By The Numbers - Big 10 Ranks
For questions on how these numbers were developed, go here.
Going to lead with the expected points rankings since the boss seems to like the metric and I am a suck up. Expected Points is one of the few metrics I use that is not opponent adjusted.
Expected Points - Offense
Michigan is second in both expected points (offense getting good field position) and value added. The drives number is only qualifying drives, non garbage time non half ending kneel downs.
Expected Points - Defense
Reasonable showing so far for Michigan although there is a big gap between the top and everyone. Michigan appears to be vying for the crown of best of the rest for the Big 10.
Offense - Rush+
Minnesota is an interesting case study here, last in the league in yards/game but 3rd in the league with value added. Haven't dug into it but a possible explanation is that they don't run in high volumes or for high yardage but they are effective in picking up first downs in short yardage plays, giving them a modest but still 3rd best value of nearly a point a game.
Offense - Pass+
A comment on the individual ranks yesterday was understandably surprised to see Juice at #5 in the QB rankings. We determined that a lot of it was due to the adjustment for opposition. You can see here, as well, when you take out what he does on the ground (included in QB ratings but not on team passing) and include sacks, Illinois is now dead last in the Big 10 in passing, even accounting for opposition.
Offense - Season+
Michigan third in the Big 10 in offense, going to face off with Iowa who is 9th.
Defense - Rush+
Michigan is down at 10th against the run, costing the team about 1.7 points per game.
Defense - Pass+
Iowa and Ohio State are clearly dominating here, both teams saving about a TD game due directly to their pass defense. Michigan is a solid fourth at a little over a FG a game benefit.
ST - All - Per Game
Michigan is a resounding first in the Big 10 in special teams, with the combined groups being worth nearly 2 points a game. Kicking, kick return and punting have are all at or near the top of the conference while punt return has been average/non-existent and kickoff coverage has been the lone weak spot.
Team - Season
The all-in numbers show Iowa, despite a below average offense is just above Ohio State in performance to date. The Big 10 is clearly lacking a dominant team this year as its top-ranked team only 17th nationally. Michigan is nearly tied with MSU for 4th overall and there is a clear separation between the top 5 and the rest of the conference.
The overall conference rankings show that its not just that the Big 10 doesn't have a top team this year, but that the conference as a whole is not as strong as past years.
Conference Rankings
No detailed Iowa preview this week
Will be traveling and without my computer, here is a quick summary of what the unit breakdowns look like.
Run Offense: -3
Pass Offense: -7
Rush Defense: even
Pass Defense: +4
Special Teams: +2
Home field: -3
Prediction:
Michigan 18 Iowa 26
The numbers aren't pretty so you can all it 17-24 or 17-27 but I've got it pegged right at the Vegas line and just below the under.
Going to lead with the expected points rankings since the boss seems to like the metric and I am a suck up. Expected Points is one of the few metrics I use that is not opponent adjusted.
Expected Points - Offense
| Off | G | Expected Points | Actual Points | Diff | Drives |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wisconsin | 4 | 24.30 | 32.75 | 8.46 | 11.50 |
| Michigan | 5 | 25.03 | 32.40 | 7.37 | 12.20 |
| Michigan State | 4 | 22.97 | 29.00 | 6.03 | 11.75 |
| Penn State | 5 | 21.31 | 26.60 | 5.29 | 10.20 |
| Purdue | 5 | 24.15 | 29.20 | 5.05 | 12.20 |
| Northwestern | 4 | 21.86 | 26.25 | 4.39 | 11.50 |
| Ohio State | 5 | 22.75 | 27.00 | 4.25 | 10.40 |
| Minnesota | 5 | 23.01 | 22.40 | -0.61 | 11.40 |
| Indiana | 4 | 25.68 | 24.25 | -1.43 | 12.25 |
| Iowa | 4 | 24.90 | 23.00 | -1.90 | 11.00 |
| Illinois | 3 | 17.84 | 6.67 | -11.18 | 9.67 |
Michigan is second in both expected points (offense getting good field position) and value added. The drives number is only qualifying drives, non garbage time non half ending kneel downs.
Expected Points - Defense
| Def | G | Expected Points | Actual Points | Diff | Drives |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Penn State | 5 | 21.24 | 8.60 | -12.64 | 10.40 |
| Iowa | 4 | 18.23 | 8.75 | -9.48 | 10.25 |
| Ohio State | 5 | 19.85 | 11.00 | -8.85 | 10.80 |
| Michigan | 5 | 24.33 | 22.20 | -2.13 | 12.20 |
| Purdue | 5 | 25.95 | 26.60 | 0.65 | 12.60 |
| Indiana | 4 | 22.65 | 24.25 | 1.61 | 11.50 |
| Minnesota | 5 | 21.90 | 24.60 | 2.70 | 11.20 |
| Wisconsin | 4 | 22.69 | 25.50 | 2.82 | 12.00 |
| Northwestern | 4 | 23.54 | 29.25 | 5.71 | 11.50 |
| Michigan State | 4 | 23.84 | 30.50 | 6.66 | 11.25 |
| Illinois | 3 | 19.41 | 34.00 | 14.59 | 9.67 |
Reasonable showing so far for Michigan although there is a big gap between the top and everyone. Michigan appears to be vying for the crown of best of the rest for the Big 10.
Offense - Rush+
| Team | G | Total | VPP | Yards | YPC | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Penn State | 5 | 3.16 | 0.12 | 173.80 | 5.27 | 1.80 |
| Michigan | 5 | 2.85 | 0.09 | 210.80 | 5.41 | 2.40 |
| Minnesota | 5 | 0.83 | 0.03 | 104.80 | 3.97 | 1.20 |
| Purdue | 5 | 0.74 | 0.03 | 162.20 | 5.41 | 1.80 |
| Wisconsin | 4 | 0.74 | 0.02 | 206.50 | 4.83 | 2.50 |
| Ohio State | 5 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 199.00 | 5.03 | 1.60 |
| Michigan State | 4 | -0.29 | -0.01 | 129.50 | 4.32 | 1.50 |
| Iowa | 4 | -1.63 | -0.05 | 167.25 | 4.74 | 1.25 |
| Illinois | 3 | -1.84 | -0.07 | 127.00 | 4.01 | 0.67 |
| Indiana | 4 | -2.63 | -0.09 | 155.25 | 4.67 | 1.75 |
| Northwestern | 4 | -4.69 | -0.14 | 122.00 | 3.61 | 1.50 |
Minnesota is an interesting case study here, last in the league in yards/game but 3rd in the league with value added. Haven't dug into it but a possible explanation is that they don't run in high volumes or for high yardage but they are effective in picking up first downs in short yardage plays, giving them a modest but still 3rd best value of nearly a point a game.
Offense - Pass+
| Team | G | Total | VPP | Yards | YPA | TD% | INT% | Comp% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan State | 4 | 4.28 | 0.13 | 286.50 | 7.96 | 5.56% | 4.17% | 61.81% |
| Northwestern | 4 | 3.24 | 0.08 | 260.50 | 6.28 | 3.61% | 1.81% | 69.88% |
| Purdue | 5 | 1.98 | 0.06 | 245.00 | 7.04 | 6.32% | 4.02% | 62.07% |
| Ohio State | 5 | 1.63 | 0.08 | 172.40 | 6.63 | 6.15% | 3.85% | 59.23% |
| Penn State | 5 | 1.31 | 0.05 | 225.20 | 6.82 | 5.45% | 3.64% | 61.82% |
| Wisconsin | 4 | 1.11 | 0.04 | 223.75 | 7.99 | 6.25% | 2.68% | 63.39% |
| Michigan | 5 | 0.43 | 0.02 | 174.60 | 6.15 | 6.34% | 4.23% | 58.45% |
| Minnesota | 5 | -0.09 | 0.00 | 217.60 | 6.36 | 4.09% | 3.51% | 57.31% |
| Iowa | 4 | -0.40 | -0.01 | 203.25 | 6.35 | 5.47% | 5.47% | 56.25% |
| Indiana | 4 | -2.31 | -0.07 | 195.75 | 5.84 | 2.99% | 2.99% | 60.45% |
| Illinois | 3 | -3.45 | -0.14 | 165.67 | 4.52 | 0.91% | 4.55% | 57.27% |
A comment on the individual ranks yesterday was understandably surprised to see Juice at #5 in the QB rankings. We determined that a lot of it was due to the adjustment for opposition. You can see here, as well, when you take out what he does on the ground (included in QB ratings but not on team passing) and include sacks, Illinois is now dead last in the Big 10 in passing, even accounting for opposition.
Offense - Season+
| Off | G | Value | Yards | Plays |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Penn State | 5 | 4.48 | 399.00 | 66.00 |
| Michigan State | 4 | 3.99 | 416.00 | 66.00 |
| Michigan | 5 | 3.29 | 385.40 | 67.40 |
| Purdue | 5 | 2.73 | 407.20 | 64.80 |
| Wisconsin | 4 | 1.85 | 430.25 | 70.75 |
| Ohio State | 5 | 1.74 | 371.40 | 65.60 |
| Minnesota | 5 | 0.74 | 322.40 | 60.60 |
| Northwestern | 4 | -1.45 | 382.50 | 75.25 |
| Iowa | 4 | -2.03 | 370.50 | 67.25 |
| Indiana | 4 | -4.94 | 351.00 | 66.75 |
| Illinois | 3 | -5.29 | 292.67 | 68.33 |
Michigan third in the Big 10 in offense, going to face off with Iowa who is 9th.
Defense - Rush+
| Team | G | Total | VPP | Yards | YPC | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan State | 4 | 3.75 | 0.12 | 122.00 | 3.61 | 0.50 |
| Iowa | 4 | 3.73 | 0.16 | 132.00 | 4.89 | 0.00 |
| Wisconsin | 4 | 3.49 | 0.14 | 120.00 | 4.40 | 0.75 |
| Penn State | 5 | 2.27 | 0.10 | 103.20 | 3.58 | 0.40 |
| Ohio State | 5 | 0.91 | 0.04 | 102.00 | 3.54 | 0.80 |
| Purdue | 5 | 0.60 | 0.02 | 173.00 | 4.51 | 2.20 |
| Indiana | 4 | -0.79 | -0.03 | 144.25 | 4.09 | 1.50 |
| Northwestern | 4 | -1.03 | -0.03 | 142.00 | 4.58 | 1.75 |
| Minnesota | 5 | -1.36 | -0.03 | 189.00 | 4.54 | 2.00 |
| Michigan | 5 | -1.69 | -0.05 | 162.20 | 4.63 | 1.80 |
| Illinois | 3 | -3.55 | -0.11 | 236.67 | 5.92 | 2.67 |
Michigan is down at 10th against the run, costing the team about 1.7 points per game.
Defense - Pass+
| Team | G | Total | VPP | Yards | YPA | TD% | INT% | COMP% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iowa | 4 | 7.98 | 0.27 | 149.25 | 4.42 | 2.96% | 7.41% | 46.67% |
| Ohio State | 5 | 6.00 | 0.22 | 142.60 | 4.40 | 2.47% | 4.94% | 54.94% |
| Purdue | 5 | 3.71 | 0.10 | 224.60 | 5.48 | 2.44% | 1.46% | 60.00% |
| Michigan | 5 | 3.37 | 0.10 | 231.40 | 6.46 | 2.23% | 3.35% | 60.89% |
| Penn State | 5 | 2.74 | 0.12 | 163.00 | 5.09 | 1.88% | 3.75% | 56.88% |
| Indiana | 4 | -0.81 | -0.03 | 183.75 | 5.74 | 5.47% | 4.69% | 63.28% |
| Illinois | 3 | -0.96 | -0.04 | 181.67 | 7.36 | 5.41% | 0.00% | 68.92% |
| Minnesota | 5 | -1.01 | -0.03 | 190.40 | 6.18 | 3.25% | 1.95% | 64.94% |
| Wisconsin | 4 | -1.19 | -0.03 | 265.75 | 7.13 | 6.04% | 4.70% | 57.72% |
| Michigan State | 4 | -1.97 | -0.05 | 262.00 | 6.94 | 7.95% | 1.99% | 66.23% |
| Northwestern | 4 | -7.63 | -0.24 | 236.25 | 7.56 | 6.40% | 4.00% | 68.00% |
Iowa and Ohio State are clearly dominating here, both teams saving about a TD game due directly to their pass defense. Michigan is a solid fourth at a little over a FG a game benefit.
ST - All - Per Game
| Team | G | Total | Kick | KO | KR | Punt | PR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan | 5 | 1.78 | 0.92 | -0.56 | 0.81 | 0.71 | -0.10 |
| Minnesota | 5 | 0.87 | 0.49 | -0.81 | 0.30 | 0.65 | 0.25 |
| Ohio State | 5 | 0.72 | 0.60 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.44 | -0.37 |
| Illinois | 3 | 0.40 | 0.21 | 0.13 | -0.32 | 0.57 | -0.19 |
| Wisconsin | 4 | 0.35 | 0.50 | -0.21 | -0.43 | 0.66 | -0.17 |
| Michigan State | 4 | 0.19 | 0.43 | -0.89 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.32 |
| Iowa | 4 | -0.35 | -0.21 | -0.45 | -0.25 | 0.62 | -0.07 |
| Indiana | 4 | -0.56 | -0.72 | -1.16 | 2.38 | -1.09 | 0.03 |
| Penn State | 5 | -1.98 | -0.76 | -0.53 | -0.23 | -0.26 | -0.20 |
| Northwestern | 4 | -2.59 | 0.92 | -1.00 | -0.90 | -0.45 | -1.16 |
| Purdue | 5 | -2.59 | 0.58 | -0.78 | -0.85 | -0.30 | -1.25 |
Michigan is a resounding first in the Big 10 in special teams, with the combined groups being worth nearly 2 points a game. Kicking, kick return and punting have are all at or near the top of the conference while punt return has been average/non-existent and kickoff coverage has been the lone weak spot.
Team - Season
| Team | G | Total | Offense | Defense | ST | Pen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iowa | 4 | 9.63 | -2.03 | 11.71 | -0.35 | 0.30 |
| Ohio State | 5 | 9.58 | 1.74 | 6.91 | 0.72 | 0.21 |
| Penn State | 5 | 7.91 | 4.48 | 5.01 | -1.98 | 0.40 |
| Michigan | 5 | 6.65 | 3.29 | 1.69 | 1.78 | -0.11 |
| Michigan State | 4 | 6.34 | 3.99 | 1.78 | 0.19 | 0.38 |
| Purdue | 5 | 3.98 | 2.73 | 4.32 | -2.59 | -0.47 |
| Wisconsin | 4 | 3.61 | 1.85 | 2.30 | 0.35 | -0.89 |
| Minnesota | 4 | -3.68 | -0.02 | -2.44 | 0.70 | -1.91 |
| Indiana | 4 | -8.55 | -4.94 | -1.61 | -0.56 | -1.45 |
| Illinois | 3 | -10.74 | -5.29 | -4.51 | 0.40 | -1.33 |
| Northwestern | 3 | -13.16 | -3.24 | -8.81 | -2.47 | 1.36 |
The all-in numbers show Iowa, despite a below average offense is just above Ohio State in performance to date. The Big 10 is clearly lacking a dominant team this year as its top-ranked team only 17th nationally. Michigan is nearly tied with MSU for 4th overall and there is a clear separation between the top 5 and the rest of the conference.
The overall conference rankings show that its not just that the Big 10 doesn't have a top team this year, but that the conference as a whole is not as strong as past years.
Conference Rankings
| Conf | Total | Offense | Defense | ST | Pen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC | 6.45 | 3.58 | 3.87 | -0.79 | -0.21 |
| PAC 10 | 5.48 | 2.14 | 3.62 | 0.21 | -0.50 |
| Big XII | 3.72 | 2.40 | 1.11 | 0.63 | -0.42 |
| ACC | 3.04 | 1.44 | 2.42 | -1.39 | 0.57 |
| Big Ten | 1.05 | 0.23 | 1.49 | -0.35 | -0.32 |
| Big East | 0.92 | 0.08 | 1.91 | -1.31 | 0.24 |
| WAC | -2.14 | 0.57 | -2.18 | -0.77 | 0.23 |
| Mtn West | -2.50 | -3.03 | 1.15 | -0.93 | 0.30 |
| Ind | -4.66 | -0.34 | -4.92 | -0.82 | 1.42 |
| C USA | -8.30 | -2.33 | -4.04 | -1.46 | -0.46 |
| MAC | -8.45 | -3.24 | -3.12 | -2.24 | 0.15 |
| Sun Belt | -10.49 | -2.76 | -6.46 | -2.02 | 0.74 |
No detailed Iowa preview this week
Will be traveling and without my computer, here is a quick summary of what the unit breakdowns look like.
Run Offense: -3
Pass Offense: -7
Rush Defense: even
Pass Defense: +4
Special Teams: +2
Home field: -3
Prediction:
Michigan 18 Iowa 26
The numbers aren't pretty so you can all it 17-24 or 17-27 but I've got it pegged right at the Vegas line and just below the under.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:43 PM ^
Tons of good stuff here. Here's hoping we win the turnover battle on Saturday.
If you get some time (offseason?), I'd love to see how rapidly the stats tend to stabilize and how far you have to regress after game 1, game 2, etc.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^
I wonder how often your numbers mirror the Vegas lines. This is something I sort of always expected that Vegas uses to set game lines anyway.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:03 PM ^
Absolutely, I've never seen so many fair catches. But FC is better than "OMIGAWD, its on the turf!"
Nice work, thanks.
Nice work, thanks.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:56 PM ^
interesting but this stuff is just making a paper tiger. I'm worried about Iowa and the fact that they have the nation's interception leader on defense , hope tate makes good decisions
October 10th, 2009 at 3:16 PM ^
Once again, interesting analysis.
One "thing" in the analysis would seem to be that teams that stack up weaker opponents will have an opportunity to create that early season "paper tiger" noted by others. Conversely, since many teams have loaded up in the early season with puffs, maybe this isn't really as much of a relative factor.
The defensive analysis is tough to align with, because Michigan is, well, just not shown to be that good. Again, some of "paper tiger" syndrome, perhaps?
It will be interesting to see how things are shaping up for Michigan after the Penn St. game.
Comments