Offense Efficiency Analysis: UM vs MSU
I found it very interesting to look at offense efficiency by checking how often our offense put points on the board (I even count missed FG)
In the last 5 games, we scored
4TD + 2FG(1missed) out of 12 drives in UConn game,
4TD + 2FG(2missed) out of 16 drives in ND game,
6TD + 1FG(1missed) out of 11 drives in UMass game,
9TD + 0FG(0missed) out of 11 drives in Bowling Green game,
6TD + 0FG(0missed) out of 12 drives in Indiana game.
Average offense efficiency is
29TD+ 5FG(4missed) out of 62 drives in last five games ==
48.4% score, 46.8% TD
Michigan State
5TD + 1FG(0missed) out of 14 drives in Western Michigan game.
3TD + 3FG(0missed) out of 11 drives in FAU game.
4TD + 0FG(0missed) out of 13 drives in ND game.
6TD + 1FG(0missed) out of 12 drives in NCU game.
3TD + 2FG(0missed) out of 11 drives in Wisconsin game.
Average offense efficiency is
21TD + 7FG(0missed) out of 61 drives in the last 5 games ===
45.9% score, 34.4% TD
Conclusion,
Unless MSU has their best offense day (like the one over NCU) + we have our worst offense day (like the one over ND), I like our odds to win the game
October 4th, 2010 at 11:47 PM ^
what are your conclusions here? Or you just felt like posting some stats?
October 4th, 2010 at 11:48 PM ^
October 4th, 2010 at 11:50 PM ^
I'm confused by the FG misses inclusion. Does "scoring" mean something different in Sweden?
October 4th, 2010 at 11:53 PM ^
sorry, I corrected it
October 4th, 2010 at 11:55 PM ^
Good deal. And good stats.
October 5th, 2010 at 2:06 AM ^
"scoring" totally means something different in sweden. if you know what i mean...*wink* *wink*
seriously though it means pretty much the same thing only without the sexual context.
October 4th, 2010 at 11:59 PM ^
...is pretty clear. Our offense is better than their offense. We score more touchdowns. We are not good at kicking field goals, but we are lucky, because Denard Robinson devours third down yardage like fat kids in red-white checked overalls eat burgers. That is to say...he eats third down yardage ferociously and he cannot be stopped.
October 5th, 2010 at 12:11 AM ^
god it's gonna be close isn't it
October 5th, 2010 at 12:23 AM ^
I contend that we want to encourage an up tempo game. We want to have as many possessions as possible during this game. We are averaging 12.4 drives per game at a 46% TD clip. That comes to 5 - 6 TDs. Lets say 38-40 points.
MSU averages 12.2 drives per game and converts only slightly higher than a third (34.4%). That would only be 3 TDs or only 21 points. Toss in 2-3 FG and they wind up with 27-30 points
That would make the final score 38-27 range upto a 40-30 the good guys.
Ultimately I feel this game will be decided by turnover margin. Hold onto the ball and reduce Sparty's number of possessions = win for us.
October 5th, 2010 at 12:28 AM ^
Well the old football theory is that the more time the physical teams is wearing down on you, the more succesful they become, in theory raising their scoring percentage. If we can give the defense a rest I'm all for it, because we don't have the depth to be rotating players.
October 5th, 2010 at 2:21 AM ^
MSU averages 12.2 drives per game and converts only slightly higher than a third (34.4%).
Against FBS opponents, MSU has had 49 drives (12.25 drives per game, as you say) but has scored on 22, a 44.9% success rate, averaging 2.65 PPD. Or are you counting touchdowns only?
At 12.2 possessions/game, that does only add up to 32.33 points, so Michigan would still win, 38-32.
October 6th, 2010 at 11:42 AM ^
....this game (like all of our games) will be about giving our offense as many opportunities to score as possible..............if we come out ahead on turnovers for the day, we probably win.
October 5th, 2010 at 12:59 AM ^
But your analysis leaves out an important consideration: relative defensive strength.
I am sceptical that Michigan's and MSU's defenses could be considered equivalent, so that the difference would come down only to offensive ability.
October 5th, 2010 at 1:18 AM ^
Michigan: 31.7% opponent success rate, 2.0 PPD
MSU: 24.2% opponent success rate, 1.5 PPD