The Greatest Wisconsin Scoring Debate: Whom do the stats support?
This issue has been discussed ad nauseum. Certain posters, myself included, think that our offense performance against Wisconsin was not as impressive as the numbers indicate, since we were shut out in the first half and only put up points when we were already down by 21. Others, including our illustrious leader, think the above position is idiotic, as obviously Wisconsin was not easing up on us. In his most recent post, Brian mocked those of us in group 1 for just going with our "feelings, man" instead of presenting any hard data.
But, unless I'm missing something, I've never seen any "hard data" supporting the second theory, either. Instead of just dismissing the opposing argument as an unsupported "gut feeling," shouldn't people claiming that it's just as hard to score when you're down by 21 as when you're tied actually present some data to that effect?
I believe in statistics. I'm not some cantankerous Murray Chass who believes that my gut feeling is more important than newfangled math. At the same time, I acknowledge my limitations -- I wouldn't know where to begin in gathering the data to demonstrate whether or not defenses "let up" when they're up big. (If I did, this would be a diary, rather than a board entry). But I would love to know whom advanced statistics actually support in this area, rather than simply being talked down to by people who claim I don't understand math, but don't present any numbers in their argument. Anyone aware of any actual statistical analysis in this area that addresses the question at hand?
"I think Ziff72 is right to say that the people making this argument seem to be predominantly from the "Arrgh spread is femi-ball must run up the gut from power-I formation" camp."
I don't believe such a camp exists.
"Right, wrong or indifferent, when you're zone blocking all the time -- when you're playing basketball on grass -- you practice against that all spring, you practice against it all fall and then you're going to play a two-back team that wants to knock you off the football," Hoke said. "I don't think you're prepared.
"I think there's a toughness level (required in college football). I still believe you win with defense. That's been beaten into my head a long time, but I really believe that. The toughness of your team has to be the offensive front and your defensive front."
~Brady Horatio Bartholomew Hoke
Whenever people pull up that quote, they fail to focus on three key words -- "all the time." Hoke isn't saying that zone-blocking is pussy femball. He's saying that teams shouldn't solely practice zone blocking, because then the defense isn't prepared for a straight-ahead power running team.
Basically, he's saying that teams should be versatile. Saying that a team should be comfortable running from the I formation and with the quarterback under center is not the same as saying "abandon the shotgun!".
Did they zone block on every play? No. But the phrase 'all the time' is typically used to mean 'with great frequency.'
John Tenuta blitzes all the time. Brandon Inge strikes out all the time. Michigan used zone blocking all the time.
Besides, he isn't saying "teams should be versatile." He's saying that certain types of offense make your team (both offensively and defensively) less tough. And I haven't seen much support for that statement. Michigan wasn't getting blown off the ball by Wisconsin because Denard is Michigan's quarterback. They were getting blown off the ball because they ran a 3-man front against a power-running offense.
Not sure that we're arguing the same thing. I agree that Michigan did zone block "all the time", i.e. with great frequency. And I agree that Hoke was saying that zone blocking "all the time" is a bad thing.
But I don't agree with the implication -- which you may not have intended to make -- that Hoke's words suggest that he will go the other way, and abandon zone-blocking almost entirely. Hoke seems to be saying that you need to be able to power block, but not necessarily that you need to do it exclusively. My understanding is that Borges has run zone-blocking schemes in the past, so until we see the team on the field next year I'm not going to assume that zone-blocking has been abandoned.
And I agree wholeheartedly with Hoke's statement that a team should be able to power-run out of the I. How many times last year did we see the team unable to pick up third and shorts, or look inept on the goal line? Again, this isn't saying we should abandon what works -- it's just saying there are other things we should be comfortable doing that will help in critical situations.
I don't think he'll abandon the zone schemes altogether, either. Where we do differ is that I think he'll run those schemes grudgingly, because from my read he see them as less conducive to "toughness." And I think that logic is misplaced.
Hell, Michigan was largely a zone blocking team in 2006, and that team seemed pretty tough.
There isn't a coach in America that disagrees with that statement, including Rich Rodriguez. We did not zone block 100% of the time last year.
This whole debate seems to stem from the fact that Brian missed the words "all the time" and mistakenly believed Hoke was arguing for man blocking exclusively. He's been beating up straw men ever since.
...to Hoke for chosing the word "all" there. He wasn't drafting a contract. He was talking to a reporter.
If 100% of coaches agree and no one zone blocks "all the time" then why would Hoke even make that comment?
Is Hoke just inventing some team in his mind that zone blocks "all the time" so he can argue againsty it? (That seems like a straw man comment if true.)
Let me give you an example: What is Hoke said he "did not think it was a good idea to throw on every single down in every game?" Since no one does that, it is just an inane comment.
In reality, Hoke did not mean to make a distinction between "most of the time" and "all of the time" and eve, if he did (as you suggest) then you are making him out to be someone who just spews inane blabber.
Your attempt at absolving Brady Hoke of this comment by focusing on that one word is pretty weak.
It's pretty obvious that you're the only person in this thread trying to revive the Rich Rod versus Brady Hoke debate.
...and I am excited about this year. I do not "want RR back." We have all moved on.
I just hate intellectual dishonesty and ridiculous arguments.
This is just comical. You claim to want intellectual honesty, yet you refuse to take Hoke's words at face value, and instead inject your own interpretation into them, even when Hoke's past actions contract that?
I think your real problem is that you are too irrationally attached to the proprietor of this site, and can't stand the notion of someone disagreeing with him. Every message board has people like this, who kiss the writers' asses non-stop and take up their side in every argument. I like Brian Cook, but he's a human being, and doesn't get it right all the time.
...to spend a lot of my work day interpreting what particular words mean.
I have no emotional attachment to Brian Cook. I mean I like him and all, but I don't really like him when he disagrees with me.
IMO - It's just dumb to hand your hat on that word in that sentence. If you want to say that Hoke is okay with zone blocking sometimes, then fine. I think that is right. But, if you want to argue that Hoke does not particularly like "football on grass" and he thinks it isn't "tough" then I disagree. I think his comments indicate otherwise.
There is a world of difference between using zone blocking in certain circumstances and the "spread and shred."
Hoke seems okay with one, but not the other.
Well now, it's good to know that we have a member of the forum blessed with the ability to perfectly discern the true meaning behind everything the coach says. You have quite the gift.
I guess we should ignore the fact the SDSU itself used a combination of zone and assignment blocking last season, huh? It must have happened over Hoke's objections.
... Hoke's choice of words (or what the reporter decided to write down when he got back to his desk) mean very little. Let's not focus on the word "all" here to make a point.
didn't set a ton of scoring records; no one's saying it did. However, the fact that the offense could run up the yardage totals at will but didn't get as many points implies that Michigan had a problem with field position, field goal kicking, and turnovers. Only one of those factors can be attributed directly to the offense (turnovers), but until evidence can be shown giving the real reason behind the team's turnover issues, I'll trust the statistics that a first-year starting, underclassman quarterback has a strong correlation with turnovers committed, and trust that turnovers will reduce drastically when Michigan no longer has one of those.
they were ranked 36'th in 3'rd down percentage and 77'th in fourth down percentage, which contributed to not scoring in the red zone or going for FGs.
If you're going to be an elite offense, you should be in the top-10 at converting 3'rd downs, or at least top-20.
Michigan was 38th in that too; hopefully Lewan can cut down on those penalties this year.
I checked the numbers, and I found that Michigan was about even with Oregon in 3rd down percentage, and converting 9 more 3rd downs than they did puts Michigan in the top 10 (they attempted 172, which was a little below average). I don't know if I'd put a ton of weight into 3rd down percentage; hopefully finding a premier short-yardage running back will help raise the conversion rate.
I still think 2010 was no better than 2009. The offense was a little more threatening because of Denard, but the degradation of the defense offset this improvement.
You can look at data about how teams perform when they are up 21. In fact, you look at how that particular Wisco team performed when up by multiple TDS vs. when they were not.
They played 12 games last year and in most, Wisco was up by multiple TDS at one point in the game. Take a look at how UMich compared with other teams that were down by a lot to Wisco. Also, be sure you look at drives where Wisco still had their first team in the game.
Did Wisco let them back in and ease up with their starters in at any point in the other games? Did any of those other teams that were down big to Wisco score 28 points and put up over 400 yds?
I THINK you will see that the "stats" and "evidence" do not support your feelings.
I'm not sure what stats you looked at.
UNLV didn't move the ball at all during the first three quarters, but as soon as Wisconsin got up 41-14, UNLV outgained Wis. 132 - 26.
In the Minnesota game, Minn didn't manage much of anything until their two long scoring drives in the fourth with the game out of hand.
Against OSU, Wisconsin got up by three quick touchdowns and was up 21-3 at the half. OSU then had two long drives to start the third quarter before Wisconsin locked them down.
Northwestern got down 28-3 and managed two long drives for touchdowns before Wisconsin turned it up again.
The fact that some people downvote an informative comment like this because it is contrary to their position demonstrates all that is wrong with this board.
...I have downvoted anyone in this thread, but my reply to his comment was downgraded. Hmmm...
The UNLV game:
UNLV scored TDs in 1st and 2nd quarters. The point in time we are interest in (after Wisco got up 20) the two teams exchanged ONE TD each and it is possible that the UNLY TD was against the second/third team since it was the final score.
The Minnesota game:
After Wisco was up by 26, the teams began exchanging TDs. Minn scored, then Wisco, then Minn with 5 minutes to play. Garbage time?
OSU game:
Does anyone really believe that Wisco took their foot off the pedal against the number 1 team and hated Buckeyes? This isn't even worth considering as a game they took the foot off the pedal for? regardless, OSU only put up 18 on Wisco.
Northwestern game:
After Wisco got up 28-3, Northwestern's offense scored ONE non-garbage time TD in the final minutes with Wisco up big (probably backup?)
It should also be noted that MICHIGAN scored more points than each of these teams against Wisco.
It was a good offesnvie performance for UM against a strong defense.
The UNLV game:
UNLV scored TDs in 1st and 2nd quarters. The point in time we are interest in (after Wisco got up 20) the two teams exchanged ONE TD each and it is possible that the UNLY TD was against the second/third team since it was the final score.
In the first quarter UNLV gained -2 yards and scored on an interception return. In the second quarter UNLV gained 23 yards and scored on a 1-play, 16-yard drive following a Wisconsin fumble. UNLV gained 44 yards in the game before they were down 44-14, 136 after.
The Minnesota game:
After Wisco was up by 26, the teams began exchanging TDs. Minn scored, then Wisco, then Minn with 5 minutes to play. Garbage time?
Isn't that the point, that Wiscy would get leads then let off the throttle on defense?
Northwestern game:
After Wisco got up 28-3, Northwestern's offense scored ONE non-garbage time TD in the final minutes with Wisco up big (probably backup?)
Those touchdowns came in the second quarter and with five minutes left in the third. Michigan was not much more productive over that time period and would have been no more productive minus a Wisconsin fumble.
More than Northwestern, Minnesota, and UNLV? That must have been a powerful offensive performance. And OSU had one less drive and killed their last two drives in desperation.
Ultimately, Wisconsin played four teams who had similar troubles getting stops. Those were UNLV, Minnesota, Indiana and Northwestern, and they all had performances that were only marginally worse than Michigan's, and all of them were far from offensive juggernauts.
The Wisconsin game is far from enough evidence to overturn the evidence put on display during the two following games.
A big part of it is personal bias as to how you take the stats. My own belief is that our second half yards and scores trend more in the direction of garbage time.
Wisconsin was up four scores, could run the ball at will (they passed like once the entire second half and still got yards) and basically had the game in the bag. I see the coaches teling their defense "Don't get hurt and focus on bleeding time off the clock" because that was what my high school coaches did. At some point in the second half the focus moves away from scoring and getting the clock to 0:00.
So Denard running, various dink and dunk plays across the middle, all of that is fine with the D-Coord because it keeps the clock moving. 80 yard fade routes where the WR can duck out of bounds and stop the clock, not cool.
In general I'd argue D-Coords were just fine with us running stuff over the middle, but that is because that was how my high school coaches closed out those kind of games. We couldn't kick field goals for shit (and we needed touchdowns to come back anyway), so basically the defense's job is be a speed bump.
If Michigan takes 4 minutes to score a TD and then Wisconsin comes back and runs off 4 minutes and kicks a FG it means a net swing of 4 points in Michigan's favor every 8 minutes. For ease of using round numbers that means Michigan ends up 16 points ahead of Wisconsin over the 3rd and 4th (8 points a quarter). Given Wisconsin was up 24 points, odds are they're fine with that deal. Of course if Wisconsin is also assuming they get a touchdown or to which gives them even better odds.
At the end of the day I guess I just have a hard time believing the defense was in all out STOP MICHIGAN AT ALL COSTS mode. I believe the defense selection was structured to protect against the passing plays that gain a lot of yards but fail to eat time off the clock. The defense had no issue with us running plays that ate time off the clock.
I think Wisconsin went into prevent mode in the 3rd, we got 21 points and they went "Oh shit", woke back up and we only got 7 in the 4th. So our offense does not look all that good. We managed to sucker punch them, but they shrugged it off and shut us right back down.
Not sure how that supports your argument. After we pulled within 10, they proceeded to shut us down for 12 minutes, until they were up by 20 again, and we only had one meaningless score the rest of the game.
If one game were statistically significant -- which is isn't -- this would support the theory that it's easier to score when down big, but defenses tighten up when the game is close.
Ok, I lied, I will post again. This is so f'n stupid. They "shut us down" to the point where we drove to the Wis. 32 before throwing an interception which was quite fluky, if I recall, then drove 83 yards for a touchdown, and then had a turnover on downs with our backup qb. That's not getting shut down, that's a pretty standard offensive performance. Not amazing, but still just fine.
We got "shut down", because after we pulled within 10, Wisconsin's drives were 69 yards for a TD, 55 yards for a TD, 40 yards for a TD, and 40 yards for a TD, all without throwing a single pass. That was the problem, and pretending that the Wisconsin debacle had anything to do with the offense is idiotic.
It doesn't really matter what the stats or what offense we ran, the fact is we got our asses handed to us. They took us out of our game and curb stomped us for 3 quarters and it hurt. New year, new coach, new DC, new OC. Things are going to change some for the good and some for the bad, all we can do is watch and hope for the best. Go Blue
i agree with you that the stat that mattered saw us getting destroyed 48-28.
all this debate is absolutely pointless because we now have a new coach who will be running a new system. if RR were still here, it might be worthwhile (ok, at least interesting) to continue this debate as it might shed light on the upcoming season. but there is nothing for us to learn from this exercise in futility.
..it's the off-season and commit-a-palooza has slowed down.
No. It starts up again this afternoon.
..or should I say from your fingertips to Hoke's ears.
nobody is convincing anyone else to hop to the other side of the fence at this point. everyone is just trying to bolster their position and no one is actually considering the opposing point of view. and it's been done so so so many times. beating a dead horse doesn't even begin to describe this situation.
if people want to continue to see who can yell the loudest, go for it, but i'm still down-voting.
I don't agree with Brian on this issue. I was at the game, and it was clear to me that Wisky was content to exchange touchdowns in the second half. There was no particular urgency for their defense with a 28-0 lead at the half, since they knew our defense was as helpless as a blind kitten on a busy freeway.
By the time I'd left the stadium that day, I'd come to the conclusion that unless we pulled out a miraculous win against OSU and won a bowl game, RR was finished. That was the most thorough beatdown I'd ever witnessed us suffer in Michigan Stadium.
How quickly we forget our beatdowns. Yes, the Wisonsin game was a beatdown but there are a number of beatdowns experienced over the past 25 years that we could include here:
Syracuse in 1998, Oregon in 2007, Notre Dame 1987, Florida State 1991, Iowa 2002,
I was at all those games, and your Wisky game here fits in with them.....
Thank god I wasn't at the stadium for those debacles, watching them on the tube was bad enough. I had season tickets (special alumni package that apparently was a one-year occurrence) last year for the first time since I was in school, and just my luck I got to see the unhappy end of the RR era. The MSU and Iowa games weren't that much more enjoyable than the Wisky game.
That Oregon beatdown still haunts my dreams.
They could have laid 80 on us if pressed.
I was at the FSU game too and that was 31-24 at the half and some late TOs returned for TDs made it look like a blowout. Iowa was 10-9 at the half, the Wiscy game was 24-0.
It just was not consistent enough and not very "timely" in its spurts of dominance.
Take the OSU game, where we ended up scoring 14 pts total. Now after stopping OSU on their first 2 offensive possessions if we'd scored those 14 pts it would have completely changed the complexion of the game in our favor. As in life, timing is everything.
I'm going to make a short list of adjectives that I believe 90% of the people here would agree with concerning Michigans 2010 offense.
Explosive, Exciting, Dynamic, Entertaining, Fast, Innovative, Inconsistent, Untimely, Predictable, One Dimensional.
My point is, something(our offense)can indeed be both good and bad. It is not an absolute one or the other. Our defense & special teams on the other hand, were just plain bad.
The "junk time" arguement is a non starter because it simply cannot be accurately quantified. Its and instinctual thing that we all know exsists to some degree(see how many no hitters are pitched in games that end up 11-0) but thats about all you can say. Teams do alter their game plan based on the scoreboard and players alter their efforts just the same. Anyone who's ever played organized sports just knows this to be true. When my HS team was up by enough to initiate the running clock, we were not at the same intensity level as we came out of the locker room with. Oddly enough, when they would score we'd instantly respond by taking it up a notch to keep the mercy clock going.
Our high-octane offense only scored 7 points against OSU.
was an improvement of than 100% over the 3 points we scored against them in the last pre-RichRod OSU game in 2007. And that was a team loaded with more NFL offensive talent than we' had since 2001.
You're right, RR was a better coach at Michigan than Carr
/s
Is that what you're trying to argue? Or just that the offense was better against OSU? Either way I don't like it. I was at that game and it was the most miserable weather I can remember ever being at a game for. On top of that Henne was in and out of the game with a shoulder injury and Hart was on the sidelines for most of the game. That OSU team was also probably better than last year's OSU team if my memory serves correctly.
That OSU team had the same record as this OSU team, and (based on current information) fewer ineligible (professional) players playing for it. That OSU team backed its way into a national championship beatdown because there was no other team that screamed they deserved the #1 ranking, while this OSU team beat Arkansas. If I had to guess, I'd say this OSU team is better than that.
Except the Game in 2007 was a tough-fought game. In 2010 we were outclassed on all levels.
is not the be-all, end-all statistic on how to judge an offense. The offense moved the ball quite well against Ohio State, but could not finish drives due to poor field position, turnovers, and a bad place kicker.
I think this debate is hilariously stupid in the fact that it stems from the question "Should we run the same spread as last year in this coming season, or an offense that only the coaches know what will be"?
Yay, lets make more predictions about the current coaching staff that turn out to be wrong.