The Michigan Difference - Purdue Edition
OK, this isn't a hard-core statistical analysis like the Mathlete would do, just some fun with numbers. We have a rather bipolar team this year (Offense #5 in TO, Defense #105 in TD), and I thought it would be interesting to look at what our opponents' Total Offense and Total Defense stats would look like if they hadn't played us - and what kind of a difference it would make in their overall ranking of NCAA stats.
The NCAA stats are not linear, of course, and a difference of 1 yd/gm can be a large or small difference in rankings depending on how closly spaced everyone is. So as I cautioned, this isn't a hard-core statistical exercise. It is interesting to look back at the early games and see how well we did in comparison to what other teams ended up doing against them - what seemed like a good or bad performance at the time may look different in retrospect.
Part the First: Offense
We know our offense is great, but what kind of damage has it done to the Total Defense (TD) ratings of our opponents? Here they are thus far:
Opponent | Games | Yards Yielded | Yds/gm | NCAA Rank |
Connecticut | 9 | 3277 | 364.11 | 56 |
Notre Dame | 10 | 3803 | 380.30 | 66 |
Bowling Green | 10 | 4205 | 420.50 | 94 |
Indiana | 10 | 4116 | 411.16 | 89 |
Michigan State | 10 | 3279 | 327.90 | 28 |
Iowa | 10 | 3070 | 307.00 | 16 |
Penn State | 10 | 3567 | 356.70 | 52 |
Illinois | 10 | 3448 | 344.80 | 38 |
Purdue | 10 | 3644 | 364.40 | 57 |
What would these guys' defensive stats look like if they hadn't played Michigan?
Opponent | Total Offense, M |
Opp. Avg - M, |
M Total Offense, |
NCAA Rank |
Connecticut | 473 | 350.50 | 135% | 46 |
Notre Dame | 532 | 363.44 | 146% | 56 |
Bowling Green | 721 | 387.11 | 186% | 77 |
Indiana | 574 | 393.56 | 146% | 78 |
Michigan State | 377 | 322.44 | 117% | 27 |
Iowa | 522 | 283.11 | 184% | 6 |
Penn State | 423 | 349.33 | 121% | 44 |
Illinois | 676 | 308.00 | 219% | 18 |
Purdue | 395 | 361.00 | 109% | 53 |
*Opponents' average Total Defense yards per game, minus the Michigan game
**Michigan's Total Offense in game as a % of the opponent's average TD minus the Michigan game
So Michigan has gained above our opponents' average yardage yielded in every game thus far, and their TD ranking has suffered as a result. What's the damage?
Opponent | TD Rank With M | TD Rank Without M | Difference |
Connecticut | 56 | 46 | -10 |
Notre Dame | 66 | 56 | -10 |
Bowling Green | 94 | 77 | -17 |
Indiana | 89 | 78 | -11 |
Michigan State | 28 | 27 | -1 |
Iowa | 16 | 6 | -10 |
Penn State | 52 | 44 | -8 |
Illinois | 38 | 18 | -20 |
Purdue | 57 | 53 | -4 |
Average change in Total Defense ranking for all opponents: -10.1 places.
Part the Second, Defense
So the flipside of this, then, is how much has our defensive suckitude helped out our opponents stat sheet? Where would they rank in TO without having played us? We'll run the same tables again, but from the opposite tack:
Opponent | Games | Yards Gained | Yds/gm | NCAA Rank |
Connecticut | 9 | 3057 | 339.67 | 87 |
Notre Dame | 10 | 3874 | 387.40 | 49 |
Bowling Green | 10 | 2883 | 288.30 | 114 |
Indiana | 10 | 3915 | 391.50 | 53 |
Michigan State | 10 | 4168 | 416.80 | 34 |
Iowa | 10 | 4049 | 404.90 | 46 |
Penn State | 10 | 3597 | 359.70 | 74 |
Illinois | 10 | 3671 | 367.10 | 71 |
Purdue | 10 | 3051 | 305.10 | 107 |
First thing that jumps out at me is that none of these are world-beater offenses thus far. They're functional and solid for the most part, but even the best is merely above average. We can't really blame our bad defensive performances on having come up against a bunch of awesome offenses. Anyway, how'd they do against us?
Opponent |
Total Offense, Opp |
Opp. Avg - M, Yds/gm* |
Opp Total Offense, % of Opp Avg - M** |
NCAA Rank Without M |
Connecticut | 343 | 339.25 | 101% | 88 |
Notre Dame | 535 | 371.00 | 144% | 68 |
Bowling Green | 283 | 288.89 | 98% | 114 |
Indiana | 568 | 371.89 | 153% | 67 |
Michigan State | 536 | 403.56 | 133% | 50 |
Iowa | 383 | 407.33 | 94% | 44 |
Penn State | 435 | 351.33 | 124% | 78 |
Illinois | 561 | 345.56 | 162% | 85 |
Purdue | 256 | 310.56 | 82% | 105 |
* Opponents average offensive performance, minus the Michigan game
** Opponents TO as a percentage of their average offensive performance, minus the Michigan game
To summarize:
Opponent | TO Rank With M | TO Rank Without M | Difference |
Connecticut | 87 | 88 | +1 |
Notre Dame | 49 | 68 | +19 |
Bowling Green | 114 | 114 | 0 |
Indiana | 53 | 67 | +14 |
Michigan State | 34 | 50 | +16 |
Iowa | 46 | 44 | -2 |
Penn State | 74 | 78 | +4 |
Illinois | 71 | 85 | +14 |
Purdue | 107 | 105 | -2 |
Average boost to opponents' Total Offense NCAA ranking: +7.1 places
So we've had four really bad defensive outings (ND, Ind., MSU, Ill.) and a four decent ones (UConn, Iowa, PU, BG). The PSU game doesn't look so bad from this perspective - still not good, but far from our worst outing when compared to others.
Part the Third: Summary
Opponent |
Michigan's O Difference on Opp TD Ranking |
Michigan's D Difference on Opp TO Ranking |
|
Connecticut | -10 | +1 | W, Good O, OK D |
Notre Dame | -10 | +19 | W, Good O, Terrible D |
Bowling Green | -17 | 0 | W, Awesome O, OK D |
Indiana | -11 | +14 | W, Good O, Terrible D |
Michigan State | -1 | +16 | L, OK O, Terrible D |
Iowa | -10 | -2 | L, Good O, OK D |
Penn State | -8 | +4 | L, Good O, Bad D |
Illinois | -20 | +14 | W, Awesome O, Terrible D |
Purdue | -4 | -2 | W, OK O, OK D |
Takeaways from these numbers (as opposed to other numbers or observations):
- We played well at Iowa and were beaten by a better team.
- We played badly against MSU on both sides of the ball; they might have beaten us anyway with good performances, but not likely.
- The loss to PSU doesn't look like such a bad outing from this angle. Maybe PSU is better than we gave them credit for.
- Awesome offense wins, terrible defense doesn't necessarily lose.
- Our offense is better at offending than our defense is bad at defending.
- Winning is more fun than losing.
November 15th, 2010 at 7:15 PM ^
These numbers give an interesting perspective on the season. Thanks!
November 15th, 2010 at 7:41 PM ^
Nice analysis but it's hard to draw conclusions...the + and - numbers don't necessarily correlate to a win and a loss.
I think that the youth of this team also makes it hard to quantify what your going to get out of them. Each game is a different story.
Let's just hope the next two are focused with execution at a high level.
November 15th, 2010 at 9:56 PM ^
I had been wondering about these numbers recently. Thanks for taking the time to get them out there to us.
I think it's interesting that except for Iowa, our 'good' D performances come against bottom-half offenses. That doesn't seem to bode well for Wisconsin (#27 TO) and Ohio State (#17 TO).
November 15th, 2010 at 10:54 PM ^
So our offense does more damage to their stats than our so-so (being polite here) defense...
I'd like to see enough damage to make two more wins! Go Blue!!!
November 15th, 2010 at 11:59 PM ^
This was a great post. You rock.
November 16th, 2010 at 12:52 AM ^
you'd think over the course of the season that some sort of improvement will be season on the defensive side of things. hopefully, at least one of these last two weeks results in a performance where we can infer that our D has at least gotten better due to their trial by fire experience.
cheers
November 16th, 2010 at 7:13 AM ^
Very interesting analysis - thank you for the effort.
A couple of stats that might have reduced net gains by opponents would be short fields from less than stellar kickoffs and short fields from the numerous TO's which have happened since the start of of Big Ten schedule. Obviously, an INT in the end zone, such as with MSU would have little impact on an opponents starting field position, but with Iowa, just the opposite was the case.
Hopefully the TO gremlin will be gone the next couple of games - weather for Saturday looks pretty good at the moment - that might help.
November 16th, 2010 at 8:15 AM ^
That just can't be. Oh wait, right. Total Defense.
November 17th, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^
and #5 in turnovers, man I thought for sure M's apple turnovers were the best in the land!
November 16th, 2010 at 1:40 PM ^
I would adjust for the OT against Illini. That was actually one of the Ds better games if you look at per possession stats.
November 16th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
But it was complicated enough digging out all these numbers and there were too many charts as it was. I'm just having fun with the "what if they hadn't played Michigan" concept. All conclusions are dubious at best.
3OT only added 75 yards of TO to both teams' totals. Not a huge difference - and the NCAA rankings include the OT totals, anyway.
November 16th, 2010 at 7:14 PM ^
Great research and analysis. Look forward to the next one.
Comments