Tempo-Free Defense Points Per Posession Update: Includes Offense PPP as well

Nice work. I referenced drive efficiency in an earlier post, but this is more useful.

Didn't Indiana score 5 td's?  I only count 4 on the chart.

Definitely an interesting way to look at it. Nice work bigmc6000, hopefully your prediction is correct.

Thanks for doing this - I wanted to go through the UFR's to look at what our defensive stops looked like, but I can use your data to do most of what I had in mind.

I took a look at all the drives that we got stops on (other than EOH drives), breaking them down by how long the drive was.  I think this will show how much we're bending, and if we bend do we break.

So, we actually get a fair number of quick stops.  However, the longer the drive is, the more dependent we are on getting a stop via a turnover (interception, fumble or missed field goal) rather than just stiffening.

Another way to look at that is to ask, given that a drive has already gone X yards, what is the probability of a stop and/or a turnover?

Not surprisingly, the longer the drive goes, the less likely we are to get a stop, and the more likely we are to need a turnover to get a stop.  With Brian now including the number of rushers in UFR it would be interesting to see whether we're more likely to blitz the longer a drive has gone in order to get a TO.

Nice work. All of the diaries about this game are starting to calm my nerves. However, I do have to ask...38? Really? You think we'll kick a FG?

Well, then -- 3.6 PPP for Michigan's O and 2.1 for Michigan's D. Based on an average of 12 possessions per team per game -- that is an 18 point advantage for Meeechigan.

Not too shabby.

the indiana touchdown at the end of the half is listed as EOH, the indiana points per possession should be 2.91666

the total points per possession would go up to 2.11666

Everyone we are playing this year is having to keep up with us in scoring.  The play calling is more aggressive against our D and with good reason....our offense is disturbing to all in college football save UM fans.  If our D was on a team that had a weaker offense their numbers would not be as bad.  The problem is our defense is not at a point where we can stop an offense in panic mode yet.  It will come.  I would argue that this defense is no worse than last years, but rather they are facing more reckless opponents and not able to capitalize yet.

Have concluded an MSU score in the mid 30s.  35-38 seems consistent with that.

With that in mind, it would be very interesting to see what what the offense could do, based on the numbers adjusted for PPP and the influence that MSU's D would have on that.  Everyone is taking it as a given that our offense will score, but the one semi-legit defense we faced was Notre Dame, and we only scored 28 there.  30 against Uconn.

Good work.  Enjoyed reading it.  One recommendation: cut the 9 decimal places to 1 or 2.

I'm really glad to see these tempo-free metrics gaining some traction, at least here on mgoblog. It's so much more interesting and many of the common metrics, like (oh god) time of possession.

Looking forward to you crunching the numbers for the other games.

Fantastic work.  You will never see such detail and numerical accuracy on any other team's blog site.  I continue to be blown away by the metrics and the in-depth analysis provided on this site.

One question.  What is this "work" you speak of?  And, how is it remotely important compared to the mathematical destruction of lil' brother prior to the physical destruction that will take place Saturday, beginning in 50 hours!

GO BLUE!!!

Thanks to the mods for fixing the formatting, looks so much better in Maize-n-Blue :)

Brian Fremau talks about some of these same issues in his Football Outsiders column this week (http://footballoutsiders.com/fei-ratings/2010/fei-better-late-never).  He handles things a little differently, since he strips out "garbage time" posessions and he ignores games with FCS schools.  He only lists a couple of top 10 tables, but he lists Michigan as 9th in terms of points per possession on offense with 3.386.  Top 10 defenses allow somwhere in the 0.5 to 1.3 points per posession range, so we're letting teams score twice as often as that.  He also shows that top 10 defenses are able to make a stop for a drive that has already gone 10+ yards at least two-thirds of the time, where we're only doing it half the time (see below).

Overall he's got us ranked 16th with a rating of 0.142  (I don't have a good feel for the units on his metric, but the #1 team is 0.297 and the #25 team is 0.122. projects us to win on average 4.4 of our remaining games (so end with a total of 9.4 wins).  For comparison Michigan State is ranked 31st with a rating of 0.95.  He doesn't have a prediction yet (will probably come out later today), but for reference last week he had MSU at 0.73 and Wisconsin at 0.69 and gave MSU a 60% chance to win.  He had Iowa at 0.148 and Penn State at 0.102 and gave Iowa a 71% chance to win.  So I'm guessing we'll be like 65-70% favorites in his system.

Thanks. The offense numbers are interesting....and scary.  I think (and hope) we can do better than 60% of production on a PPP basis.

One thought about method:

You are taking M's 2010 PPP and multipying by the '09 sparty offensive achievement factor (relative to the rest of M's schedule in '09).

It'd be interesting to see how/if the sparty offensive achievement factor changes if it was based on their '10 PPP numbers, relative to other competition.  (i.e. does MSU typically do X% better or worse than others relative to their opponens expected PPP).  In other words, calculating the numbers not just from M's side, but from MSU's as well. That way you could take each teams average PPP (scored and allowed) and facotr by their PPP vs average and come up with a range of predicted PPP based on these various directions.

I realize you don't have that info handy. Its a shame.  I really like PPP as a stat.

Thanks again.