team (which is the season I think we're all really looking forward to), then we probably have to consider that we might be able to expect it as a net win (even if a loss comes from it this year).
August 24th, 2010 at 9:43 PM |
I agree
I agree
Good points on some of the analysis, but how many games would Woolfolk have been worth last year if he would have gone down. IME it is all relative. There always seems to be someone that shine. This year my money is on Mr. Floyd, If we can get another CB to lockdown on the outside, we could be in for 3 years of never having to read another diary about our CBs. Unless of course another one goes down (or transfers).
August 25th, 2010 at 2:05 AM |
You're missing the point. If
You're missing the point. If
You're missing the point. If a freshman performs awesome that's great, but you would argue that adding them on could be worth another 0.3 expected wins.
Putting it another way, if said freshman plays equivalant to Woolfolk, you might not see a dropoff until you put in your nickel package. You would have had Woolfolk, Floyd, and super freshman, and now you have Floyd, super frosh, and Mr. Replacement Player.
Basically, all we're doing is reiterating that if you assume Woolfolk was better than your average replacement player, we probably lost some form of an expected win. Going back to Mcalibur's stats, say Woolfolk would give up 70 PaYD a game, and his replacement gives up 110. Take the 40 yd difference, enter it in for expectations (move from 350 yds/game allowed to 390) See where that puts you.
August 25th, 2010 at 8:22 AM |
got the point
got the point
Actually I got the point. However, there is always that chance that Woolfolk's freshman replacement turns out to be better than Woolfolk. That is not as much of a stretch as it sounds - it happens. If that replacement wasn't starting you may not have otherwise have known how good he was. Granted you may then see a drop off with the nickel back but it is impossible to quantify the net result, or even know which direction it runs.
Unless the injured player is an established, All-American level, impact player (e.g. Brandon Graham) you can't predict the outcome.
This is also me trying to be optimistic.
August 24th, 2010 at 5:33 PM |
Jeebus
Jeebus
Jeebus, people. Lay the fawk off Colin!!!!
At least be respectful while you critique
August 24th, 2010 at 8:49 PM |
Seriously
Seriously
I thought it was actually an interesting (albeit counterintuitive) point he was trying to make. Reading the comments, you'd think he was drooling and slamming his head against the keyboard.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:24 PM |
I find all of them to be eye
I find all of them to be eye
I find all of them to be eye glazing and masturbatory in terms of a predictive tool.
August 25th, 2010 at 2:29 AM |
Because it hasn't been
Because it hasn't been
Because it hasn't been promoted to the front page.
It has some pretty bad initial assumptions that I disagree with*. However, I still think it's more valuable than most of the comments posted on this topic.
*like the 1 win WAR level and assuming that all 3*s will perform around the same, which to be fair, Mcal did as well**
**to clarify, yes IU, NU etc. gets away with random 3* corners. They're also usually juniors with 3 years of college scheme experience and workouts. We have freshmen and James Rogers)
August 24th, 2010 at 8:29 PM |
You know that a football has
You know that a football has
You know that a football has a multiple game season, and the cumulative fractional contribution a single player makes could add up to a game, right?
August 24th, 2010 at 8:13 PM |
We'll be fine. After this
We'll be fine. After this
We'll be fine. After this off-season just being out on the field and playing is going to be so sweet.
Don't sleep on Michigan all you doubters. This is on the ups.
"because character wins in life and character wins on the football field....." 1-11-11
August 24th, 2010 at 8:59 PM |
jeesus, you guys are dicks
jeesus, you guys are dicks
jeesus, you guys are dicks
Harvard: The MICHIGAN of the East
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
August 24th, 2010 at 10:26 PM |
Good Post
Good Post
Forget everybody who mentioned Bo's "The Team" speech because they would be crying in the corner if Brandon Graham had gotten hurt last year. We all love Bo and his speech but losing good players can cost us games. i think if anything your article demonstrates that Woolfolk's was less damaging and not more.
Hail to the college whose colors we wear. Hurrah for the Yellow and the Blue.
August 25th, 2010 at 1:28 AM |
There are multiple factors
There are multiple factors
If the D Line gets a lot of sacks and opposing QBs have a lot of pressure and little time for reads then the young secondary will look good. If the line and LB play awesome and shut down the running game and the opposing teams have to become pass happy that could expose our young secondary. I think things may be a little rough in the beginning but as the season goes on we should be in good shape. I'm hoping for an offensive explosion to last the year!
expect the best
August 25th, 2010 at 11:19 AM |
Michigan Defense
Michigan Defense
Defense is a 11 man effort, not just Troy Woolfolk. We are going to be fine, this defense will come together and surprise a lot of people.
a joke...
Go watch Bo's "The Team" speech and think about what you just did.
seriously.