Michigan #16 in S&P+

Michigan #16 in S&P+

Submitted by Eye of the Tiger on November 12th, 2017 at 9:27 PM

We are now ranked #16 in overall S&P+. That's up 5 spots from last week. We have:

  • #53 offense
  • #6 defense
  • #71 special teams

 

Other schools of note:

1. OSU (#4 offense, #14 defense)

3. Wisconsin (#35 offense, #1 defense)

8. PSU (#25 offense, #8 defense)

14. Notre Dame (#22 offense, #24 defense)

39. MSU (#103 offense, #12 defense)

55. Iowa (#108 offense, #19 defense)

 

Also, for those who follow former UM coaches:

31. Arizona (#5 offense, #103 defense)

105. Tennesee (#120 offense, #61 defense)

 

 

 

 

Michigan's OL and DL in 2013 by advanced statistics

Michigan's OL and DL in 2013 by advanced statistics

Submitted by dnak438 on February 18th, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Football Study Hall has posted two rankings of offensive and defensive lines for all 2013 teams according to their advanced statistics.

First, the bad news: offensive line:

Offense Adj LY Rk SD LY/
Carry
Rk PD LY/
Carry
Rk Opp. Rate Rk Power
Succ. Rt.
Rk Stuff Rate Rk
Ohio State 146.6 1 3.86 1 4.06 10 55.7% 1 78.2% 10 11.9% 2
Auburn 131.0 2 3.84 2 3.80 18 48.4% 6 84.5% 3 12.1% 3
Texas A&M 124.9 3 3.64 6 4.03 12 51.4% 2 71.4% 45 16.0% 18
Oregon 122.9 4 3.65 5 3.65 32 49.0% 4 64.7% 83 15.1% 12
Alabama 120.6 5 3.53 7 3.93 16 48.0% 7 78.4% 9 14.0% 9
                         
Michigan 83.2 118 2.19 126 2.80 107 34.5% 111 52.0% 120 29.9% 126

What this means:

  • Our offensive line generated 83.2 yards per game (adjusted for opponent). That was not good.
  • On standard downs, the OL generated 2.19 yards per carry. Worse than not good.
  • On passing downs, the OL generated 2.80 yards per carry. Slightly less not good.
  • 34.5% of the time, the OL"did its job" and produced at least five yards for the runner.
  • 52% of the time, the OL got a 1st down or touchdown on 3rd and 2 or less or 4th and 2 or less (or 1st or 2nd and goal from the 2 or less). Not good.
  • 29.9% of the time, the runner was tackled behind the line of scrimmage. God awful.

Silver lining: Doug Nussmeier's Alabama offense was awesome at running the ball.

The defensive line was better:

Defense Adj LY Rk SD LY/
Carry
Rk PD LY/
Carry
Rk Opp. Rate Rk Power
Succ. Rt.
Rk Stuff Rate Rk
Utah State 135.6 1 2.25 2 2.76 17 30.4% 3 65.5% 56 24.4% 11
Michigan State 132.2 2 2.27 3 2.13 3 30.1% 2 44.4% 2 25.2% 7
Virginia Tech 130.2 3 2.30 6 2.56 12 29.6% 1 58.1% 17 24.1% 15
Stanford 127.6 4 2.28 4 2.77 20 34.6% 22 57.1% 13 26.6% 4
Alabama 125.8 5 2.91 58 1.95 1 33.2% 13 69.0% 77 19.3% 60
                         
Michigan 104.6 45 3.02 73 2.92 26 36.8% 41 69.8% 82 18.5% 76

What this means:

  • We were a decent DL (45th) overall, bad on standard downs (73rd), short yardage downs (82nd), and getting negative plays (76th) but good on passing downs (26th).

Silver lining: Jake Ryan is back next year.

Nothing we didn't know, I suppose, but interesting to see nonetheless.

Football Study Hall projects 2014 football season rankings

Football Study Hall projects 2014 football season rankings

Submitted by dnak438 on February 7th, 2014 at 11:02 PM

Football study hall has run a projection of the 2014 season based on three factors:

(a) Ca. 60%: A five-year weighted S&P+ average, with 2013 getting 5x the weight, 2012 4x, ..., and 2009 1x

(b) Ca. 30%: The 2013 S&P+ ratings, adjusted for the number of returning starters.

(c) Ca. 10%: the past two years of recruiting

The top 25 are as follows:

Rk Team (a) Rk (b) Rk (c) Rk 2014 Projected S&P+
1 Alabama 295.5 1 275.3 5 290.3 1 288.9
2 Florida State 268.7 2 298.1 1 282.2 5 279.0
3 Oregon 257.4 3 281.1 2 257.4 20 264.6
4 South Carolina 242.3 13 266.8 6 268.4 16 252.3
5 LSU 250.2 5 244.7 18 285.9 3 251.9
6 Stanford 249.3 6 261.4 8 237.0 39 251.8
7 Texas A&M 245.4 9 255.7 13 280.0 7 251.8
8 Georgia 243.2 11 258.0 10 277.9 9 251.0
9 Oklahoma 245.0 10 256.3 12 269.8 15 250.8
10 Ohio State 242.6 12 251.4 14 288.1 2 249.6
11 USC 234.4 17 265.2 7 274.9 10 247.7
12 Auburn 222.9 30 277.7 3 279.3 8 245.0
13 Michigan State 241.9 14 246.6 15 248.7 26 244.0
14 Clemson 235.4 16 245.1 16 272.0 13 241.8
15 UCLA 215.9 43 276.0 4 270.6 14 239.4
16 Oklahoma State 246.7 7 222.4 37 247.2 28 239.4
17 Notre Dame 238.7 15 219.4 41 281.5 6 236.9
18 Boise State 251.2 4 219.9 39 198.4 65 236.7
19 Wisconsin 246.6 8 216.0 45 226.8 47 235.4
20 Louisville 224.6 27 257.6 11 216.6 51 233.9
21 Florida 233.0 18 218.1 42 283.0 4 233.2
22 Virginia Tech 231.7 21 226.7 29 257.4 20 232.6
23 Michigan 227.2 25 232.3 22 265.5 17 232.4
24 Central Florida 223.3 29 261.2 9 185.2 73 231.2
25 Baylor 232.9 19 223.1 34 246.5 29 231.2

That seems generally about right to me, although not all of the rankings seem right: Boise State's ranking is inflated, for instance.

Turnovers in college football, 2013

Turnovers in college football, 2013

Submitted by dnak438 on January 15th, 2014 at 2:02 PM

We don't need more cold water splashed in our faces after the season we just endured, but Football Study Hall did an analysis of turnover differential in the past season and tried to get an idea of who were the "luckiest" teams -- on the assumption that fumble recovery is essentially random, and here are the results:

Team Off. TO Def. TO TO Margin Adj. Off. TO Adj. Def. TO Adj. TO Margin Diff TO Luck/Game
Houston 18 43 25 27.4 31.1 3.8 21.2 +8.17
Ball State 19 31 12 23.1 21.6 -1.6 13.6 +5.21
Mississippi State 18 25 7 25.3 20.3 -5.0 12.0 +4.61
Oregon State 26 29 3 29.3 21.2 -8.1 11.1 +4.25
Florida State 18 35 17 19.5 25.5 6.0 11.0 +3.93
Missouri 16 32 16 19.9 25.7 5.8 10.2 +3.65
South Carolina 17 30 13 16.3 20.1 3.8 9.2 +3.54
Buffalo 15 30 15 20.6 26.6 6.0 9.0 +3.45
East Carolina 16 24 8 24.9 24.7 -0.2 8.2 +3.15
Michigan 21 26 5 21.9 18.8 -3.1 8.1 +3.12

Essentially, what you have is a TO margin, based on real numbers. Then you have adjusted turnovers, assuming that 51% of all fumbles are recovered by the offense, and that 22% of all passes defended are intercepted. The adjusted turnover margin is thus an estimate of a turnover margin without as much luck built in.

This suggests that Michigan was fairly lucky in terms of turnovers in 2013. We recovered more fumbles than average (15 opponent fumbles, 9 of which we recovered) and lost fewer than average (22 fumbles 8 of which we lost), and we had fewer picks than expected based on passes defended. (If you don't like what you see, just close your eyes are repeat to yourself that turnovers aren't random).

We played some of the unluckiest teams this year. The top 10 unluckiest:

Team Off. TO Def. TO TO Margin Adj. Off. TO Adj. Def. TO Adj. TO Margin Diff. TO Luck/Game
Cincinnati 28 21 -7 21.5 21.9 0.4 -7.4 -2.84
Alabama 17 19 2 14.7 24.1 9.4 -7.4 -2.85
Vanderbilt 23 30 7 19.6 34.2 14.6 -7.6 -2.93
Kansas State 25 25 0 16.5 24.4 7.9 -7.9 -3.02
Pittsburgh 17 16 -1 14.9 22.2 7.2 -8.2 -3.16
Indiana 20 17 -3 18.3 24.8 6.6 -9.6 -3.98
Southern Miss 38 19 -19 28.1 19.4 -8.8 -10.2 -4.27
Troy 18 11 -7 18.6 22.9 4.3 -11.3 -4.72
Rutgers 30 18 -12 23.6 24.5 0.9 -12.9 -4.95
Utah 25 16 -9 21.4 25.0 3.6 -12.6 -5.25

 

Evaluating the B1G after Week 12

Evaluating the B1G after Week 12

Submitted by dnak438 on November 21st, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Continuing my string of diaries ranking the Big Ten according to Football Outsiders' FEI plus statistic, I present you with this week's installation, though November 16th (faded icons are placed on the corresponding team's position last week):

Some notes:

  1. Michigan and Iowa's offense are identical according to the advanced stats. Michigan's defense is slightly better than Iowa's. Although their special teams are slightly better than ours, according to these stats we should be a slight favorite to win on a neutral field.
  2. Wisconsin is looking like the best of the top 3 B1G teams according to the advanced stats. Boy I bet they wish they had that Ohio State game back.

Evaluating the B1G after week 11

Evaluating the B1G after week 11

Submitted by dnak438 on November 12th, 2013 at 11:02 AM

The weekly roundup gets somewhat less enjoyable with each loss, but here's the chart nevertheless. I've incorporated Seth's suggestion of including last week's rankings for comparative purposes. Last week's rankings are indicated with a less opaque icon; if you can't see it at all, it's because the ranking hasn't changed much at all.

Click to embiggen:

So, we seem to have a four-tier B1G:

  1. Good teams: Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan State
  2. Above-average teams: Nebraska, Minnesota, Michigan, Northwestern, Iowa, and Indiana is in this group, too, despite their schizophrenic nature (excellent offense, abysmal defense).
  3. Below-average teams: Illinois, Penn State
  4. Horrible teams: Purdue

Evaluating the B1G after week 10

Evaluating the B1G after week 10

Submitted by dnak438 on November 5th, 2013 at 11:23 PM

The weekly edition of my ongoing diary evaluating the B1G using the advanced stats of the Football Outsiders (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feiplus). Here is the chart:

Following suggestions, I've rotated the chart 45 degrees so that the better teams are at the top of the chart and worse teams are at the bottom. Teams that are better on defense are on the right (e.g., Michigan State), teams that are better on offense are on the left (e.g., Ohio State).

Some notes:

  1. Michigan is migrating towards the clump of okay B1G teams: Iowa, Northwestern, and Nebraska. These games are certainly winnable but they are looking less and less like gimmes (per the advanced stats, of course).
  2. The B1G ten is currently dominated by Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Michigan State.
  3. Purdue is worse than Akron.
  4. That Penn State loss is not looking any better.

Corsi Charts: Michigan Hockey Games 5-8

Corsi Charts: Michigan Hockey Games 5-8

Submitted by Adam Schnepp on November 5th, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Look, I'm not naive. This is a Michigan blog in the middle of football season, and I understand that the vast majority of you are here to read about football. That's ok, I come here for that too. Having said that, I'm guessing most of us feel a lot like this .gif (which Ace posted on Twitter Sunday night). Most of us probably have visions of the interior offensive line standing by, stationary, like cops by the side of the freeway (Hey, that guy's going by us way too fast. He's gonna cause an accid...see? See, that's what I was saying). 

Forget about all that for a minute and get lost in the glorious charts of a Michigan team ranked #2 in the latest USCHO poll. That's right, there's a Michigan team that's climbing up the polls! If they continue playing the way that they have (read: willing to battle for puck possession, realtively intelligent passing, good forechecking) then there are going to be a lot of people who find a more enjoyable way to spend their Saturday nights once football season is over.

Friday, October 25 vs. Boston University (W, 2-1)

1st Period

  Michigan BU
Goals 0 1
Shots 12 4
Missed 5 2
Blocked 7 1
Total 24 8
% 75.00 25.00

2nd Period

  Michigan BU
Goals 0 0
Shots 16 7
Missed 7 3
Blocked 5 2
Total 28 12
% 70.00 30.00

3rd Period

  Michigan BU
Goals 2 0
Shots 12 7
Missed 8 6
Blocked 8 3
Total 30 16
% 65.22 34.78

Overall

  Michigan BU
Goals 2 1
Shots 40 18
Missed 20 11
Blocked 20 6
Total 82 36
% 69.49 30.51

Saturday, October 26 vs. UMass Lowell (L, 1-2)

1st Period

  Michigan UMass Lowell
Goals 0 0
Shots 12 12
Missed 0 7
Blocked 3 5
Total 15 24
% 38.46 61.54

2nd Period

  Michigan UMass Lowell
Goals 1 1
Shots 18 14
Missed 7 6
Blocked 5 4
Total 31 25
% 55.36 44.64

3rd Period

  Michigan UMass Lowell
Goals 0 1
Shots 8 10
Missed 4 4
Blocked 5 4
Total 17 19
% 47.22 52.78

Overall

  Michigan UMass Lowell
Goals 1 2
Shots 38 36
Missed 11 17
Blocked 13 13
Total 63 68
% 48.09 51.91

 

Friday, November 1 vs. Michigan Tech (W, 3-2 OT)

I am Mario and MGoBlueTV is the castle. Someday I shall breach those daunting castle walls, but last Friday was not that day. In other words, no charts.

Saturday, November 2 vs. Michigan Tech (W, 2-1)

1st Period

  Michigan Tech
Goals 1 0
Shots 10 6
Missed 5 1
Blocked 4 4
Total 20 11
% 64.52 35.48

2nd Period

  Michigan Tech
Goals 0 0
Shots 11 8
Missed 8 3
Blocked 5 5
Total 24 16
% 60.00 40.00

3rd Period

  Michigan Tech
Goals 1 1
Shots 8 10
Missed 0 3
Blocked 0 6
Total 9 20
% 31.03 68.97

Overall

  Michigan Tech
Goals 2 1
Shots 29 24
Missed 13 7
Blocked 9 15
Total 53 47
% 53.00 47.00

Assorted Thoughts

  • Winning the Corsi battle correlates with winning in the three games charted. It does not, however, correlate with scoring margin. The caveat is the small sample size, which is why I'm charting everything I possible can; we'll see how this plays out over the season.
  • Michigan has only won once (against Boston College) when they have had a worse possession percentage than their opponent in the first period. Maybe there's something to be said for starting strong.
  • Michigan has looked flat in the third period too often this year. It cost them against UMass Lowell and it could have cost them against Michigan Tech on Saturday. This "flatness" is reflected in the possession numbers above.
  • I'm collecting power play data too, but my plan is to publish that around the midseason point in a longer post.

Evaluating the B1G after Week 9

Evaluating the B1G after Week 9

Submitted by dnak438 on October 30th, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Following up on my diary last week, here is the Big Ten on offense and defense according to the advanced statistics of the Football Outsiders, though October 26:

Things to note:

  1. Since last week, Ohio State and Michigan State have improved, both on offense and on defense -- not by a lot, but there is still improvement. So too with Iowa.
  2. Nebraska is regressing according to the advanced stats, as are Illinois and Penn State.

As a side note, we all know that Michigan's November is tough. But did you know that the difference between Michigan's future strength of schedule and it's past strength of schedule is the 5th biggest in the FBS? This table is from Football Study Hall and is based on Brian Fremeau's FEI stats:

Rk Team SOS Previous SOS Future Difference
1 Oklahoma State 118 22 -96
2 Miami 98 5 -93
3 Oregon 86 3 -83
4 Baylor 110 29 -81
5 Michigan 112 33 -79
5 Texas Tech 99 20 -79
7 Cincinnati 125 47 -78
8 UTEP 119 42 -77
9 Houston 91 32 -59
9 Oklahoma 75 16 -59

It's Novembers like these that make and break Big Ten championships.

Corsi Charts: Michigan Hockey Games 3 & 4

Corsi Charts: Michigan Hockey Games 3 & 4

Submitted by Adam Schnepp on October 25th, 2013 at 5:21 AM

So I'm finishing up the chart for the first game of the series on Wednesday night. I had Fox Sports Detroit on before I started watching the game on my DVR, which I thought nothing of because it's pretty typical for me to have Fox Sports Detroit on. After I finish charting, however, I hit stop on the recording and the Red Wings game comes on and PRETTY MUCH BURNS MY RETINAS WHY IS THIS ICE SO BRIGHT. Hockey in high def is most definitely not what Fox Sports College Atlantic or whatever it was was broadcasting for these Michigan games. Like Brian said in his post, it was basically like watching a legal stream. That wandering anecdote was my way of saying that the Corsi charts have some values that may not be perfect. I'm not really concerned though, as there are things that I may have marked a shot that missed the net or vice versa that even each other out in the overall numbers. This is why I don't change numbers in the shots column to match the official score sheet; it should work itself out when considering all of the categories.

Friday, 10/18/13 at UNH

1st Period

  Michigan UNH
Goals 1 0
Shots 8 8
Missed 10 6
Blocked 5 5
Total 24 19
% 55.81 44.19

2nd Period

  Michigan UNH
Goals 0 1
Shots 9 11
Missed 4 8
Blocked 4 2
Total 17 22
% 43.59 56.41

3rd Period

  Michigan UNH
Goals 0 0
Shots 2 16
Missed 4 6
Blocked 4 4
Total 10 26
% 27.77 72.23

Overtime

  Michigan UNH
Goals 0 0
Shots 1 2
Missed 0 1
Blocked 0 3
Total 1 6
% 14.29 85.71

Overall

  Michigan UNH
Goals 1 1
Shots 20 37
Missed 18 21
Blocked 13 14
Total 52 73
% 41.6 58.4

Assorted Thoughts

  • Things that are good: spending time not in the penalty box. Things that are bad: spending time in the penalty box. Of UNH's 37 shots 11 came on the power play. Of their misses, 7 of 21 came on the power play. Of UNH's blocked shots, 7 of 14 came on the power play. That's 29.7% of their shots, 33.3% of their misses, and 50% of their blocks. Worried about being outshot? Try to keep five guys on the ice.
  • Even though Michigan was handily defeated in terms of possession, the game was a little more open than the numbers indicate. A lot of this game was played in the neutral zone, with each team trying and failing to create an offensive zone presence. An argument could be made, however, for UNH carrying the play because whoa that third period was rough. Michigan was circling and circling and circling in the defensive zone and I had to keep pausing the recording so I could mark more stuff down for UNH.
  • UNH's numbers look pretty dominant in overtime but we're looking at a five minute sample. UNH had possession but I can't remember any part of OT where I thought Michigan dodged a bullet. 

Saturday, 10/19/13 at UNH

1st Period

  Michigan UNH
Goals 1 1
Shots 7 3
Missed 7 2
Blocked 6 1
Total 21 7
% 75.00 25.00

2nd Period

  Michigan UNH
Goals 1 1
Shots 11 12
Missed 3 7
Blocked 2 5
Total 17 25
% 40.47 59.53

3rd Period

  Michigan UNH
Goals 0 0
Shots 9 8
Missed 3 6
Blocked 6 3
Total 18 17
% 51.43 48.57

Overtime

  Michigan UNH
Goals 1 0
Shots 1 1
Missed 1 0
Blocked 1 0
Total 4 1
% 80.00 20.00

Overall

  Michigan UNH
Goals 3 2
Shots 28 24
Missed 14 15
Blocked 15 9
Total 60 50
% 54.54 45.46

Assorted Thoughts

  • This was a game of extended periods of back-and-forth punctuated by furious bursts of offensive zone activity. Michigan looked like they were handily outplayed in the second period (especially the second half of the second period, where they couldn't clear the puck for anything) and the numbers bear this out. At one point UNH went on a tear of four consecutive shots on goal in what had to be under a minute. It looked like the tide of the game may have been turning, but the clock mercifully ran out.
  • UNH picked up where they left off and generated a number of chances early in the third period. Their offensive zone time came in smaller bursts, however, and the game transitioned back to an up-and-down affair. Michigan eventually got their own extended offensive zone time and ended up with a slight advantage overall in Corsi for the period.
  • Special teams were the theme of Friday night but weren't a factor after the first two periods on Saturday. In the first period 12 of Michigan's 21 shots (57.14%) came on the power play. In the second period 10 of UNH's 25 shots (40.00%) came on the power play. After that? Not even a power play opportunity for either team. 
  • I like Nagelvoort and his giant leg pads. They're like belly putters in golf; comedically oversized but effective in their own right.