S&P+ Five Factors Matchup: UM vs. Rutgers

Submitted by Ecky Pting on

Here's the next installation of Bill Connelly's Five Factors metrics matchup between UM & Rutgers. It's a bit busy, but what you see are columns of raw metrics for both offenses and defenses. The Category of the given metric is given in the column at the left. To the right of the team offense and defense metrics are the National Averages for that category.  The last two columns are where the rubber meets the road...

The "M Offense vs. RU Defense" column averages those two metrics to gauge the performance of the UM offense against the Rutgersdefense. Likewise, the "RU Offense vs. M Defense" averages the other two to gauge the performance of the RutgersOffense. From there, the column with the greater aggregate number has the competitive advantage...EXCEPT, in the three categories with asterisks: "Stuff Rate", "SD Sack Rate" and "PD Sack Rate", which are contra-metrics that gauge the offense's ability to avoid the given categorical description.

Anyway, the numbers showing the advantage are in bold, and as such it appears the matchups tilt in M's favor in all of the Five Factors, including Turnovers. Breaking it down further, UM has the advantage in all but three sub-categories, as follows:

  1. Rushing IsoPPP (rushing explosiveness, measured as pts. scored per successful rushing plays). The RU advantage here is very narrow. Also, since this metric considers successful plays only, it can be a bit deceiving. The net Rushing Success Rate for the RU offense is about 30% lower than UM. 
  2. SD IsoPPP (pts. per successful standard down), and the same as against Colorado, PSU & Wisconsin... Again, keep in mind that IsoPPP consider successful plays only, of which there are not a great number against the stout UM defense. When opponents have success, it comes in chunks or not at all. Just like when I win lotto ... I usually win big, not some piddling $20 scratch game! ;^]
  3. PD Line Yards per Carry (bonus yards gained by running on passing downs...a.k.a. breaking contain!). As with the Buffs, PSU & Wisconsin, gap integrity is going to be an important discipline for Wolverines success against the Scarlet Knights. This would appear to be the only category in which the RU offense is rated in the top 25, at #21. No match for the UM DL. On the other side, the UM offense is not blessed with QB mobility, so there you go.
FIVE FACTORS
(less T/O Luck)		 M Off. M Def. RU Off. RU Def. Nat'l
Avg.		 M Off v
RU Def		 RU Off v
M  Def
1) EXPLOSIVENESS:
IsoPPP 		 1.29 1.35 1.20 1.35 1.28 1.32 1.28
2) EFFICIENCY:
Success Rate 		 43.9% 21.0% 36.8% 42.7% 40.9% 43.3% 28.9%
3) FIELD POSITION:
Avg. FP 		 37.0 26.2 27.9 31.6 29.60 34.30 27.05
4) FINISHING DRIVES
Pts./Trip in 40 		 5.69 2.95 4.04 5.06 4.72 5.38 3.50
5) T/O MARGIN:
T/O Luck (PPG)		 3.3 -1.67   4.97 -4.97
RUSHING              
Rushing S&P+ 110.6 191.6 99.9 109.9 100.0 0.7 -91.7
Rushing Success Rate  44.0% 18.7% 42.4% 43.4% 41.7% 43.7% 30.6%
Rushing IsoPPP  1.05 1.22 1.11 1.20 1.09 1.13 1.17
Adj. Line Yards 101.9 165.5 107.9 110.1 100.0 -8.2 -57.6
Opportunity Rate  40.1% 30.1% 40.1% 42.1% 39.6% 41.1% 35.1%
Power Success Rate  88.9% 64.3% 54.2% 80.0% 68.2% 84.5% 59.3%
Stuff Rate* 15.1% 27.6% 19.2% 18.0% 18.4% 16.6% 23.4%
PASSING              
Passing S&P+ 132.8 224.9 84.2 95.2 100.0 37.6 -140.7
Passing Success Rate  43.8% 22.8% 29.6% 41.8% 40.9% 42.8% 26.2%
Passing IsoPPP  1.53 1.44 1.37 1.54 1.50 1.54 1.41
Adj. Sack Rate  129.3 230.7 112.1 89.3 100.0 40.0 -118.6
STANDARD DOWNS              
SD S&P+ 113.1 168.9 88.4 97.4 100.0 15.7 -80.5
SD Success Rate  48.8% 25.5% 39.3% 51.1% 46.5% 50.0% 32.4%
SD IsoPPP  1.11 1.33 1.14 1.16 1.14 1.14 1.24
SD Line Yds/Carry  3.25 1.74 2.7 3.41 2.99 3.33 2.22
SD Sack Rate* 4.0% 12.5% 4.6% 7.7% 5.0% 5.9% 8.6%
PASSING DOWNS              
PD S&P+ 135.5 279.5 111.7 108.0 100.0 27.5 -167.8
PD Success Rate  32.4% 15.1% 31.3% 26.1% 30.3% 29.3% 23.2%
PD IsoPPP  1.9 1.41 1.38 2.08 1.74 1.99 1.40
PD Line Yds/Carry  2.42 1.78 4.01 3.15 3.40 2.79 2.90
PD Sack Rate* 8.7% 15.4% 12.0% 7.0% 8.0% 7.9% 13.7%

The IsoPPP advantage of Rutgers in both the standard downs and rushing plays will mean the UM must be on the lookout defensively in order to contain explosive plays, particularly on Standard Downs, which is an arguable weakness of the UM Defense under Don Brown's aggressive schemes. It doesn't happen often - it just seems that UM's secondary needs to on its toes in blitz situations.

In general, however, I would say this matchup looks as one might expect rolling into Piscataway. Personally, I would love to see a complete annihilation of the Scarlet Knights, not just for making comparisons to tOSU of last week, but more to avenge the loss there two years ago - a game which I had the displeasure of attending. It will be a night game once again, and this time around the stadium will be swathed in black and scarlet section stripes.

Nice - it will make the loads of Maize in the stadium stand out even brighter!

 

 

MGoBoard
Football
S%26P+; Bill Connelly; Football Outsiders; Advanced Stats; Matchup; Rutgers

DrMantisToboggan

October 4th, 2016 at 6:53 PM ^

While I do love advanced metrics, here are my five factors:

1. Rutgers is trash

2. Rutgers is trash with a first year head coach

3. Rutgers is garbaaaaage

4. Rutgers has punted more than any power five program (translation: offense is trash)

5. Rutgers' passing success rate is 125th in the country, a ranking that won't be aided by the trash weather that this game will be played in. 

 

Really you only need to know one factor: Rutgers is one of the absolute worst teams in the country (worse than Hawaii), and missing their best player. Win the game, don't reveal anymore of the playbook, and come home 100% healthy (maybe with another NJ recruit in tow). 

Joined: 11/26/2014

MGoPoints: 74183

Baugh so hard

October 4th, 2016 at 7:01 PM ^

Is averaging these numbers the most sensible approach? Let's take efficiency example and assume that the 43-44% that UM's offense and RU's defense are both putting up are in a very good range for an offense and very bad range for a defense. It looks like 40% is average. Does it make sense that when this very good offense and very bad defense meet that they will result in this same efficicency number? It seems like it could make more sense to assume that number would be twice as far from the national mean as 43% is, so more like 47%

Joined: 02/03/2015

MGoPoints: 1414

Ecky Pting

October 4th, 2016 at 8:40 PM ^

Most of the defensive metrics are based on results of prior opposing offenses, such that a lower number is indicative of a better defense; the higher that metric, the better the offense. The same holds for the contra-metrics I mentioned in the intro in which that principle is inverted. Taking the average of the values determines the median level of performance one might expect in the matchup. The exceptions are the new aggregate S&P metrics in which the defensive scale does not have a reciprocal relationship with the offense (i.e. both are the higher, the better). In those cases the differences between the offensive and defensive values are noted, where negative values indicate a defense rated higher than the opposing offensive. The competitive advantage goes to the team with the greater result (less negative) when on offense.

Joined: 09/06/2013

MGoPoints: 4655

SpinachAssassin

October 4th, 2016 at 7:01 PM ^

1. Michigan: Make the flight
2. Michigan: Wake up on time for gameday
3. Michigan: Arrive at the stadium
4. Michigan: Kickoff
5. Rutgers: Hide your wives, hide your daughters

Joined: 05/23/2013

MGoPoints: 4869

Wolfman

October 4th, 2016 at 7:38 PM ^

i.e., Rutgers. I'm interested in what the board thinks as to our succefful outings in Rutgers. Not trying to put the cart in front of the horse because I realize, no matter the opponent, it's paramount to maintain focus on the upcoming game. My question, considering Durkin's decent recruiting to date is:

Who poses the biggest recruiting threat for us, given the proximity of the universities as opposed to AA. Is it Rutgers, MD  or even PSU? Recent success - significantly Partgride, Peppers, Gary - appears to give us a big advantage, but will MD's proximity - roughly the same between Muskegon and AA - play a significant role in the decision making process for the Garden State young men? I believe between the three, MD would pose the greatest threat. They appear to be an up and comer, considering early season success and grabbing some decent recruits. Your thoughts?

 

Joined: 07/23/2008

MGoPoints: 8259

LickReach

October 4th, 2016 at 8:49 PM ^

in my limited crootin knowledge the advantage appears to be which school will prepare a player for the next level.  UM has such an advantage on MD, R, and PSU because 1) Harbaugh and staff; 2) Atmosphere of Big House (could never replicate being on those sidelines anywhere); 3) exposure to press and nation (kind of tied to Harbaugh but also ESPN has a new UM article every day).  Proximity to home will play in many elite players decisions but to me if the player is mentally ready for the next level then a program like UM should be on his list.  UM also appears to have near infinite resources to provide the above three factors at any time (ie. Harbaugh in your top bunk, VR helmet where you touch the banner, or running a camp near where you live as opposed to meeting you in the bus terminal.  

If I answer your question on recruiting threat among those schools today I would probably  answer PSU.  The campus, tradition and the stadium would all leave favorable impressions as would James Franklin (who apparently has job security).  Durkin is likely on the rise, however UM has two players from MD (Poggie and Spanellis) and great MD players must be on our radar (ahem Dhani Jones).  Not worried.  These are my thoughts.

Joined: 09/26/2015

MGoPoints: 3878

Wolfman

October 4th, 2016 at 7:45 PM ^

is that he can internalize something to drive himself, thereby his team for each game. Hell, last season he pulled out the anger card from thirty years ago vs. BYU and the team showed they were ready from Jehu's opening return right on through to completion of the domination. 

Joined: 07/23/2008

MGoPoints: 8259

LSAClassOf2000

October 4th, 2016 at 7:56 PM ^

Here's the breakdown from TeamRankings:

Offense Michigan Rutgers
Yards/Play 5.8 4
Points/Play 0.583 0.196
Rush Play % 56.17% 58.76%
Pass Play % 43.83% 41.24%
Completion % 63.92% 47.27%
3D Conv % 47.22% 31.34%
RZ Scoring % 85.19% 66.67%
Defense Michigan Rutgers
Opp Yards/Play 3.8 6.3
Opp Points/Play 0.193 0.5
Opp Completion % 46.56% 62.50%
Opp 3D Conv % 15.38% 35.85%
Opp RZ Scoring % 66.67% 62.50%

Pain might be an accurate prediction.

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130610