- Member for
- 7 years 51 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|4 weeks 4 days ago||Working on it, hopefully||
Working on it, hopefully coming soon
|4 weeks 4 days ago||Working on it, hopefully||
Working on it, hopefully coming soon
|1 year 4 weeks ago||The Hat||
Ordered the Harbaugh hat from the MDen this summer and a customer service person called to tell me that had to change my order. Apparently Harbaugh didn't like that the Adidas logo was on the side and wanted it in the back so it was less visible in pictures and they would be substituting my order for the new style.
|1 year 4 weeks ago||Thanks for the call out.||
Thanks for the call out. Don't know that I'll have a chance to put together a full column like substance this year, but I'll try and at least get a short diary up some time soon. I am a little terrified at how much the numbers love Michigan's set up this year, even without a Harbaugh factor.
|1 year 48 weeks ago||The point isn't that TOP is||
The point isn't that TOP is an offensive or defensive metric, obviously both contribute. The issue is that it has no correlation to winning and any loose connections between the two are because winning yields TOP, not vice versa.
|2 years 3 weeks ago||I've done that in the past,||
I've done that in the past, for this one with a 30+ point spread, the line would have been at 100% the entire game.
|2 years 4 weeks ago||Notre Dame was in fact #10 in||
Notre Dame was in fact #10 in 2010.
|2 years 4 weeks ago||Yes, they were 9th last||
Yes, they were 9th last season.
|2 years 4 weeks ago||It's two different pieces. I||
It's two different pieces. I am picking Michigan to win 8 games, but based on the National Championship Secret Sauce article, each of the last 10 national champs were rated in the top 10 of Roster Talent and Michigan is #10 this year in that metric.
|2 years 33 weeks ago||Yes, Michigan starts much||
Yes, Michigan starts much higher and is close but slightly higher throughout
|2 years 44 weeks ago||4th Down Odds||
A couple points of clarification
The official PBP lists the play as 4th and 1, not 4th and 2
For those saying that the odds aren't about this team, the odds on any one single play aren't that different from the best to the worst. Do they differ, absolutely, but not that much.
Yes Michigan hadn't converted a third down prior to the play, 7 of the 10 failures where on plays of 8+ yards, not a lot of relavance.
Michigan has converted 58% of 3rd/4th and 1 this season, right on the expected average.
No team in the last 11 season has ever average less than 35% conversions on 1 yard to go situations. For Michigan to be at 30% expectation would mean that they were a standard deviation worse than the worst team in this situation of the last 11 years. And even then you are break even. I know if felt bad and that the play call was awful, but the numbers were firmly on Michigan's side unless you think this is actually the worst offense of all time, and then it was a break even decision.
|2 years 52 weeks ago||The pictures I found and even||
The pictures I found and even Google Street view show a yellow trim around the top of the stadium
|3 years 4 hours ago||I added some contact info at||
I added some contact info at the bottom if you are interested
|3 years 2 weeks ago||I watched the game, I know||
I watched the game, I know what was happening but with MSU Defense and the USF offense, but come on. Best case scenario after that punt is to get the ball back where you had it, down 15 with a minute and a half to go. In a one possession game you can justify a punt but not when you need two possessions punting is game over.
|3 years 2 weeks ago||Thanks for the heads up. Poor||
Thanks for the heads up. Poor wording on my part, fixed it.
|3 years 2 weeks ago||There is some slight random||
There is some slight random variation but the fumble rates are pretty consistent year after year, regardless of age.
|3 years 2 weeks ago||Great question Michigan was||
Michigan was at 93% going into the play:
Incompletion: still about 93% (it was 3rd and 11, first down was unlikely)
Safety: only drops slightly to 92%, ND field position about the same as a punt, still need two TDs
Reality: dropped to 82%
The safety would have seemed devastating but in reality the interception was the only play that would have really swung the odds.
|3 years 2 weeks ago||It makes predicting a||
It makes predicting a specific game very difficult, but over many games the pluses and minuses even out. Even in one specific game there is a pretty decent chance that swing plays are neutral, it's just that we tend to remember the ones were they don't.
|3 years 2 weeks ago||The flip side is that from my||
The flip side is that from my work, teams with great defenses should go for it more, not less. They are probably going to stop the other team either way, so take advantage of a potential short field for the offense and go for it. When you are on the opponent's side of the field, trading punts is almost always a net negative for the team in opp. territory.
|3 years 4 weeks ago||I think they are going to be||
I think they are going to be about as good of a team as last year, but they trade Indiana and Penn State for Wisconsin and Ohio State. Plus, they weren't an extremely dominant 9-3 team last year, Illinois was the only FBS program they beat by more than 2 TD's. If you just adjust for schedule and assume everything else is the same, that takes them from 9 to 7. If they were a little lucky that gets you to six (about where I have them) and having the same team they did in 2012, which is about what I am predicting, quality-wise.
|3 years 4 weeks ago||I agree that red zone only||
I agree that red zone only tells part of the story. It's a stat designed to balance out total yards. Moving the ball up and down the field and scoring in the red zone can be two very different things, but I don't think it's a deceiving stat. I think most people take it for what it is. People don't look at rushing stats and say that they mean everything and neglect passing stats. Like most stats, red zone efficiency is a measurement of a team's success in a specific facet of the game, I hope I didn't give the impression that this was any more than that.
|3 years 4 weeks ago||In this study and most of||
In this study and most of them I do, I include all plays for the first half of the game but only plays in the second half if the drive starts or ends within two touchdowns. Depending on defintions could tweak the When It Mattered sentiment but this should be about what you were looking for.
|3 years 9 weeks ago||Rodgers and Newton did after||
Rodgers and Newton did after starting at Jucos. Mallet did it his first season at Arkansas. Leinart did it as USC and Tebow did his first year as a starter but saw lots of time the prior year. I think that's it for the major conference guys.
|3 years 10 weeks ago||Another MgoBlogger in Topeka?||
Another MgoBlogger in Topeka? I thought I was the only one.
|3 years 13 weeks ago||Henne||
A quick note on Henne. First, he was right below the cut off at -0.4 for his freshman season. I had him ranked at 42nd for the season and he finished tied for 19th in passer rating. There is a gap there but not a huge one. I think to understand the gap some, his opponent adjusted numbers are on par with similar quarterbacks, the gap isn't due to opponent adjustments. I think the big item that makes Henne seem worse than a quick gut check is that he wasn't great on third downs. His first and second down rating match up with his passer rating but he ranked 60th in third down PAN for the season.
|3 years 17 weeks ago||Fixed, thanks.||
|3 years 18 weeks ago||Corrected, thanks.||
|3 years 28 weeks ago||The rating is an average of||
The rating is an average of all the service's ratings. That's a good point that this could be some of the difference at both the top and the bottom for Hoke vs Carr, with Hoke working in a 4 service environment vs 2 for most of Carr's tenure.
|3 years 32 weeks ago||It's really a quantity vs||
It's really a quantity vs quality thing. The aggregate points I used to rank has a strong bias towards signing more players. The guys Michigan got were very good, I believe Michigan was top 10 in LB avg rating, there were just two of them which kep the overall number down.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||The numbers are developed||
The numbers are developed based on the last ten years of games between evenly matched FBS teams, accounting for down, distance,possession, timeouts and score.