Trying to Calculate Improvement
I've always looked at Phil Steele's returning starters as a guide to help betting early in the year. As we have struggled the past couple of years I have found myself continually waiting for next year as we have so many people coming back(I still think 2011 is the year for us to move back into the BCS permanently).
There was a post a while back summing up the returning starters in the Big Ten and I was surprised how many teams had similar amounts returning. Looking at say an Illinois who loses their 4 year starter at QB and their top WR I thought boy those 2 losses of returning starters sure hurt more than us losing G. Matthews and D. Moosman.
On the flip side saying Michigan returns 8 starters on defense sounds good until you mention the 3 we lose. So I tried to quantify the losses in my chart below. Obviously this has a lot of subjective analysis to it, but I think it helps quantify where a team is potentially headed.
I think it would be interesting to try and chart the other Big Ten teams in this way, but I don't think I have an intimate enough knowledge of their 2 deeps to make a thoughtful analysis, if anybody does I'd love to see you take a shot at it. Well here's my chart. Let me know what you think
- 10=Brandon Graham
- 8= All Big Ten
- 6=Pretty solid starter, helped more than hurt
- 4=Ok, but message boards are pretty fed up
- 2= Can someone plant dope in his room so we can go Saban?
- 0= Why are we playing walk ons??
| Offense | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Position | 2009 | 2010 | Remarks |
| QB | 5 | 7.5 | Tate and Denard showed flashes last year, Frosh to Soph is biggest jump |
| RB | 5 | 6 | Hard to vote here, we should have been a 8 last year, but injuries killed us |
| WR | 5 | 5 | Replacing Stonum with Matthews seems like a push |
| WR | 5 | 7 | Time for Hemingway to shine |
| Slot | 5 | 7 | Depth, experience and some potential Odoms, Roundtree, Gallon, Trob should be good |
| TE | 5 | 6 | Koger was an 8 to start year and a 2 to end it. Between the 3 they'll find someone to step up if Koger falters |
| LT | 6 | 5 | Ortmann was solid..now who knows but talent is there. |
| LG | 6 | 7 | Last year for Schilling, usually you get real focused |
| C | 5 | 7 | Molk was hurt and Moosman was ok, it'd be an 8 for Molk but I'm not sure he'll be a 100% |
| RG | 4 | 5 | Moosman was ok but he was moved for most of the year |
| RT | 3 | 5 | A problem area all year, we have talent we just don't know how ready it is |
| TOTAL | 54 | 67.5 | I really like where this offense is going, RB's are a question mark and the OL hasn't quite matured, but I think the fact all these guys were able to grow in this system over the last couple years will help them be better than their individual talent. |
| Defense | |||
| Position | 2009 | 2010 | Remarks |
| LE | 10 | 6 | You can't replace a Gary Bartere….RVB will try hard we know that |
| NT | 6.5 | 6 | Martin was solid, but I think he was dinged up much of the year, I was hoping for more. Renaldo and Will should be ok. |
| DT | 5 | 7.5 | I think Martin for last years RVB will be a Big Step up |
| DEATH | 4 | 7 | Playing as a true Frosh at that spot is ridiculous, I expect him to explode this year |
| LB | 3 | 5 | Horrid has to be better, just because of continuity in system and competition |
| LB | 3 | 5 | Horrid has to be better, just because of continuity in system and competition |
| QUICK | 6 | 4 | Stevie was good for us last year, this year is unknown though I'm more hopeful than 4 (love Hawthorne) I'm trying to be realistic |
| CB | 7.5 | 5 | Warren was good, hopefully Turner lives up to the hype |
| CB | 3 | 4 | Boo Boo, Floyd, me, you, Troy whoever it was it didn't help us. I'll bump it to 3 since Troy held it for half the year, but it could have been a 1 |
| BOX | 2 | 4 | Williams and Kovacks struggled it can't get worse they are back and have another year, if they get beat out even better |
| DEEP | 4 | 6.5 | Woolfolk should solidify this spot this year |
| TOTAL | 54 | 60 | I'm a big believer in actually knowing what you are supposed to be doing helping out, so I'm thankful we have Greg back. |
| Team Totals | |||
| TOTAL | 108 | 127.5 | (See Below) |
I'm a little surprised I had the offense and defense tied last year and figured I must have made a mistake, but Graham and Warren skew things a bit so I think it holds up as useful analysis. If anyone is intimately familiar with another Big Ten team, I'd be curious how it would shake out. I did this exercise to go inside the numbers of just returning starters to see if there was something more meaningful because Tate and Roh returning as starters is more important than Mike Williams and Perry Dorrenstein.
February 17th, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^
The preview button is your friend
February 17th, 2010 at 3:27 PM ^
This is a huge improvement over the initial preview, but alas I can only waste so much of my employers money on formatting useless football musings before I had to leave for a meeting. Sorry.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:45 PM ^
I understand where you are coming from here and am jealous (no internet access at my current job). That was some kind of short meeting though.
I miss my old job, hanging out with Blue Durham, drinking wine and surfing the internet... sigh.
February 18th, 2010 at 8:43 AM ^
It's the idiots fault for scheduling a meeting at 4:00. Uh huh, yep, looks good, let's beat traffic.
February 18th, 2010 at 8:57 AM ^
I miss my old job, hanging out with Blue Durham, drinking wine and surfing the internet... sigh.Work?
February 18th, 2010 at 6:03 PM ^
Work is what I do now. That job was both fun and educational. If it weren't for the blaring voice of Rush L on the radio all the time, it would have been perfection.
February 17th, 2010 at 3:24 PM ^
I actually have to give you credit (see +1) for this not turning into a fluff piece. Your 2010 numbers are not skewed too positively like we tend to see on this board from time to time.
I fully agree on Tate, I think we'll see a lot more of what we saw last September as opposed to last November.
WR/RB all a wash.
The OL last year with Molk was above average as a unit and below in his absence. That alone gives me hope, as long as he can stay healthy. Will be nice to see how the last two big classes begin to cultivate on the field in the next few years.
Losing Graham will be akin to losing Sims in bball. Not going to replace it. We'll see if Will can improve in the off-season. And there were times last year that RVB looked all-BigTen. We'll need more of that over a consistent basis.
LBs were a fucking disaster. 3 might be too kind.
Warren's absence I don't think will be that big a deal for three reasons:
1. He had a few good games/plays but also looked pedestrian from time to time. THIS is why I thought he'd probably return for his senior year. Big mistake in my mind.
2. He was not often put into a position to show off his perceived skills (see a 10 yard buffer on 3rd and 5 time and time again).
3. Our secondary was so horrific from a safety standpoint that it simply overshadowed Warren's value to the 2009 defense.
Go Blue.
February 17th, 2010 at 3:31 PM ^
I struggled with valuing Warren, your point is spot on. I thought he was solid, but because of all the other problems he wasn't as valuable as he could have been or put into a position to excel. I guess we'll find out more about him at the combine and then the NFL. I thought he was good, but should not have left. His speed numbers will be telling.
February 17th, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^
I'll have this fixed in a little bit.
February 17th, 2010 at 4:00 PM ^
Should be an easier read now. I'm just going to let it overhand, though.
February 17th, 2010 at 5:55 PM ^
When Phil Steele tries to steal the copyright I'll get you a cut of my judgement. Thanks
February 17th, 2010 at 3:36 PM ^
It's nice but it doesn't really mean anything unless you factor in the stars.
February 17th, 2010 at 6:56 PM ^
punter, place kicker and return guys.
So what does 108 (2009) versus 127.5 (2010) translate to; from 5-7 (1-7 Big Ten) to what? With this representing a shift from 4.9 average position to 5.8, we're in the right direction, but not by a whole lot (which, qualitatively, is my impression).
To me it seems to be about 7-5 next year plus/minus 1 game.
February 17th, 2010 at 7:03 PM ^
Not sure what it all means, but I think it indicates we are in the right direction. If I have time or someone else(hint hint) sees some value in it we can hit some other teams like MSU, OSU, Notre Dame, PSU and maybe Florida and Alabama(they should have pretty big drops).
February 18th, 2010 at 8:56 AM ^
There is a couple of other things to consider. I am hoping that we still see improvement in the overall conditioning of the team due to Barwis' program, as well as more familiarity with RR's and Gerg Robinson's schemes.
Also, this team is still quite young. Most of these guys will be back for the 2011 season as well. The average points/player will probably increase close to a full point for that season.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:53 PM ^
(5 wins)x(127.5/108)= 5.9 wins. This is not very encouraging actually.
I think that the OP was harsh at NT, but the rest doesn't seem too far off of what I have been thinking. I hope this is way off base, but fear it isn't.
February 18th, 2010 at 12:49 AM ^
I mean even if you we had an 8 at every position, that would translate to 8.14 wins based on your calculations.
Do you really think we would only win 8 games with an All-Big Ten performer at every position?
February 18th, 2010 at 6:21 AM ^
Good point.
I guess the score could be logarithmic? Or maybe there is a response factor to be considered...
February 18th, 2010 at 9:03 AM ^
There probably is a reasonable lower and upper limit for the very, very good and very, very bad.
Total guess, but probably the very worse teams in DI would probably average around a 3/player (and not 0) and the best (national champs)are around 7.5.
That probably puts the 2010 Michigan team a little above average.
February 19th, 2010 at 3:22 PM ^
I think part of what sets those reasonable lower and upper limits is the schedule. Looking at last year's schedule, M is going to beat Western, Eastern, and the FCS Sisters of the Poor almost every time. Despite the game efforts, they're probably going to lose to last year's OSU or PSU teams 90% of the time. Therefore, we're looking at 7 true tossup games. Michigan went 2-5 (28%) in those games last year.
Next year, we should easily handle UConn, UMass, and Bowling Green even if we have a ludicrous number of injuries or bad luck. @Indiana and Illinois should also be fairly safely in the bag. Even if we take out @OSU as an unlikely game to win, that leaves 6 games as tossups - win 3 of them (50%) and we're 8-4. That should be a reasonable expectation for next year, since realistically we're only moving from the lower quarter of the Big Ten (winning 28% of tossup games) to the middle of the pack (winning 50% of tossup games).
February 20th, 2010 at 11:50 AM ^
probably more like an S curve:
February 21st, 2010 at 8:30 PM ^
I agree with your sentiment, but not sure this is an oversight or not but Uconn may be a Top25 team going into next year. Not a lock.
February 18th, 2010 at 8:46 PM ^
What you have to realize is that little things determine games. The difference in heartbreaking losses like MSU/Iowa/Purdue is often a couple of plays. This improvement may seen minute, but a pass broken up or a 3rd and 1 converted (and of course the turnover battle) is the difference.
Furthermore, these numbers anticipate health. With another solid recruiting class coming in, injuries/unforeseen situations like Cissoko's will not be as debilitating to next years' team.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^
RB improvement. Losing your top two senior backs hurts, and the most promising reserve busted his ACL. Shaw looked to take a step back in 09.
I have high hopes for Fitzsy and the frosh, but he's got to show something before we can claim him as better than Rage and Downtown. And Smith has a serious recovery in front of him.
I'm not sure how I'd rate them on your scale, but one of these groups is definitely mis-rated.
Otherwise it's an interesting take, and at this point I'll grasp any straw that indicates improvement.
February 18th, 2010 at 2:29 PM ^
It seems like OP was trying to take into account the fact that both Brown and Minor were nursing some decently serious (and/or nagging) injuries through the season. In which case, neither of them really had an opportunity to play up to their true potential. I still daydream about what that tandem could have been like fully healthy.
February 18th, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^
The problem is that it only takes one or two weak spots on defense (or offense, QB) to lose games. The 2009 defense and offense are each a 54 in your book, but the uneven distribution on defense speaks to it's oh so vulnerable holes.
Offense:
2009 Ave = 4.91, StDev = 0.83
2010 Ave = 6.14, StDev = 1.00
Defense:
2009 Ave = 4.91, StDev = 2.40 (!)
2010 Ave = 5.45, StDev = 1.23
February 20th, 2010 at 2:29 AM ^
yeah definitely...
and to what he said about being surprised that the number total came out even for the offense and defense last year, i wasnt surprised at all...when minor was injured we basically just had average players across the board...some were above average, some below, but everyone was basically average and it really showed, since our offense struggled a lot more than i think people realize...
where our defense had plenty of solid players (BG, warren, martin, RVB) and roh was good for a freshmen, but then it had the mother of all weak links in our LBs and Safeties...
February 18th, 2010 at 6:39 PM ^
2010 is....TO margin.
If UM is negative double digits in TO margin...AGAIN...in 2010, they will struggle to do any better than 6-6 regardless of any individual player improvement.
If UM can get the TO margin to be a net-zero or *GASP* a positive margin, then I think we should see a 7-5 or 8-4 type season.
UM has lost at least two games in each of the last two seasons solely because of TO margin in a game. Iowa and OSU (-4 TO in each) being the games lost in 2009...argh!
I honestly believe that UM would set some kind of NCAA record if they had a third consecutive year with a double digit negative TO margin.
February 18th, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^
You're exactly right. Hard to predict, but having non freshmen qb's and hopefully some semblance of a d will help. Stiff competition at punt returner will help as well, no more diving catch attempts on a punt please. We as Mich fans have to assume bad luck after the last couple of years though so we'll see.
February 19th, 2010 at 1:28 PM ^
1) expecting almost all big ten from Tate/Denard seems optimistic. 6.5-7 seems more appropriate
2) RVB is a gamer and much more likely to be closer to an 8 than the 6 you have listed.
3) If LB play was a 3, I think the box safety was at least equal to them. Kovacs was a walk-on yes, but I think he was better than Ezeh and Mouton.
4) DT I think you are underselling both RVB's play last year (5) and maybe even Martin's future there. I can easily see all big ten for him.
Also, your scale needs some tweeking. The jump from a 6 to an 8 goes from solid starter helping more than they hurt and all big ten, which seems like a huge gap.
Great post. A good conversation starter. +1
February 19th, 2010 at 3:08 PM ^
1. I don't think people appreciate Tate for what he was able to accomplish as a true freshmen and injured as well as the infusion Denard brings, I think the combo will be close to all Big Ten but I can respect your feelings there, I was trying to be as conservative/objective as possible.
2. Reading the story on RVB you may be right considering he was only a Soph last year and played out of position, I hope you are right.
3. It's hard to tell who was at fault a lot of times, but yeah you could argue that.
4&5. I have very high expectations for Martin so my judgement may have been clouded by his lack of big plays last year. I do think the move to DT could allow him to explode this year.
The scale was more subjective than, you need to be 1st team All Big Ten to get an 8, it was just a guide I thought could be useful. For example I'm not even sure.... was Warren All Big Ten?? I thought he was good, but not that good for us where I thought Graham fighting thru holds every play was incredible for us even though I don't know if he was an all american.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:06 PM ^
10 = BG
9 = All-american/first 50ish picks in NFL
8 = All-conference
7 = Good player and a strength on the field
6 = Good player
5 = Middling starter
4 = weak starter
3 = should not be starting in big ten and play mostly special teams
2 = totally lost and exploited by teams, not big ten skill set
1 = totally inadequate talent should not dress never mind play.
Comments