Tracking 2010 Turnovers -- Updated Thru UMass
I’ve added “AQ Best Per Game” Data for comparison purposes.
Synopsis: Yikes, that makes 3 games in a row that TOs have been a significant factor. With close games, I guess that should be expected. Although the TOM ended at -0-, the official stats do not count a blocked punt as a TO. Taking the blocked punt into account, we ended up at -1. (The blocked punt led to a UMass TD.)
For the UMass game, M had more lost TOs than the average AQ team (2.0 versus 1.77 – 3.0 versus 1.77 if you include the blocked punt) and more TOs gained than the average AQ team (2.0 versus 1.88).
Through 3 games, TOM is excellent due to very low TO Lost and about average TO Gained. TOs lost are great at just 0.67 per game versus and AQ average of 1.77 per game. A concern is our lack of forcing opponent fumbles with only 0.67 per game versus an AQ average of 1.73 per game.
|
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 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
|
3 |
28-24 |
1 |
|
Umass |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
0 |
42-37 |
1 |
|
Total |
6 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
2 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
|
4 |
|
3 |
|
Extrap |
24 |
4 |
4 |
8 |
|
8 |
8 |
16 |
24 |
|
16 |
||
|
Per Game |
2.00 |
0.33 |
0.33 |
0.67 |
|
0.67 |
0.67 |
1.33 |
2.00 |
|
1.33 |
||
|
AQ Best |
0.83 |
0.25 |
0.33 |
0.92 |
2.92 |
1.75 |
2.17 |
3.33 |
1.76 |
||||
|
AQ Avg |
1.63 |
0.80 |
0.97 |
1.77 |
|
1.73 |
0.85 |
1.03 |
1.88 |
|
0.11 |
||
|
% of AVG |
123% |
42% |
34% |
38% |
39% |
79% |
130% |
107% |
|||||
The Extrapolation is a straight line: [Totals] X [12 Total Games / Games Played].
The “AQ Best” and “AQ Average” is over the last 10 years. AQ Best is kind of funky because the team with the “best” in each category is different so the numbers don’t add. But, it does provide a point of reference.
Here is the detail of each fumble/interception and a comment providing insight if the turnover (or lack thereof) was significant. Note: Blocked Punts are not officially considered a turnover and an interception of an extra point attempt is also not considered a turnover (player does not get credit for an interception).
|
Qtr |
Time |
Down |
Spot |
Player |
Lost |
Int |
Force |
Recover |
Int By |
Score |
Result of Drive |
|
1 |
9:12 |
2-9 |
M35 |
DR |
1 |
0-0 |
UMass FG (UMass 3-0) |
||||
|
2 |
8:38 |
Punt |
M16 |
Gallon |
0 |
10-7 UMass |
M Missed FG |
||||
|
2 |
0:45 |
2-9 |
M45 |
UMass |
1 |
Kovacs |
Kovacs |
17-14 UMass |
M TD (M 21-17) |
||
|
4 |
9:49 |
2-10 |
M35 |
UMass |
1 |
Gordon |
42-24 Mich |
Gordon fumble on same play |
|||
|
4 |
9:49 |
Int |
M26 |
Gordon |
1 |
|
|
|
|
42-24 Mich |
UMass TD (M 42-30) |
|
Qtr |
Time |
Down |
Spot |
Player |
Lost |
Int |
Force |
Recover |
Int By |
Score |
Result of Drive |
|
3 |
3:33 |
4-3 |
M44 |
Hagerup |
Blocked Punt |
|
|
42-30 Mich |
UMass TD (M 42-37) |
||
Here is the overall summary by player.
|
|
TO |
Lost |
|
|
TO |
Gained |
|
|
|
Player |
FMB |
FL |
INT |
|
|
Force |
Rcvr |
INT |
|
Denard |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
Floyd |
1 |
|
1 |
|
Grady |
1 |
0 |
|
|
Ezeh |
|
1 |
|
|
Gallon |
2 |
0 |
|
|
Mouton |
|
|
1 |
|
Gordon |
1 |
1 |
|
|
Kovacs |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
6 |
1 |
1 |
|
Total |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|
Hagerup |
Punt Blocked |
1 |
Gordon |
Blocked FG |
1 |
|||
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
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 21st, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^
Gordon gained one then lost one. Those sort of skew the stats, but a turnover is a turnover
September 21st, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^
I was thinking that same thing. Though it is true that Gordon's fumble counts as a turnover, the end result is even (one gained, one lost) and thus the aggregate numbers are a bit skewed when comparing U-M's turnovers lost, gained, and margin with the rest of the country.
September 21st, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^
Our D would create more fumbles is the tackling wasn't so woeful.
September 21st, 2010 at 4:55 PM ^
Great to see that we have been able to turn teams over alot more so then last year which will certainly lead to a winning record.
September 21st, 2010 at 6:13 PM ^
We've been very lucky that we've lost just 1 of our 6 fumbles. If I remember correctly Brian (or Mathlete or someone) did some work showing that recoveing a fumble is mostly luck. Thus, if we remove the "luck factor" and assume we lose half of our fumbles and gain half of theirs then our TOM is not as good at just +1.
What looks most important to me right now is 1) Denard has fumbled just twice after a ton of carries, and 2) we have 4 INTs through 3 games, which is not bad. But yes, we are not good at causing fumbles.
September 21st, 2010 at 7:53 PM ^
Yes, the actual data indicates the average AQ team will lose 50% of their fumbles.
That probably is not just luck but is due to the fact there are 2 teams trying to recover the fumble.
September 22nd, 2010 at 5:53 PM ^
Comments