"Numbers lie, but"

Submitted by tmiller on

Since there isn't a lot of breaking news this week and since it is behind a paywall, I thought I would summarize some information for discussion that John Borton has on Rivals. It is in regards to stats so far in the season:

1) UM leads the Big 10 in scoring offense at 38.0 ppg, up from 20.2 ppg in 2008.

2) UM 5th in Big 10 in defense at 19.3 ppg, down from 28.9 ppg in 2008.

3) UM is last in Big 10 in passing offense at 168.3. He noted that MSU is 1st, but has a 1-2 record.

3) UM is 3rd in Big 10 in turnover margin and one of only 2 teams to not lose a fumble yet.

4) UM is 1st in the Big 10 (3rd nationally) in rushing offense at 270.7 ypg.

5) UM is 7th in the Big 10 in rushing defense at 123.7 ypg.

6) UM is 2nd in the Big 10 in total offense at 439 ypg behind Purdue at 440.3, and 9th in total defense at 358.7 ypg.

7) UM is last in the Big 10 in sacks with 3.

He mentions that the ND game is the true indicator of how we will have to win games in the future (shootouts). Especially against our better competetion.

Thoughts?

**edit**
What are the rules for information behind paywalls? Am I unethical in summarizing this information to my Mgoblogger counterparts who do not pay for the information?

formerlyanonymous

September 25th, 2009 at 7:48 PM ^

Rule-ish (not set in stone, but good one to go by): Don't copy and paste. Summarizing the basic premise is alright.

As far as I'm concerned, stats are open knowledge, so those are fair game.

jrt336

September 25th, 2009 at 7:49 PM ^

I think it's fine. These aren't numbers that people shouldn't know about without paying. #7 is depressing. Our secondary will get beat if we only get a sack per game. B10 OL are better than WMU and EMU, so it might not get better if Gerg doesn't have something up his sleeve.

shorts

September 25th, 2009 at 7:53 PM ^

All this information is readily available at any site with NCAA statistics, so there's nothing wrong with posting it here. The issue is when you post, for lack of a better word, "exclusive" information -- basically, something no one else has because the content comes from an exclusive interview, or when you post large amounts of text verbatim from an article or column.

shorts

September 25th, 2009 at 7:57 PM ^

I would say these numbers don't really lie. I'm sure our offensive numbers will go down a bit, but I think anyone who's watched this team can tell you that against most good teams, we'll have trouble stopping them -- especially the running game -- and will need to put up 30+ points to have a good shot at winning. Our offense is better than our defense right now and has been very good in all three games, and the numbers bear that out.

tmiller

September 25th, 2009 at 8:00 PM ^

was just a reference to the article. It was titled "Number lie, but." I probably should have titled it a little better. I do agree that they don't lie. I would say that this early in the season they fib a little though.

BiSB

September 25th, 2009 at 8:01 PM ^

Lies, damn lies, statistics, and anything Bill Belichick says.

With that said, it's really hard to judge stats based on the non-conference slate because some teams have played real competition, and some (Cough cough JoePa cough cough) have played three games against Our Sisters of the Perpetual Incompletions, Northwest Central State Community College, and Syracuse.

Intra-conference rankings are much more useful once conference play starts and teams start developing common opponents.

Beavis

September 25th, 2009 at 8:21 PM ^

Are these numbers comparative to last year?

By that I mean are we comparing the full season in 2008 versus the first three games of 2009? If so that is retarded on so many levels.

tomhagan

September 25th, 2009 at 8:31 PM ^

#7 is a bit misleading. The defense has had a lot of pressures and near-sacks in all games.

ND blatently held on at least half of their passing plays... and they were called for 4 holds, could have been way more. IMO, the pass rush sack number will be pretty decent by the end of the year.

Lordfoul

September 25th, 2009 at 9:06 PM ^

1 and 2: I assume these comparisons use the entire 2008 results compared to just 3 games this year. Probably apples and oranges but still encouraging.

3 and 4: A nice set of statistics that beg the old question about passing vs running = winning.

5: 124 ypg allowed on the ground doesn't sound so bad. We haven't faced any great running attacks yet though. 7th in the league needs to improve, but to be realistic, probably won't much.

6: It is amazing how much better our running game is. Good enough to carry the last place passing attack to the top of the B10 in total offense.

7: BG could change this at any time with a monster game.

As far as winning shootouts, we seem well equipped to do so this season. Bring it on, it should be exciting to watch!