national champs baby
Turnovers Updated thru WMU - Revised
Filed under:
Revision: I WILL be including the WMU TO stats in all future posts. I realized that excluding a single game will significantly distort all the data. So, my data will reflect U-M with +3 TOM better than the NCAA data. I am right -- they are wrong!
We Don't Exist!: This will be an abbreviated post since all the stats from the WMU game are not included in the NCAA data. I don't feel like fighting this battle for the entire year or trying to adjust data by some factor every week. All data will be the official NCAA statistics from the NCAA site. Thus, unless the NCAA includes the WMU statistics (which is doubtful), this is the one and only time the data will be included.
Early Season Statistics: In 2009 & 2010 M had a positive TOM thru the first 6 games. At the end of the season? 2009 TOM was MINUS 12. 2010 TOM was MINUS 10. It is unlikely we will know a lot about this team until at least the seventh game at MSU.
Synopsis for Turnovers: The game ended with a TOM of +3. However, the first 2 TOs were very unusual because they both resulted in defensive touchdowns. Arguably, this was a point swing of at least 14 points and as many as 25 points.
With the average TO being "worth" approximately 5 points, a simplistic analysis would conclude TOs were not a major factor in determining the winning team. Nothing could be further from the truth. Without the TOs, I am convinced M would have lost this game.
September 9th, 2011 at 12:03 AM | 
Why are you convinced we lose
Why are you convinced we lose
September 9th, 2011 at 12:11 AM |
Ok
Ok
Take away both defensive TDs and give Carder a TD instead of an INT. It's 20-17... We lose now?
September 9th, 2011 at 5:41 AM |
Defensive TD
Defensive TD
A defensive TD also gives the opposition the possession. Carder wouldn't have those possessions to make said TD's Also, you are assuming that each of our resulting offensive drives wouldn't result in TD's.
Lots of holes in that analysis.
GMAT score =800 = Defensive POTY
September 9th, 2011 at 5:44 PM |
NSFMF
NSFMF
A typical TO results in a change of possession with no points being scored. The ultimate point result of the TO is impossible to determine in those instances but the average of "5 points per TO" is based on some TOs resulting in 0 points and others resulting in 3 points (FG) or 6/7 points (TD).
In this case, both TOs immediately resulted in 7 points and at least one took 3-7 points off the board.
Life should not be a journey to the grave to arrive safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What A Ride!" HST
September 9th, 2011 at 12:30 AM |
Wait?...
Wait?...
The NCAA is NOT counting the statistics in their record books? Even though we are counting the game as a W on our schedule? So record wise yes, but data/statistics no? I'm so confused now...
Heeeyyy Wassa Matta?
September 9th, 2011 at 12:46 PM |
But... Denard?
But... Denard?
But... Denard?
Hail.
September 9th, 2011 at 10:01 AM |
14-25 pts. Is that logic right?
14-25 pts. Is that logic right?
I assume a TO is "worth" 5 points because some percentage of the time the team turning it over would have scored on the drive, and some percentage of the time the team recovering it will score on their drive. I understand how you can say a TO returned for TD is a "14 point swing", but probability wise I don't see how a TO can ever be worth more than 7 points.
IMO, the two TOs were worth 14 points (we did in fact score, and Western did get the ball right back), and we won by 24 (24>14). Without the TOs returned for TDs, we still would have had 20 points, and we would have had two more offensive possessions (which is probably worth the 5 points you mention). Without the TOs, I am convinced we would have won this game.
September 9th, 2011 at 10:09 AM |
This is something I am
This is something I am
This is something I am actually VERY concerned about. I think, since the game didn't progress to a "reasonable point of conclusion," which accoring to NCAA rules is a full three quarters, the stats don't count.
September 9th, 2011 at 11:13 AM |
Yes, This Is DUMB!
Yes, This Is DUMB!
Here is the link to the NCAA Conference Stats for the Big10.
http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2011/Internet/conf%20stats/2011000000827TD.HTML
Michigan is not even listed as being in the conference! I am assuming this is because we have not played an "official" game.
This would seem to screw up all the stats for the entire year. Total yards, completions, TOs, etc. etc. etc.
This is intolerable.
Life should not be a journey to the grave to arrive safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What A Ride!" HST
September 9th, 2011 at 11:37 AM |
If it ends up staying this
If it ends up staying this
If it ends up staying this way, I do not blame the NCAA, I blame DB. Fact is, the rules were this way BEFORE the game was called. Nothing changed. If it stays this way, it's 100% on Brandon.
September 9th, 2011 at 11:08 AM |
The Big MO
The Big MO
I know it is impossible to measure momentum or change in the big MO. But, the score was 7-7 with WMU on about the 10 yard line ready to score. The M defense was on its heals. Without the interception, the score could have been 14-7 WMU with M receiving the KO. And all the MO with WMU. With the TO, the MO shifted dramatically.
The second TO was with the score just 20-10. After the fumble return for a TD, the game was essentially over.
Life should not be a journey to the grave to arrive safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What A Ride!" HST
Why are you convinced we lose that game? We were doing whatever we wanted in the 3rd quarter.