Tracking 2010 Turnovers -- Updated Thru UConn
After only 1 game, there is not much data. I will update this after every game.
Synopsis: A quick look at the TOM would lead you to believe that this was a very good game from the aspect of turnovers. But, NSFMF!
Take a look at turnover data for an “average” team – we all should take a long sigh of relief. Our 3 fumbles were almost twice (184%)the average per game and over the past decade 50% of all fumbles are lost. We lost no fumbles. In addition, UConn had only a single fumble which is 58% of average and they lost the one fumble. Although, we were very close to having several interceptions, interceptions were a wash – no interceptions thrown but no passes intercepted either.
This was the first game against a tough opponent. We won the game and won the turnover battle and I have been ecstatic every since. But, there is still much work to be done in the area of turnovers. We need to put the ball on the ground less and force more turnovers in future games.
|
TO Lost |
|
|
|
|
TO Gained |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Opp |
FMB |
FL |
Int |
Tot |
|
Fmb |
FL |
Int |
Tot |
|
TOM |
Score |
WLM |
|
Uconn |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
1 |
30-10 |
1 |
|
ND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Umass |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BGU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MSU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PSU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Illini |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purdue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wisc |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
osu |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
Extrap |
36 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
12 |
12 |
0 |
12 |
|
12 |
||
|
Per Game |
3.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
1.00 |
1.00 |
0.00 |
1.00 |
|
1.00 |
||
|
AQ Avg |
1.63 |
0.80 |
0.97 |
1.77 |
|
1.73 |
0.85 |
1.03 |
1.88 |
|
0.11 |
||
|
% of AVG |
184% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
58% |
118% |
0% |
53% |
The Extrapolation is a straight line: [Totals] X [12 Total Games / Games Played].
Here is the detail of each fumble/interception and a comment providing insight if the turnover (or lack thereof) was significant.
|
Qtr |
Time |
Down |
Spot |
Player |
Lost |
Int |
Force |
Recover |
Int By |
Score |
Result of Drive |
|
1 |
0:27 |
Punt |
M49 |
Gallon |
0 |
14-0 Michigan |
Missed FG |
||||
|
2 |
12:27 |
1-10 |
V38 |
Grady |
0 |
14-0 Michigan |
M TD (M 21-0) |
||||
|
3 |
6:00 |
2-G |
V04 |
DR |
0 |
21-10 Michigan |
M FG (M 24-10) |
||||
|
3 |
2:29 |
4-1 |
M7 |
Uconn |
1 |
Floyd |
Ezeh |
21-10 Michigan |
Would have been Uconn 1st and goal |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M TD (M 28-10) |
Remember here are the correlations of TOM to WLM at season’s end:
TOM is a significant contributing factor in determining the WLM.
90% of teams with a positive TOM of 5.0 or greater had winning records
84% of teams with positive TOM had winning records
Only 41% of teams with negative TOM had winning records
Only 28% of teams with a negative TOM of -5 or worse had winning records
62% of teams with a positive TOM of 5.0 or greater had WLM of +4 or better (8-4 record or better)
38% of teams with a TOM of 0 to +4.0 had a WLM of 4 or better
Only 25% of teams with a TOM 0 to -4.0 had a WLM of +4 or better
Only 8% of teams with a negative TOM of -5 or worse had WLM of +4 or betterDetails here: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/turnover-analysis-part-3-what-impact-winning
September 8th, 2010 at 5:54 PM ^
Thanks for this. Updating this throughout the season will definitely give an in-depth look at how turnovers effect our season. It will also show any players that might be having a tough time holding onto the ball. +1 to you sir.
September 8th, 2010 at 6:13 PM ^
And, I will be adding a player summary including TO Lost and TO Gained. Did not seem much need for it with just one game -- the details are the summary.
September 8th, 2010 at 8:03 PM ^
The fumble recovered was a monster in the game. No doubt about it.
Those winning percentages are telling. This will be a great resource to return to time and again. Thanks for putting your energy into this.
September 8th, 2010 at 9:09 PM ^
I've been harping on it for months now but turnovers are so much more important than anything else. Last year our season fell apart as soon as our TOM went to shit--forget the porous secondary everyone was pissing and moaning about. Turnovers really killed us.
We definitely need to secure the ball better and not put it on the turf--those 3 fumbles Saturday were dumb and we really dodged a couple bullets on them. However, we also nearly had a few interceptions during the game (D-lineman [Patterson?] getting hit with one, Floyd, Mouton on the last play, one more during the 4th quarter) so I think we'll be able to get more than 1 turnover against ND.
Great analysis tool though. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
September 9th, 2010 at 12:44 AM ^
September 9th, 2010 at 2:03 AM ^
How is the "average team"s lost and gained numbers different? Average TOM should be exactly 0, since for every turnover lost there is one gained. Or are you using the median for those figures?
September 9th, 2010 at 10:58 AM ^
It is the games that the FBS plays against the FCS.
It took me a while to figure it out because the total TOM for all teams should be zero. I could take the FCS data out of the M results but it is a lot of work to extract it from the NCAA data. Since almost all FBS teams play one FCS team (a couple play more) it does not cause any significant problems.
However, if we have a high +TOM for the UMass game, some adjustment may be necessary.
September 9th, 2010 at 2:10 PM ^
That makes sense. I agree, should be fine to leave it in there. Unlike yards and such that can be significantly skewed with FCS matchups, TOM probably isn't too highly dependant on the strenth of the opposition,
September 9th, 2010 at 8:24 AM ^
Hopefully you continue to have limited data to worth with as the season goes along. (For M turnovers that is)
September 9th, 2010 at 1:18 PM ^
Once the ball is on the ground, it’s simply luck as to which of the 22 available players recovers it. As there were four fumbles in the game, with average luck Michigan should have recovered two, and UConn two. That would have made the TOM –1, instead of +1. Instead, Michigan recovered four — all of its own, plus UConn’s.
September 9th, 2010 at 2:52 PM ^
I wonder if defenses (or offenses) can have a fumble recovery 'skill.' That is, is deviation from the 50% recovery rate more of a factor of luck or skill (I'm guessing it's mostly luck)?
Since UM was +1 in TOM and -1 in xTOM (expected turnover margin), we could figure them +2 in LOM (luckover margin). It would be interesting to see how LOM and xTOM correlate with WLM.
September 9th, 2010 at 6:33 PM ^
Remember that the 50% fumble recovery rate is the average. Just like TOM there is a significant difference in fumble recovery rate for various teams.
Last year M had a recovery rate of just 36%. I do not think that was just bad luck -- a young team working in a new D system means lower skills in the area of TOs also.
As to your second question, I am thinking not so much. But, I will take a look at that.
Comments