Do the Offensive Stats Tell a Different Story?
I worked on this post as a response in another thread, but I thought it might get buried and thought it might spark some interesting discussion. I compiled these stats in response to a post which stated that Michigan offense has been "historically terrible." Now, I will admit there have been some historically terrible stats put up (PSU and MSU games), but I think the stats below might tell a bit of a different story -- perhaps one in which the OC's job should not be in question.
Thoughts?
Currently, in FBS (B10) Michigan offense is:
- 63rd in Total Offense (10th B10) w/ 411.6 ypg
- 24th in Scoring Offense (5th B10) w/ 37.9 ppg
- 79th in Rushing Offense (10th B10) w/ 154.9 ypg
- 86th in Total Rushing Yds (10th B10) w/ 1239 yrds
- 99th in Rushing Yds/Attempt (11th B10) w/ 3.7 ypa
- 21st in Rushing TD's (3rd B10) w/ 23 TD's
- 44th in Passing Offense (4th B10) w/ 256.8 ypg
- 57th in Total Passing Yds (5th B10) w/ 2054
- 5th in Passing Yds/Attempt (1st B10) w/ 16.3 ypa
- 62nd in Passing TD's (8th B10) w/ 13 TD's
- 61st in Red Zone Offense @ 83.3% (as an aside, the best team in the nation in Red Zone Offense is FSU, scoring 97.8% of the time it enters the Red Zone. The Big 10 is well represented in the high end of this cateorgy with NWU being #2 @ 97.1%, Minnesota is #3 (REALLY?!?) @ 96.7%, and OSU is #9 @ 93.5%. Michigan has 36 Red Zone attempts in 8 games, while NW has 35 in 9 games, Minn has 30 in 9 games, and OSU has 46 in 9 games)
Individual players in FBS (B10):
Gardner:
- 23rd in Total Offense/Game (1st B10) w/ 307.9 ypg
- 21st in Total Yards (1st B10) w/ 2463 yrds
- 34th in Total Passing Yds (2nd B10) w/ 1989 yds
- 6th in Passing Yds/Attempt (1st B10) w/ 9.8 ypa
- 46th in Passing TD's (5th B10) w/ 13 TD's
- 115th in Rushing Yds (13th B10) w/ 474 yds
- 77th in Rushing Attempts (10th B10) w/ 113 attempts
- 41st in Rushing TD's (5th B10) w/ 9 TD's
Gallon:
- 12th in Total Receiving Yds (2nd B10) w/ 898 yds
- 11th in Receiving Yds/Game (1st B10) w/ 112.6 ypg
- 38th in Yards/Reception (4th B10) w/ 18.0 yds/rec
- 22nd in Receiving TD's (2nd B10) w/ 7 TD's
Funchess:
- 81th in Total Receiving Yards (5th B10) w/ 557 yds
- 17th in Yards/Reception (3rd B10) w/ 19.2 yds/rec
- 89th in Receiving TD's (14th B10) w/ 4 TD's
Fitz:
- 74th Total Rushing Yds (11th B10) w/ 595 yds
- Infinity in Rushing Yds/Attempt (27th B10) w/ 3.7 ypa
- 13th in Rushing TD's (1st B10) w/ 11 TD's
- 14th Rushing Attempts (2nd B10) w/ 163 attempts
Conclusion(s):
- Despite the fact that Michigan cannot run the ball (79th in Rushing Offense, 86th in Total Rushing, and 99th in Rushing Yds/Attempt), Michigan can score rushing TD's (21st in Rushing TD's). Obviously, Gardners 9 Rushing TD's help this a great deal, but Fitz is leading the B10 in Rushing 10 with 11, and in 13th in FBS. Seems like something is working in the run game, and it's not just Gardner being an uber-athletic QB that is deadly on bootlegs and/or scrambles in the Red Zone.
- Michigan gives the ball to Fitz a great deal (2nd most Rushing Attempts in the B10). But, he's just not getting much for it -- only 3.7 ypa (Poor Fitz).
- Fitz scores a TD every 14.81 carries, and Garnder scores a TD every 12.55 carries. That's a TD every 13.8 carries between the two.
- Gardner is a very good passer, and were it not for his early season INT binge, he'd be considered one of the best in the nation.
- Gallon is AWESOME!
- Funchess is a BEAST!
I know there are a lot of Michigan Men/Women on this board who simply hate Borges and want him gone right now. I know that these same people are still smarting and holding a grudge about games from '11, '12, and especially '13. I am NOT trying to be an apologist for Borges. I am simply trying to point out that the offense, depsite only being able to aveage 3.7 ypc rushing due to unacceptably bad OL play, is STILL able to score and put up some pretty good numbers. Further, Gardner, Gallon, Funchess, and even Fitz have nationally respectable numbers.
Again, I am NOT saying that Borges is a great OC. What I am trying to show is that if Michigan's OL was even B10 average, it seems likely that Michigan's offense would be off the chart good. A great deal of that is Garder, IMO, but I think 11 rushing TD's for Fitz is very impressive, and totally out of character for a team that seems to struggle running so much.
Be nice guys, I spent a lot of time compiling these stats. If there are any errors, I'll try to correct them. I hope y'all find this at least slightly illuminating. Let's try to have a civil conversation, and let's hope that Michigan's offfensive weapons ADD to their numbers.
Beat the Huskers!
Go Blue!
November 8th, 2013 at 8:49 PM ^
I'd go with confusing. How are we scoring so many points (24th) while getting so few yards (78th)? We know we're not getting points from the special teams. It's not a pace issue, either. Is our defense giving our offense a short field to work with? Or do we have an inordinate number of highly successful drives (end in a TD) AND highly unsuccessful drives (3 and outs.)
November 8th, 2013 at 8:56 PM ^
I don't know, perhaps illuminating is the wrong word. When I started to go through the numbers, I found the number confusing as well.
Borges is doing something right, IMO, and for all those people demanding that he "schemes around the horrible OL play..." Obviously he MUST be. How else can we explain how Fitz, who is sucking hind tit on yards per carry, is leading the B10 in TD's and is 13th nationally? Again, SOMETHING must be going right.per
November 9th, 2013 at 1:42 AM ^
Inconsistency
November 9th, 2013 at 9:47 AM ^
If you look at the advanced stats, Michigan is ranked 95th in first down efficiency (drive with at least one first down or a TD). But they rank 35th in valuable drives (drives to the opponent 30 yard line or better) and 56th in average yards per drive.
Much of this is probably because of how often they are behind the sticks, due to sacks or negative yardage runs.
November 9th, 2013 at 10:23 AM ^
"Or do we have an inordinate number of highly successful drives (end in a TD) AND highly unsuccessful drives (3 and outs.)"
I've been arguing for weeks that this would be a rational solution to the problems posed by this offense, with its leaky and mistake-prone interior o-line and a high-variance QB. Go get the big play, because trying to long-march down the field in small chunks is futile. Something's bound to go wrong before you get there (see the last MSU drive for a paradigm).
November 8th, 2013 at 8:51 PM ^
It blows my mind that a) Fitz has 11 rushing touchdowns, and b) this is best in the B1G.
November 8th, 2013 at 8:57 PM ^
He has 0 TDs against ND, PSU, and MSU. He has benefitted from our WRs not quite getting into the endzone.
November 8th, 2013 at 8:57 PM ^
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
November 8th, 2013 at 9:13 PM ^
The offense is a mixed bag of incomprehensibly bad and surprisingly good.
Weird year.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:15 PM ^
Here are some other numbers from TeamRankings to aid the discussion here:
|
MICH Offense
|
Value (rank) |
| Points/Game | 37.9 (#17) |
| Yards/Game | 412.2 (#60) |
| Points/Play | 0.534 (#13) |
| Yards/Play | 5.8 (#39) |
| 3D Conversion % | 44.55% (#31) |
| 4D Conversion % | 60.00% (#27) |
| RZ Scoring % | 82.86% (#60) |
| Rushing Statistics | |
|
Rush Play %
|
59.26% (#25) |
| Yards/Rush | 3.7 (#92) |
| Rushes/Game | 42.0 (#34) |
| Rush Yards/Game | 155.5 (#75) |
| Passing Statistics | |
| Pass Play % | 40.74% (#101) |
| Completion % | 59.43% (#60) |
| Yards/Pass | 9.7 (#6) |
|
Passes/Game
|
26.5 (#105) |
| Pass Yards/Game | 256.8 (#43) |
| Int Thrown % | 5.66% (#121) |
| QB Sacked % | 8.23% (#105) |
November 8th, 2013 at 9:58 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 1:34 AM ^
The best kind.
November 8th, 2013 at 10:57 PM ^
For shits and giggles, I took a look at some of Michigan's offensive statistics from 2010:
Yards/Game 500.9 (#6)
Points/Game 34.3 (#23)
November 9th, 2013 at 10:45 AM ^
So even in the wake of the MSU debacle, we are outscoring the 2010 team by 3.6 per game.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:16 PM ^
if maybe Gardner is an elite Vince Young type qb but surrounding by such bad blocking. The ND game will at least be fun to revisit later, he was unstoppable in that game.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:53 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 10:13 PM ^
Bullshit. Compare Vince Young's stats to Gardner's current stats. Also note that the national title is irrelevant, given the post you're responding to.
November 9th, 2013 at 8:43 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 11:18 PM ^
I think Gardner compares pretty fairly to a sophomore year Vince Young who was frustratingly inconsistent until he exploded in the Rose Bowl (make it stop).
November 8th, 2013 at 9:19 PM ^
Wonder what the numbers are like without the IU game. Not saying it should be discounted since other teams play poor defenses as well. But that game clearly skews the offensive numbers.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:22 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 9:24 PM ^
There is some "skew factor" in the stats, but MSU does some of the same in the other direction.
What I wonder about the most, is just how amazing this offense could be if Michigan had one of its "historically elite" OLines. Heck, even if we had a B10 average OL (in terms of yards/carry average). Add to that Gardner stemming his turnovers, and it seems to me that this offense could be near unstoppable.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:21 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 11:27 PM ^
But those numbers are pretty bad. And I think the area where coaching (including, perhaps mostly Borges) is responsible is in the philosophy and development of the program on non-game days. How the players are taught, how the system is developed.
November 9th, 2013 at 6:46 AM ^
"Yeah this is kind of my feeling. I think our ability to score despite our terrible line is actually a point in Borges's favor."
I think outside of a couple games, the play calling has been a point in his favor.
Problem is playcalling is only a part of being OC/QB coach - and while the play calling hasn't been awful, the other aspects of being OC/QB coach leave a lot to be desired.
November 9th, 2013 at 12:33 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 9:23 PM ^
When you combine one of the worst games ever with one of the best games ever, you get average. I think perhaps the more revealing statistics about this offense will be in game-to-game variance. If someone is willing to compute it, I'd be very interesed to see historic trends in within-season standard deviation of offensive statistics.
November 8th, 2013 at 9:35 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 9:43 PM ^
78th in total offense is fucking pathetic. With the shit squads they've played, it really is.
November 8th, 2013 at 10:02 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 10:53 AM ^
But we're 24th in scoring O. Isn't that more important? You have to outscore the other team to win, but you don't have to outgain them.
November 9th, 2013 at 11:02 AM ^
You're right, winning is the most important thing. My point is, with the talent M have got and the bad teams they've played, 76th in total O is underachieving greatly.
November 9th, 2013 at 12:35 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 9:50 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 11:10 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 7:44 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 9:56 PM ^
Sten - let's put our cards on the table now shall we? You look at 78th ranked offense and say "good job Borges" cause the scoring is ranked 24th. I dont - I think it's horrible given the quality of the teams we've played.
But candidly I dont think anything really matters at this point. You, Reader71, Reshp (I dont think I spelled that right) and Space Coyote are all deeply committed to defending all things Borges. And all of you are pretty nice guys so I while I violently disagree with your assessment of his performance I like that you guys defend him no matter what.
It's one of the biggest reasons I like this board. Debating with knowledgable and intellengent fellow Michigan fans that have opposite opinions is pretty damn cool IMO.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:06 PM ^
First mGrowOld, I enjoy the debate too, and I appreciate you saying so.
Let me say that I made a mistake, Michigan's offense (at least according to ESPN) is 63rd, not 78th. No matter really.
I am NOT saying that the 63rd ranked offense is any cause to pat Borges on the back. Let me say to you, and please remember this, I am a very passionate fan who HATES losing, and is just a frustrated with the lack of a running game as you.
When I started looking through the stats above I decided to make a post out of it, not to try to convince you and the others that are pissed at Borges to agree with me, but to shed some light on how the numbers might tell a bit of a different story than we've been told thus far.
Doesn't it seem odd to you that despite all the total shit rushing performances that Michigan has put up this season, that it has the B10's Rushing TD leader? Also, considering the rage with which people react to Borges' play calling, doesn't it seem odd that we have the B10's yardage leader, two guys in Gallon and Funchess who are doing so well statistically in both the B10 and nationally? All that (not that it's all that much, nor enough -- but it's something) with an OL that seems totally incompetent. Seems odd to me.
I am not "defending all things Borges" nor am I saying "good job." But, what I am saying (and this exercise in compiling the stats help me come to this conclusion) is that it's not AS BAD as many are making it out to be. Michigan just isn't that good right now. Sucks, but it's true. As I said elsewhere, I think there are very plausable and important reasons WHY Michigan isn't that good right now that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with a deficiency on the part of the coaching staff.
That being said, there are some bright spots (that I detailed) that I think many of the Borges haters are overlooking. All they want to do is point at the negatives, and come up with just as many "excuses" as the apologists concerny why Gardner, Gallon, and Fuchess shouldn't be feathers in Borges' cap.
November 9th, 2013 at 6:54 AM ^
Doesn't it seem odd to you that despite all the total shit rushing performances that Michigan has put up this season, that it has the B10's Rushing TD leader?"
No.
Do you think Trent Richardson and Mikel Leshoure were good NFL backs last year?
November 9th, 2013 at 12:56 PM ^
November 11th, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^
And while I can relate, the issues here are massively understated. The product that is on that field is not up to anyone's standards. While I understand coaches do not WANT to put this product on the field or lose their job, that is exactly what is happening. I can not imagine a world in which you literally shit the bed for weeks and retain your position. That goes for coaches AND players. Regardless, if that post turn over series of two up the gut runs that close to the end zone wasn't enough to seal the deal for you, than nothing will be my friend. And no, we do not run to setup the pass, painfully obvious.
November 8th, 2013 at 10:03 PM ^
1) Red Zone Offense is a flawed stat because field goals are worth the same as a touchdown with that metric. For example, Michigan was 82nd in Red Zone Offense in 2010 but top 25 in Points per Red Zone Possession. Given Michigan averages 4.5 TDs per game, Michigan probably looks slightly better if Points per Red Zone Possession is used instead.
2) Gardner's rushing totals should grade out very close to or better than Toussaint if you remove sacks. -48 yards rushing against MSU means Gardner's rushing stats are very diluted (pretty sure the failed snap counts as a carry against Gardner).
3) I think yardage offense is a better judge of performance than scoring offense until it can be proven that offense between the 20s and redzone offense are significantly different (as I recall, The Mathlete posted a diary awhile back showing they're quite related). Still, your guess is as good as mine regarding how Michigan's scoring offense ranking is so high and total offense ranking is so low. ST3's final sentence is as good a guess I could come up with.
November 9th, 2013 at 10:33 AM ^
...doesn't count against anyone's rushing statistics. From the official boxscore at mgoblue:
1-10 MSU 49 TEAM rush for loss of 20 yards to the MICH31, fumble by TEAM recovered by MICH TEAM at MICH31.
November 8th, 2013 at 10:01 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 12:19 PM ^
And yet Michigan was 81st out of 120 in offensive FEI that season. There were 39 worse offenses in FBS, some of the significantly so, some of them even in power conferences (Vanderbilt, Indiana, Duke, Syracuse, Purdue, Auburn, Kentucky, Arizona St., Tennessee, Colorado, Mississippi St., Washington, UCLA, Washington St....)
Michigan fans are spoiled.
November 8th, 2013 at 10:04 PM ^
we play in the Big Ten where many teams play horrible defense an can make anyone look good. Michigan is riding the Minnesota and Indiana statistical thumpings pretty hard to say nothing of quality statistical input against CMU and Notre Dame.
November 8th, 2013 at 10:20 PM ^
There are so many variables related to a football team's performance that it is impossible to determine causality except in extreme cases. It is safe to say Alabama has a better offense and defense than Purdue but the closer one gets to the middle of the pack the less that can be confidently determined. The margin of error increases exponentially after comparing teams that aren't extremely far apart in quality. Teams don't even perform consistently related to themselves week to week- a squad can be fired up and precise one week and overconfident and sloppy the next week. This makes all game comparisons (upon which data is mined from) suspect. Almost all sports data analysis deeply flawed and useful for entertainment purposes only.
November 9th, 2013 at 10:15 AM ^
Correct use of username
November 8th, 2013 at 10:38 PM ^
we shit the bed. Your analysis doesn't take that into account.