Why should 2010 not be another 2009?

Submitted by mistersuits on

The million dollar question that we all ask as Indiana and the B10 schedule arrives - when can we stop living under the shadow of the 2009 season and the imminent collapse of the football team?

I offer a few numbers and assumptions based on numbers to alleviate some concerns heading into the weekend.

My humble chart:

First 4 Games SoS PPG YPG Norm-PPG Norm-YPG
2010 77 41.3 562.8 36.3 494.5
2009 114 37.5 422.2 34.4 386.9

Metrics:

SoS is an average of our first four opponents Sagarin rating. PPG/YPG obvious. These two numbers are then "normalized" to uninflate numbers gained by beating up inferior opponents using our toughest opponent as the equalizer - in both cases this happens to be Notre Dame.

Logic:

While Points-per-game is the bottom line all-important stat, it is less precise due to it's high variance due to turnovers and special teams plays. Yards-per-game does not determine the win, but carries a much more definite undercurrent as to how well a team is "performing" during a game. Thus, both PPG and YPG are used here.

The larger the YPG, the less likely the PPG fluctuation variance is going to flip a win to a loss (and vice-versa).

Conclusion!

2010 schedule is (as of this point) considerably more difficult than 2009's slate. Also, Michigan is outperforming it's 2009 marks by very wide margins.

Even without the BGSU yardage, Michigan would still be averaging 510 YPG. There is a marked increase in offensive production this year. Our big plays last year were from high variance situations (Forcier scrambles, Stonum kick return). Our big plays this year are from highly reproducable base offense run plays (Denard ISO, Denard Read-option).

I plan on detailing the rest of the B10 further in a chart about how we can feel about our defense the rest of the way In 2010 - but - Michigan trails only that team down south in Normalized PPG and actually leads the B10 by a considerable margin in Normalized YPG.

Michigan football is about to light up the midwest. This team is no fluke and we are not headed for a 1-7 B10 season. You can take a bowl game to the bank right now. It's just up to the health of Denard and how many mistakes our opponent makes against our suspect D that will determine which one.

jsquigg

September 27th, 2010 at 8:16 PM ^

Now that I did read more into your post, I think it's premature to say 2010's schedule is considerably more difficult.  Purdue is worse (to date), Illinois is Illinois, Indiana is Indiana, Penn State looks worse, and the rest of the schedule is on par if not better (MSU) than last year.  To me it's at least comparable if not a tad easier than last season with our improved play to date.

Lucas

September 27th, 2010 at 8:28 PM ^

"2010 schedule is (as of this point) considerably more difficult than 2009's slate."

With respect to schedule, I believe the mod was only talking about the first four games of both years. 2010's first four were more difficult than 2009's first four and so this years offensive production should look that much better than last years.

Maize and Blue…

September 27th, 2010 at 8:23 PM ^

1) David Molk is not injured and Oline play has improved along with added depth

2) QB play and QB depth instead of Tate with a bum shoulder

3) Third year in system and third year w/ Barwis

4) Last year's toss up games were on the road this year most at home

5) Players experienced 2009 and will not let it happen again

Beavis

September 27th, 2010 at 8:37 PM ^

This is a great chart / idea and thank you for sharing.

The only caveat I have is - this is only half the story.  Just what do our defensive numbers look like?  If they aren't down from last year, then I'll start buying your story that this is a better team. 

Beavis

September 28th, 2010 at 6:23 PM ^

Thank you BigCat - I know I can trust you.

Just for observational sake - if the offense is 100 YPG better than last year, but the defense is 200 YPG worse than last year, then the team overall is worse - right?  I mean, of course there are 1,000,000 metrics you could use to argue this point, but in the biggest of the big pictures - that team would be worse. 

So to say "OUR OFFENSE IS WAY BETTER, WHO CARES ABOUT THE DEFENSE" is akin to saying "I don't care that she has HIV, she's hot, I'm going to bang the **** out of her!" (or something like that).

neoavatara

September 27th, 2010 at 8:37 PM ^

Look, Denard is clearly awesome.

But just look at 2009.  Don't you think we could have won one more game in the Big 10 simply if we had Molk instead of Moosman?  I mean, how many bad snaps did  he have?

That alone says we should win, say, at least 1 more game than last year. 

I am more optimistic than that...but I think that is the low bar.

Indiana Blue

September 27th, 2010 at 8:39 PM ^

We are a crisp, sharp offensive team this year.  Capable of 14 play 90 yards drives as well as 2 play 90 yard drives ... throwing or running - whatever is needed.  Much more fine tuned than 2009.

Defensively  -  while it is the weakest link, I believe this defense will improve in the B10. 

Last year we lose very close games to MSU & Iowa  -  really based on unforced turnovers in both games.  It sounds trite, but turnovers will be the key to a successful B10 season and so far this is the biggest improvement from 2009.

Go Blue !

jmblue

September 27th, 2010 at 9:51 PM ^

We held MSU to 20 points in regulation, nearly 10 points below their average.  Defense was not the problem.  The offense - which did absolutely nothing for three quarters and then failed to score in OT - was far more to blame.

Against Iowa, we committed a boatload of turnovers (including an interception on our final drive) in a game we lost by two points.  You can definitely say that turnovers were the difference.

Beavis

September 28th, 2010 at 6:13 PM ^

Really surprised I got negged for my comments in this new era of costing a point. 

Especially since the guy said we lost the Iowa and MSU games because of turnovers.  Now I'm ready with stats:

MSU game

Michigan Turnovers: 2

MSU Turnovers: 3

MSU rushing yards: 197

Michigan rushing yards: 28

/ MSU game argument over (thank you)

Iowa game

Turnovers I can see as an explanation...  we were net -4 in that category... ouch.

However, in my defense I will say the following:

We TAINT'd Stanzi, so our 1 turnover generated meant a lot.

Passing Yards: Iowa 284, Michigan 124 (Stanzi'd)

Indiana Blue

September 28th, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^

losing by 2 points with a -4 turnover margin.

MSU  -  Michigan's opportunity to win in OT was destroyed when Tate was picked off.  In overtime any turnover decides the game.  Turnovers in OT  =  Michigan 1  MSU 0

Really not trying to argue this point  -  just explaining why I posted what I did.

Go Blue !

jmblue

September 28th, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^

If you take a closer look at the MSU stats, you'll see that Cousins rushed for 75 yards on seven carries.  Those were scrambles, not designed runs.  On actual running plays, our D did fine (well, at least until the very last play of the game). 

At any rate, I'm still not sure why you're pinning the MSU game on the D.  Again, we held them to 20 points in regulation.  They averaged 29.7 per game.  I have no idea why you're giving the offense a pass when it went three-and-out on almost every possession in the first 50 minutes, and then turned it over in overtime.

As for Iowa, yeah Stanzi threw a pick 6.  But Tate gave one right back, throwing a pick deep in our own territory, which set up an Iowa TD.  So those evened out.  Unfortunately, we went on to commit four more turnovers while they didn't have any more.

Beavis

September 28th, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^

That was a huge play for sure, but MSU fans could argue "if BG doesn't stop Winston, or Stonum isn't born" to the same point.

Rushing yards are an entire game story.  And that story is:

MSU rushing yards: 197

Michigan rushing yards: 28

So.... there you go.  MSU ran all over us, our O couldn't get in sync, and we lost.  I hate beating a dead horse here guys, but... I thought everyone here knew football.  Guess I was wrong.

/"suck on that white stains"

diehardalum

September 27th, 2010 at 9:00 PM ^

we lost a few close games last year that we should have won.  If we can just grab a couple of those wins this year, (not even taking into account the full effect of Denard) we will have a better season.  Not to mention, I think we will have a legitimate shot at some of the bigger teams this year like Wisconsin, Iowa, Penn State, and Ohio State.  GO BLUE!!

Zone Left

September 27th, 2010 at 9:07 PM ^

The most important part is that the offensive excellence is happening within the system--as you stated.  Last year, the offense was largely Forcier running around, which was good when it worked and really bad when it was bad.

ixcuincle

September 27th, 2010 at 11:53 PM ^

I am going to apologize for that

I misspoke and meant to say that they Would win more than 1 big 10 game

To be more specific given my history on these boards I've always thought that the team could win more than one Big 10 game this year, I think that they will def. beat Purdue and Illinois and some other team and Penn State

I apologize for my literary gaffe, I want to assure you all I believe this team will win more than 1 Big 10 game with Denard, I just can't see the team being as bad as they were last year

I deserve the negbang and I apologize for my poor choice of wording

Webber's Pimp

September 27th, 2010 at 9:40 PM ^

 

Here's what we know about Michigan: the offense is prolific and it should keep us in most games. The Bowling Green State game is our Exhibit A...

For all the RRod haters out there consider the offensive output this weekend of national darlings like Texas and LSU. I would venture to say we could play with any of those two schools right now. 

The sky is not falling here at Michigan. It's just a matter of collecting enough athletes on defense and your will see this program rise like the phoenix.

michiganfanforlife

September 27th, 2010 at 10:04 PM ^

bad snaps reminds me of the MSU game last year. That was horrible, and the one that stands out clearly in my mind is when Forcier looked to the sideline and the ball went whizzing by his head.  Having the leader of our OL healthy is paramount to a succesful season

steelymax

September 27th, 2010 at 10:26 PM ^

Kinda OT from the OP, but I really wish Dantonio didn't have a heart attack - for his own sake... and mine. I really wanted to relish a victory over his sour ass. But already potential revenge-basking-joy is mitigated by sympathy. Well played, Mark.

Hobbes

September 27th, 2010 at 10:33 PM ^

A 1-3 Notre Dame team is our toughest opponent to date, and the next toughest is (presumably) a UConn team that lost to Temple?  I want so badly to believe, but I don't think those are very good measuring sticks.  Whether it's patience or skepticism, I'm still waiting for Big Ten play to form an opinion.

Blue since birth

September 27th, 2010 at 11:01 PM ^

ND has also played one of the toughest schedules in the country to date IMO. Temple is actually pretty damn good (ask PSU)... For Temple anyway. I was actually calling for the upset there.

I'm sick of hearing this last year bullshit. I expect it from the talking heads who need something to say due to the lack of any real insight. From fans it just sounds like a whimpering defense mechanism and an attempt at avoiding heartbreak. This is a completely different team... I see no reason to assume the worst.

I see it as...

Should win: IU, Illinois, Purdue

Might win (approx 50/50): MSU, PSU

Could win (less than 50/50 shot): Wiscy, OSU, Iowa

If we split that evenly it's an 8 win season... I think Iowa and Wiscy are actually borderline (being in AA helps). I would be more surprised by 7 wins than I would 9.

... There isn't a single game on the schedule where I would be shocked to see a win.