S&P+ Five Factors Matchup: UM vs. Wisconsin
Here's the next installation of Bill Connelly's Five Factors metrics matchup between UM & Wisconsin. 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. UW Defense" column averages those two metrics to gauge the performance of the UM offense against the Wisconsin defense. Likewise, the "UW Offense vs. M Defense" averages the other two to gauge the performance of the Wisconsin Offense. 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 four of the non-turnover Five Factors. Breaking it down further, UM has the advantage in all but four sub-categories, as follows:
- Rushing IsoPPP (rushing explosiveness, measured as pts. scored per successful rushing plays)
- Power Success Rate (percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown)
- SD IsoPPP (pts. per successful standard down), and the same as against Colorado & PSU...
- PD Line Yards per Carry (bonus yards gained by running on passing downs...a.k.a. breaking contain!). As with the Buffs & PSU, gap integrity is going to be an important discipline for Wolverines success against the Badgers.
The IsoPPP advantage of Wisconsin in both the standard downs and rushing plays will mean the UM must continue to make improvements defensively in order to contain explosive plays, particularly on Standard Downs, which is a weakness of the UM Defense. It's apparent that the most likely means to Wisconsin success against the Wolverines will be through the explosive plays.
In general, however, I would say this matchup looks more promising than I'd expected just based on the what little I've seen of Wisconsin's play and other standard statistics.
FIVE FACTORS | M Off. | M Def. | UW Off. | UW Def. |
Nat'l Avg. |
M Off v UW Def |
UW Off v M Def |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1) EXPLOSIVENESS: IsoPPP |
1.41 | 1.41 | 1.13 | 1.29 | 1.26 | 1.35 | 1.27 |
2) EFFICIENCY: Success Rate |
44.7% | 21.1% | 43.9% | 30.6% | 40.2% | 37.7% | 32.5% |
3) FIELD POSITION: Avg. FP |
37.8 | 26.2 | 33 | 23.2 | 30.1 | 30.50 | 29.60 |
4) FINISHING DRIVES: Pts./Trip in 40 |
6.3 | 3.06 | 4.39 | 3.13 | 4.65 | 4.72 | 3.73 |
5) T/O MARGIN: T/O Luck (PPG) |
2.81 | -1.06 | |||||
RUSHING | |||||||
Rushing Success Rate | 44.7% | 18.4% | 40.8% | 30.3% | 41.0% | 37.5% | 29.6% |
Rushing IsoPPP | 1.14 | 1.18 | 0.93 | 0.9 | 1.08 | 1.02 | 1.06 |
Opportunity Rate | 42.0% | 31.2% | 36.2% | 31.5% | 39.7% | 36.8% | 33.7% |
Power Success Rate | 87.5% | 61.5% | 61.9% | 33.3% | 69.0% | 60.4% | 61.7% |
Stuff Rate | 13.3% | 29.2% | 15.5% | 23.3% | 18.6% | 18.3% | 22.4% |
PASSING | |||||||
Passing Success Rate | 44.7% | 23.1% | 48.2% | 30.9% | 40.2% | 37.8% | 35.7% |
Passing IsoPPP | 1.68 | 1.54 | 1.36 | 1.6 | 1.48 | 1.64 | 1.45 |
STANDARD DOWNS | |||||||
SD Success Rate | 47.5% | 25.4% | 45.8% | 34.6% | 45.8% | 41.1% | 35.6% |
SD IsoPPP | 1.22 | 1.4 | 1.08 | 1.08 | 1.11 | 1.15 | 1.24 |
SD Line Yds/Carry | 3.25 | 1.43 | 3.16 | 2.58 | 2.96 | 2.92 | 2.30 |
SD Sack Rate | 3.6% | 16.7% | 3.4% | 2.3% | 4.7% | 3.0% | 10.1% |
PASSING DOWNS | |||||||
PD Success Rate | 37.5% | 14.9% | 39.2% | 23.8% | 30.3% | 30.7% | 27.1% |
PD IsoPPP | 2.01 | 1.44 | 1.3 | 1.81 | 1.74 | 1.91 | 1.37 |
PD Line Yds/Carry | 2.76 | 2.49 | 2.02 | 1.18 | 3.4 | 1.97 | 2.26 |
PD Sack Rate | 3.3% | 17.1% | 7.6% | 9.8% | 8.0% | 6.6% | 12.4% |
September 29th, 2016 at 2:52 PM ^
Our passing down success rate is near-legendary. Just in awe at our defensive efficiency. Defensive explosiveness not as great, however.
September 29th, 2016 at 2:55 PM ^
m = (y2-y)/(x2-x1)
There, now football isn't fun anymore. And there will be a test later...
September 29th, 2016 at 3:12 PM ^
1/2?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 29th, 2016 at 10:40 PM ^
If you want to call it that. I say 500 Thousandths.
September 29th, 2016 at 3:51 PM ^
I was good at algebra in school, but don't miss it one bit. I don't even know if that equation can be solved.
September 29th, 2016 at 4:04 PM ^
Well, if it can't be solved, then there are a shitload of people that need to send "oops, sorry" emails about the linear regression results they presented as valid... ;-)
September 29th, 2016 at 4:25 PM ^
m = we hit harder than you did?
September 29th, 2016 at 4:28 PM ^
The answer is.......4?
September 29th, 2016 at 4:47 PM ^
What is "a line"?
September 29th, 2016 at 6:38 PM ^
That's a slippery slope!
September 29th, 2016 at 2:56 PM ^
Why did we lose points for that?
September 29th, 2016 at 4:21 PM ^
Well, I've always liked their mascot and his slogan, " F*ck 'Em, Bucky!"
September 29th, 2016 at 6:14 PM ^
Especially when Bucky is flipping the bird!
September 29th, 2016 at 3:00 PM ^
I disagree with some of your analysis. For example, Rushing IsoPPP: just because the UW offense vs. UM defense has a slightly higher number than the UM offense vs. the UW defense does not mean that you should expect UW to have explosive rushing plays against UM. That same logic would be like saying UW got a 54 yard punt return while Jabrill only got 52 yards on a punt return, so UW won't have to worry about punt coverage.
September 29th, 2016 at 3:02 PM ^
This is the first game where they absolutely need Speight to play well. If late season Rudock had been there from the beginning last year, it would've been a 12-1 season.
September 29th, 2016 at 3:24 PM ^
maybe not. I think that our D is good for a TD, and that builds a little room for error. Also think there's a good chance we womble on 'em.
September 29th, 2016 at 4:47 PM ^
you mean no turnovers, I agree. Otherwise, I'd say what they absolutely need on offense is the OL to be effective. Everything starts there including not putting their young QB in do or die spots.
September 29th, 2016 at 3:05 PM ^
Did we win?
September 29th, 2016 at 3:24 PM ^
The spread on this game is begging people to bet Wisconsin. Which is the most conclusive evidence we have an advantage.
September 29th, 2016 at 3:31 PM ^
I worked my own formula and it says we win by 20
September 29th, 2016 at 4:33 PM ^
Hmm? 5 you say!
September 29th, 2016 at 4:43 PM ^
there should be some sort of adjustment for strength of opponent to really get at these. lsu + msu are probably harder to run on than our opponents. either way wisc has an impressive def power rate - we should not try to run on 3rd and 1!
September 30th, 2016 at 12:49 PM ^
They have not faced a Khalid Hill on 3rd and 1.
September 29th, 2016 at 5:30 PM ^
UM-O vs UW-D:
Run points = 16.3
Pass points = 19.5
Total Std points = 35.8
UW-O vs UM-D:
Run points = 14.7
Pass points = 14.8
Total Std points = 29.5
That is just a 6-7 point spread ... Vegas must be adding in a high percentage chance Peppers scores or puts it directly into scoring position off a punt / kickoff in order to get to the 10.5 spread.
September 29th, 2016 at 6:06 PM ^
Special teams also, but the opening line was 9. Bettors are moving in it higher.
September 29th, 2016 at 6:49 PM ^
Do these data feed into some kind of objective function to determine if we'll win?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 29th, 2016 at 8:31 PM ^
Predicts Michigan 34, Wisconsin 3. Whatever equations they used, I'm a fan of it
September 30th, 2016 at 8:53 AM ^
UW-D takes a big drop in explosiveness without Vince Biegel. Pass and Run success rate for UM-O is going to be higher by 10-15%. I don't think the scoring will be super high because UW-O will be in slow motion (like normal). By the revised percentages but adjusted for lower snaps, I would peg it at:
UM 34 - UW 20