Pure Statistical Regression (I'm looking at you, Al Borges)
I've accepted the near fact that Borges will be back next year, but after the 2013 sports year (Detroit & UM fan) this research was strangely cathartic. It's like I need to quantify just how terrible the decisions being made actually are.
I am also of the mindset that changing the entire regime would be a bad move at this point. (Which was also my position following the 2010 Gator Bowl ... arguing at the time a coaching change wouldn't guarantee anything, and if made a regression over the next few seasons was likely. I wrote the italicized text below before Hoke was hired):
"2011: Sets up great for UM, say they go 10-2 ...
2012: Nightmare schedule. 8-4 is possible, with another loss to OSU
2013: Say there's under-achievement ... is 8-4 gonna [cut it]?
So in 3 years at Michigan, the new coach has "regressed". Of course no UM fan thinks this is possible ... But it's 100% possible, and even probable. In the scenario above, UM has won 0 Big Ten titles, 0 BCS games, and is 1-2 against OSU?"
Here are the statistics against retaining Borges. I'm sure I'll get the usual "oh, you're cherry-picking statistics for your own agenda" responses, but ... um ... there's a plethora of ripe cherries to pick here, and it's a slow Monday.
Median/Avg Yards Per Season:
2011 (Jr Denard): 418 / 404.7
2012 (Sr Denard): 389 / 383.1
2013 (Jr Gardner): 365 / 373.1
-
12 games less than 300 yards offense (2-10 record)
- 3 in 2011, 4 in 2012, 5 in 2013 (4 of last 6 games)
-
9 OT periods played in those 39 games
- 116 total yards, 3 TDs, 30 pts
Avg Offense, home:
· 466.5 yards per game (21 games)
· 7 games over 500 yards, 2 games under 300
Avg Offense, road:
· 314.6 yards per game (14 games)
· ONCE over 400 yards (2011 NW)
Avg Offense, neutral:
· 267.3 (4 games [Bowls & ALA 2012]
· High is 355 yards (2012 SCAR / Outback Bowl)
December 30th, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^
2010 defense. But did it get better throughout the year? I think the answer is no. They started as an OK defense and ended up as an OK defense. Let's not forget that a terrible Miller could have won the OSU game and of course we could have easily lost the bowl game to VT, playing average defense.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:17 AM ^
how they played across the year, I'm fine that they finished the season the way the started it. I think they were better than an "OK defense." As far as The Game goes, if history tells us nothing else about UM/OSU, records and how they play earlier in the year needs to be ignored. The last three seasons, UM playing well...OSU not, UM barely wins in AA. 2012, undefeated OSU, underperforming Michigan, 5 pt game in C-bus. This year, very underperforming Michigan, undefeated OSU again, in AA...UM almost wins in a heartbreaker.
The bowl game, I'll give that to you though. I will say that the bowl season, as it relates to the B1G regular season, its difficult to maintain intensity. I've always felt that the B1G is somewhat cheated with such a break before the bowls. That disparity was lessened to a degree once we went to a conference championship game, which UM has not yet played in after three years.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:26 AM ^
Quantitatively, how do you measure improvement during the season? 2012 will look like we improved during the season because we started out with Alabama and Notre Dame, before playing a soft B1G. 2013 will look we got worse because we played a soft non-conference and back-loaded the B1G schedule. Home\Road splits play into that as well.
December 30th, 2013 at 12:15 PM ^
The bigger difference at Iowa and MSU is that they have had coaches in place for years and have implemented their systems. In Ferentz's third year they went 7-5, and they only got to 11 wins in the 4th year. That kicked off a great 3-year run that, frankly, he hasn't come close to replicating since. So maybe he just captured lightening in a bottle at that time, because for the past 4 years he's had a combined record of 27-23. That isn't even very good considering their schedule.
MSU has been better more recently, but in his 3rd year his team was 6-7 and had accumulated a combined record of 22-17. Again, it was his fourth year, when he was able to clean out the last of JLS's recruits and get the guys he wanted into his sytem, that he started to net the 11-win years we've seen. Will he continue that trend next year after he loses half his defense, or will he become a bit more like Iowa and settle into a good run but not nearly as dominant? Also, MSU's recruiting was helped by the issues RR had at UM. That hasn't been the case recently, so who knows. But what Hoke walked into after RR wasn't any better a situation than either of these guys save for slightly better recruits; it was still a fractured fanbase coming off disappointing years.
So this myth that teams like MSU and Iowa have become dominant performers because of some magical elixir that turns mediocre players into stars needs to die. They've had patches of success, and one has been okay at keeping it going through consistency and the other is entering into a period where that may or may not be the case.
December 30th, 2013 at 12:28 PM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 10:50 AM ^
As soon as he finds a trick play that works he keeps going at it until the defense is standing there before the offesne does. After the successful reverse and double reverse, we ran it again and again and it got stopped easily. It seems like we do not deviate from our plan even if the defense is lined up to stop it.
Just something I have noticed as a common theme among the games this year, maybe I am being too critical.
But for the record, Hoke does have 1 BCS game and win.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:09 AM ^
I get that people automatically assume a WR run is a trick play, but it's not. It's really just a method of attacking the edge with the run and helping your OL out. It also doesn't require a new blocking scheme like people keep saying, it's either a down G man blocking scheme or an outside zone blocking scheme, depending on the call. Both of those are blocking schemes Michigan runs (which you can argue if that's good or not), but running a sweep to the WR is in zero ways new for anyone other than a WR having to learn to catch the ball on the little push pass from the QB.
Michigan ran about 2 trick plays against KSU, the reverse off of the jet sweep and the 2 pt conversion. The end around off of inside zone, the jet sweep, the screens, those aren't trick plays. Those are standard plays in an offense. Lots of teams, including OSU, MSU, and Minnesota, get to the edge the majority of the time (or at least close) utilizing WRs in the run game.
December 30th, 2013 at 12:17 PM ^
I agree it isn't a trick play, but I think people are troubled by the fact that those types of plays seemingly are the only way the team can get a rushing attack going at times. Those other teams you mentioned were also able to move the ball in more classic means. Hell, UM used to be able to do so as well and that was why you could see these sweeps and end-arounds pop up from time to time.
December 30th, 2013 at 12:23 PM ^
Because when you have to rely on those things, you're offense is going to tend to stall, as it showed. Michigan needs to be better next year at establishing an inside run threat, because sweep plays, while a fundamental part of offenses, should not be leaned on as essentially a bread-and-butter play.
I agree with what you're saying, I just get tired of reading about people claiming this and that (different blocking scheme, trick plays, etc, etc) and constantly moving the goalposts to fit an agenda without actually understanding what's happening.
If people just said that Michigan needs to develop an interior run threat, then yeah, that's fine and reasonable to say.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:31 AM ^
I see it as the opposite, actually. Borges seems to run a play that is successful, then quickly come back and run the counter to the play, as if the defense isn't going to be expecting us to run anything but the same play.
I'm thinking of the reverse to Funchess. We ran that play and it picked up 14 yards. On the next drive, we run the same play again, only they don't toss it to Funchess, and KSU ate it up. The play actually looked like Funchess was set up for another big gain, but Borges tried to outsmart everyone without properly setting up the counter.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:41 AM ^
Lots of people were critical of Borges for not setting up the next step in the "iteration". Lot's of people were critical of Borges for waiting for the defense to adjust before he adjusted or attacked with the next thing. So, you two are seeing the opposite as reasons why the playcalling has failed and this offense hasn't worked.
The point I'm making is that it's a fine line (this goes with defensive playcalling as well) that these guys are walking and it's far from as black and white as people are making it. At the end of the day, the common complaint about the playcalling on both sides boils down to "it didn't work" or "it worked" and that's the extent of the knowledge or effort given to it. When the next iteration didn't work it was "obvious", when it did work it was "why didn't we run it earlier". When one thing worked it was "why not stick with it", when it didn't work it was "why is he so stubborn".
I think more people need to acknowledge that it isn't that simple. And it goes the same for Mattison calling defensive plays and the complaints specifically about a lack of blitzing.
December 30th, 2013 at 12:00 PM ^
the input from all parties. It all makes sense and I was venting my main frustration from him these past 2 years. The underlying issues it seem make it a hard choice on the future of the borges and funk tenure becasuse of all the underlying issuses, does it really mask the fact that we might have an explisve offense next year. I am really hoping so and the added experience and having the same o line from spring til fall will pay off.
But did we really have to run the shane morris option on 3rd down in the red zone?
December 30th, 2013 at 12:10 PM ^
Either way there was something messed up with it. I understand the thought behind doing it (defense thinking that Morris won't run option, interior pressure, etc), but KSU pretty much backed out and rushed 4, making that play pretty much impossible.
My feeling was that it was a call anticipating a KSU was going to run, but that's a fairly easy play to check to (more than most plays, including the extended handoff, it is pretty much a counting thing to check to it) so Morris may have had the ability, but I didn't see him check either. If Borges wanted something safe there, I would have preferred a flare screen or something to get a RB on the edge and hopefully back the DBs off a bit first, but yeah.
December 30th, 2013 at 1:53 PM ^
Thanks for being objective. Seriously.
December 30th, 2013 at 10:54 AM ^
At the beginning of the year the O line couldn't pass or run block. I actually think the pass protection has improved. The run blocking is a whole other story. We suck at running the football. Just suck. I think once that get's figured out then everything offensively will fall into place.
Defense on the other hand...........
I've been extrememly underwhelmed by our defensive performances the last few games. I believe our D line is very average and I'm bored of the 10-12 yard receiver cushion, borderline prevent, defense that is called/schemed. However, I like our secondary and LB corp moving forward.
Once the offensive and defensive lines start becoming strengths of the team, I think we'll start seeing more consistent, solid performances that should translate into more wins.
December 30th, 2013 at 10:55 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 11:14 AM ^
When will the Borges apologies end? How far does he have to tank the offense before you say "oh, maybe it was Borges."
I do not understand why people are going out of their way to excuse losing and terrible offense.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:26 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 11:30 AM ^
Remember when Molk got hurt midseason and the running game took a huge hit? Then when he came back, the running game instanly got better? One man had a huge impact on how the running game worked. This year they were trying to replace three guys on the inside (with freshman) and by god if it didn't work out too well. This is not the best example, I'm sure, because Molk was Molk, but it does show somewhat that the interior is crucial for run blocking.
Also, I don't think it's so much excusing Borges as much as getting tired of the Fire Borges meme. The defense didn't fair too well this year either, but Mattison is a boss and Borges is a boob....
December 30th, 2013 at 1:31 PM ^
So what you want me to believe is that after an entire year of football, it is completely okay that redshirt freshman, you know, second year players, could not show any progress at all in the run game by the end of the year. This with two NFL senior tackles on that same O-line.
Sorry buddy, not buying what you are selling.
December 30th, 2013 at 4:40 PM ^
and I don't expect you to. If it were the same line all year, yes I would expect more improvement. But how many different combinations did they have? 4? 5? I can't remember.
December 30th, 2013 at 6:57 PM ^
It was only a different combo all year becuase Borges could not coach the intial group well enough to succeed, nor the second, third....and the list goes on. Are you related to Borges? That would explain your undying love for his failure.
December 30th, 2013 at 9:30 PM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 11:12 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 11:13 AM ^
By my count Rodriguez would have been at 13 wins last year and on pace to win 15 games in 2014.
Hoke, meanwhile, will win -1 games in 2017.
December 30th, 2013 at 8:48 PM ^
But if Hoke had had the foresight to go 0-12 that first year, he too would be well on his way to an undefeated future season.
Seriously, there's something wrong with a metric that grades you better if you lose more games. No other input, just the single fact of more losses early makes you better.
I understand the argument that's being made, but if you want to make a convincing case for it you need a different methodology.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:19 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^
I believe this guy is the sole reason why mediocrity is the benchmark at Michigan.What exactly do you base this on? Brandon is a former player on some Big Ten championship teams. I can't imagine he's thrilled to go 7-6. He certainly wasn't three years ago. I don't know why fans seem to think Brandon doesn't care about winning or losing. Not only is he a former player, he walked away from a corporate CEO gig (probably taking a large pay cut) to take this job, and it doesn't really amount to a stepping stone for his political ambitions, if he still has them. For a guy in his position, there was no reason to take this job if he didn't really want to see Michigan succeed. Even if he somehow didn't care, he has 100,000 season-ticketholders to pacify, and they expect to see a winning team for their money.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:21 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 11:26 AM ^
I must have missed your /s tag there somewhere. We can debate the wisdom of deferring to the second half (with a Frosh QB starting his first game, it seemed the best choice to me), but do you really think the outcome of the game would have been different if Michigan started on offense instead of defense?
December 30th, 2013 at 11:26 AM ^
Or are you honestly saying the coaching sucked because Hoke deferred to the 2nd half?
December 30th, 2013 at 11:38 AM ^
TrumpTight's reaction when he heard we were DEFERING TO SECOND HALF!!!!
December 30th, 2013 at 11:40 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
wasn't created because UM deferred to the second half. It was created because the D couldn't stop Lockett. If UM gets the ball into the end zone, even thought they had it second to start the game, then we're looking at 21-14 no matter who has the ball first. Stop KSU just once, and its a tie game.
You're pinning too much on that one decision when there was many more factors that went into the 21-6 deficit.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:48 AM ^
You don't know you're going to be down 21-6. Typically, it's adventageous to defer to the 2nd half from a momentum standpoint. If you're losing you get the ball back to close the gap. If you're winning you get the ball with potentially pushing the game open. So all else being equal, deferring tends to be optimal.
Now, from Michigan's standpoint:
1. Michigan's defense tended to perform better overall than Michigan's offense throughout the season. I'm sure Hoke and Co didn't look at the defensive match-up and conclude they were screwed, they probably thought they had a pretty good game plan and a stop would give Morris good field position to start off.
2. Morris was probably really hyped up, deferring gives him an opportunity to settle down a bit. The game has started, you're watching it, your heart rate can at least drop a little bit.
3. In the 2nd half, your brand new QB is hopefully in a bit more of a groove, so now you can make adjustments and get the ball rolling more with a QB that is much more comfortable.
4. What if the offense gets the ball first, Morris is too hyped up, and goes three and out? You've given up bad field position to start, yada, yada, yada, a snowball problem potentially exists in that scenario as well. Perhaps a worse one.
I really have absolutely zero issue with Hoke deferring to the 2nd half, and it's in line with what he's always done (and most coaches do).
December 30th, 2013 at 11:27 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 11:31 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 11:37 AM ^
Maybe next year Hoke can put you on the sideline so you can inform him how the opening drive is going to turn out before the coin toss. That way, Hoke won't ruin the whole game by making the wrong call if he wins the toss.
Come on, I'm sure if Hoke knew his defense was going to disappear in the first half he might have taken the ball. But every coach defers when they win the toss. It is much better to have the first posession of the second half, especially when you are breaking in a freshman quarterback in a big game.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:52 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 11:55 AM ^
it was nice knowin ya.
"On top of that you see your D can't get a stop"
You can see that? You can see that before the coin flip? Really???
Come on dude, you're diggin your own grave here. Just stop.
December 30th, 2013 at 12:07 PM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 12:10 PM ^
you're right about the punt. But in my defense, its REALLY hard to follow your...*snicker...logic.
December 30th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 12:21 PM ^
It was 21-6, 4th and 3 with 1:01 left on the clock at the Michigan 46.
December 30th, 2013 at 12:18 PM ^
I think deferring was the correct call. However, punting down 21-6 with a 4th and 3 near mid field with a minute and change left in the first half was just deflating. Worst case is that they have a short field and our guys knowing that the coaching staff believe in them. Punting in that situation made nearly everyone in maize and blue go from, "this is bad, but we can overcome" to "we're screwed".
December 30th, 2013 at 11:31 AM ^
I do think we tend to blame the coaches a bit too much on this blog since ultimately execution matters a ton. But unlike the NFL, in college the players are young and the coaches have to put them in a position to succeed. We also need to stop giving the defensive coaches a pass. BUT......the fact is that we have very few playmakers on this team. On defense the only person close to being a playmaker is Jake Ryan, just a few months removing from a major injury. On offense we have Gallon, Funchess, and Gardner but too much dysfunction on the OL and scheme to utilize them effectively. We don't have a difference maker in the backfield and our scheme seems to make everything seem so hard. Nothing about this team makes sense any more - offense looks great against ND/OSU/IN and awful for long stretches. Defense looks solid for much of the year but collapses late several times and can't do anything against OSU/KSU/IN. I think you have to hold someone accountable on the coaching staff and can't just tell Brandon it was all "poor execution by the players", but it is probably lower-level assistants. I also think that Hoke only gets his fifth year if we see progress next season. We lose just two semi-productive players on D and have an easier schedule.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:34 AM ^
This years defense was more talented (as in they had more physical abilities, more playmakers, etc; and that trend should continue), but they weren't as good as far as consistency and technique.
In general, that's him admitting that youth is likely a problem and that they probably should have focused more on the fundamentals throughout the season (which is something they also admitted around the first bye week) rather than trying to scheme so heavily to opponents.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:34 AM ^
It's difficult to build a trend based on yearly averages like this because the numbers seem too high level, at least to me. Also, rosters change slightly every year, so it is difficult to say if this is indeed a trend forming or if this is a transition that is simply making people gnash their teeth a little more than normal. I think it is much more the latter myself, at least right now.
Someone alluded to this above, but consider also that it has only been three years, only one of them completely sans Denard Robinson. It was established in a review last year that Robinson accounted for almost half Michigan's total offensive yardage in his career here, and roughly 40% of it during the 2011 and 2012 campaigns individuals. We're still at a point where it is difficult to separate the numbers of Borges' offensive coaching from those of Robinson. This season is the first one when we can look at a Dilithium-free offense, so the numbers in that respect say only so much.
A few things I do find intriguing based on 36 regular season games so far (excluding bowls in favor of more typical opponents here):
- as expected, the passing game has become more productive under Gardner. 198 yards per game overall in 2012, a slight improvement from 187 yards per game in 2011. In the five games that Gardner started in 2012, we averaged 251 yards, and we averaged 248 yards per game in the air this year, so effectively the same. Average yards per attempt, which is actually a fairly good indicator of overall success, has only inched upward from 8.72 YPA in 2011 with Robinson to 8.85 YPA in this first full year of Devin Gardner. More yards on average, but similar verticality.
- with regards to rushing success, we averaged 44 carries per game at an average of 5.30 YPC in 2011, decreasing to 38 carries at 4.77 YPC in 2012, (things changed after Nebraska). Interestingly, we averaged 38 carries per game this year, but at a 3.16 YPC clip. I think that speaks to the issue of creating space for the RBs to do their work as well as play selection to some extent.
- take the rushing data above in the context of total plays now - 66 offensive plays per game in 2011, down to 62 plays per game in 2012 and now up to 68 plays in 2013. Part of the 2013 average is credited to OT games, of course, but we're getting slightly faster as an offense and, as a function of play selection, running less overall. Perhaps that is due to lack of success or it might be the shift to a more balanced game finally happening as well (the rushing game and its issues being underscored as a result).
This is by no means a defense of anyone, of course, but I think there are other things we should look at as well. I think Borges gets more time as well, and there is much to work on, but I think three years doesn't necessarily mean a trend is forming at this point.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:49 AM ^
Not defending Borges here, but it baffles me how people are still so quick to give Mattison a pass for everything and come up with whatever excuse they can for him.
He became a saint here in 2011 in his first game against WMU when we were reminded of what a defensive touchdown is, and since then people just refuse to blame him for anything.
Fact is, the defense has regressed as well (someone pointed out the points against per game has increased each year). So when is Mattison going to start getting heat thrown at him?
December 30th, 2013 at 2:10 PM ^