Michigan in the Big Ten stat leaders
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/stats/2010-2011/confldrs.html
Highlights:
-Michigan is #2 in scoring offense (behind OSU) and #1 in total offense by a mile.
-(ATTN: DeAnthony Arnett) Michigan is #2 in passing offense, behind only Indiana
-Michigan leads the conference in first downs
-Michigan is last in the conference in TOP
-Denard leads the league in rushing by over 400 yards
-(PAGING Mr. Arnett again) Roundtree ranks #4 in the conference in receiving yards per game and Hemingway ranks #5
-Michigan has three of the top six tacklers in the conference (!), which I guess might be a factor of having a D that can't get off the field. Mouton leads the league in tackles per game.
-Our defensive rankings are the polar opposite of our offensive rankings
-OSU looks insanely good by these measures. They lead the conference in scoring and give up the fewest points. Yikes.
November 9th, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^
Mouton leads the league in tackles? And i always thought TOP was the most meaningless statistic in football.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:19 PM ^
November 9th, 2010 at 2:32 PM ^
That actually doesn't explain Ezeh, because his tackle totals have been pedestrian over the past two years. I'm guessing it's more just a result of him being a multi-year starter here.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:45 PM ^
I couldn't disagree more. A poor TOP ALWAYS hurts a defense. It doesn't gaurantee that you will lose but it definately hurts a defense. If you have a poor TOP because your offense sucks and you continually have three and outs (see 2008) your defense is constantly on hte field, gets tired, the opposition gets more posessions, and you lose. If your TOP is poor because your offense is ridiculous and can score on damn near any play (see 2010), your defense is constantly on the field, gets tires, the opposition gets more posessions, and you win in a shootout or you lose.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^
It's true that a low TOP will hurt your raw statistics (i.e., yards and points allowed) on defense, since it usually means that the opponent gets to run a lot of plays. However, whether it actually hurts a team's chances of winning is very much debatable. Oregon's raw defensive statistics aren't great, which leads lazy analysts to conclude that they don't play D. But they actually have an excellent per-play defensive average.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:11 PM ^
"Did someone call for me?"
November 9th, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^
Right. I said that is doesn't mean that you are going to lose, but, those meaningless raw statistics you refer to DO matter. I don't feel like pulling up all of the stats, but common sense would tell you that increased points allowed probably trends towards a lower winning percentage. In the case of our offense or Oregon's, I would say that it wouldn't play as much of a factor, but overall I think you could statistically show a value to TOP.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:23 PM ^
The truest indicator of defensive quality - and offensive quality for that matter - is yards per play. That's a tempo-free measure. Yes, teams with good YPP often also have good raw statistics, but not always. In this age of hurry-up, spread offenses, the correlation between the two is becoming weaker.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:52 PM ^
I agree, although I am tempted to argue that points against is a better indicator only because ultimately that is all that matters.
November 9th, 2010 at 4:48 PM ^
Here's a hypothetical. Team A, which scores 45 ppg, surrenders 350 ypg and 22 ppg.
Team B, which scores 25 ppg, surrenders 320 ypg and 18 ppg.
Is Team B clearly the better defensive team?
November 9th, 2010 at 8:29 PM ^
Which team wins more games that season.
But, I understand the logic of your question. The reality is the defense that wins is the most effective.
November 10th, 2010 at 8:03 AM ^
I guess I don't understnad your questions. In a vaccuum with only the stats you presented on which to base an opinion, then yes, team B is clearly the better defensive team. That really isn't what I was saying, though. I was pointing out the fact that I don't care if my team gives up 20 yards a play, on average and 500 yards a game if they are somehow able to clamp it down in the red zone and only allow 10 points a game. Obviously that is not realistic, and your point about yards per play probably being the best indicator is true. That is why I said, "I agree."
November 9th, 2010 at 6:35 PM ^
November 9th, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^
OSU still has to play some of their toughest conference games:
Nov 13: PSU
Nov 20: @ Iowa
Nov 26: THE GAME
If our offensive production against IA and IL is any indication, OSU's defensive stats will take a major hit on the 26th.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:08 PM ^
Is THE GAME on the 26th (Friday) or is it on the 27th (Saturday)? I thought it would be on Saturday, but I don't know now.
Edit: Saturday the 27th
November 9th, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^
This field goal stat is downright ugly:
11.Michigan............ 9 4 11 .364
November 9th, 2010 at 6:33 PM ^
We made some!! WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Glass = half-full.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^
For those interested tin the TOP debate it will be interesting to see what happens in THE GAME as OSU leads in league in TOP and Michigan is dead last.
Another interesting matchup - Michigan is 1st in sacks allowed (4 on the season!) and surprisingly OSU is next to last (19 allowed)
November 9th, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^
November 9th, 2010 at 3:16 PM ^
I think it has to do with him being in a pro style offense, and being a poor decision maker.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^
I think it has to do with their offensive line being pretty mediocre at pass blocking.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
OSU really doesn't have a pro-style offense. They run more plays out the gun than under center.
November 9th, 2010 at 4:45 PM ^
So do the Colts.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:36 PM ^
they brought up the stat that Michigan scored 21 TD's this year in under 1 minute i think? that might have a little bit to do w/ the TOP. Personally i think it's hillarious because it just shows how good our offense reall is.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:16 PM ^
Michigan's offense could totally obliviate the logic of The Game, which dictates that ball-control and time-consuming drives win.
This is the big reason I give RR the benefit of the doubt: Few teams in the last five years have beaten tOSU with a pro-style power running game, and only one conference team has done so (Wisconsin '10, USC '08 and '09, Texas '08). They have many more losses against spread-style offenses, including several upsets and several conference losses (Purdue '09, Illinois '07, Florida '06, LSU '07, Penn St. '08).
November 9th, 2010 at 4:03 PM ^
I think the way to beat OSU is to out muscle them, like Wisconsin did. The 2006 Florida game doesn't matter. Nobody on that team is on the 2010 team. Plus, that was more of dink and dunk attack against a loose zone defense than anything.
LSU in 07 and Illinois 07 dominated the line of scrimmage and used a power running game.
USC 08 was a pro-style offense and just defensive domination. USC 09 was Tressel ball. Texas 08 was a toss up (and a decent defensive performance). Penn State 08 was a defensive game. Purdue 09 was all on Pryor.
Wisconsin 10 was also line domination plus power running.
I think Iowa is a much more difficult matchup for OSU.
November 9th, 2010 at 4:43 PM ^
Well, even in a spread offense you have to dominate the line of scrimmage to win, so yeah, you gotta out-muscle them. It's just that they seem particularly vulnerable to moblie QBs and Michigan's offensive scheme.
November 9th, 2010 at 5:38 PM ^
I would believe you, if there was some evidence. The last mobile QB/spread attack that was remotely successful against OSU was 07 Illinois. That was a while ago. And also, 09 Oregon = 260 yards.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^
Factoring in the defensive yardage hemorrhaging takes Michigan from its lofty perch to a middling (yet still #5 with a bullet) net. Shows a nearly perfect complement of +Great on offense to -Suck on defense to middle out where they do. And also looks rough when considering the 2 losses above and the 1 loss immediately below and the 2 opponents lying above in this chart. Makes this week's game seem promising on this stat alone.
Net Total Yards Per Game
- Ohio State +221.6
- Iowa +115.2
- Wisconsin + 94.1
- Michigan State + 88.9
- Michigan + 82.2
- Penn State + 23.4
- Northwestern + 21.0
- Illinois + 19.9
- Indiana + 9.0
- Minnesota - 48.5
- Purdue - 50.4
November 9th, 2010 at 2:14 PM ^
Third Down Conversions: G Conv Att %
11.Purdue.............. 9 49 137 35.8 Opponent's Third Down Conversions: 10.Purdue.............. 9 55 124 44.4
November 9th, 2010 at 2:34 PM ^
The second stat is irrelevant. You really think we're going to be in 3rd down situations?
November 9th, 2010 at 2:48 PM ^
Kerrigan is a beast though, and he will force us to make some plays.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^
OSU being at the top of the scoring heap has everything to do with beating the crud out of Minny and Purdue the past two weeks. I fully expect UM to put a beating on Purdue this weekend (though to be fair, Purdue will probably put some of it back), so we'll see how this stat looks next week.
Check out the rushing stats:
Rank | RUSHING OFFENSE | G | att | Yds | Avg | TD | Yds/G |
1 | Michigan | 9 | 399 | 2461 | 6.2 | 30 | 273.4 |
2 | Wisconsin | 9 | 379 | 1944 | 5.1 | 29 | 216.0 |
Those are videogame stats. 6.2 yds/carry plus one of the most dynamic passing attacks in the conference is immensely impressive, and confirms the promise the RR hiring had for the offense a couple of years ago. The defensive stats should improve (they really can't be any worse) in the coming years, but this offense is going to destroy teams for years to come.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:01 PM ^
OSU being at the top of the scoring heap has everything to do with beating the crud out of Minny and Purdue the past two weeks
No, I'm pretty sure they've led the conference in scoring all season long.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:13 PM ^
November 9th, 2010 at 3:26 PM ^
The other way of looking at it is that OSU's offense has been great against everyone except Illinois (when Pryor got hurt) and Wisconsin. We'll see how they finish, but to date this is one of Tressel's best offenses. The main difference between them and us may simply be that their backup QB is far below Forcier's level.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^
November 9th, 2010 at 3:26 PM ^
And Michigan's stats aren't inflated from a triple overtime game?
One interesting stat I noted before the Illinois game:
In their first four Big Ten games, Michigan was averaging 29.5 points/game (IU: 42, MSU:17, Iowa:28, PSU:31) only one touchdown better than last last year's 22.1. If you told somone last week that Michigan was one TD better than last year in Big Ten play, would they have believed you?
Now, with Illinois factored in, Michigan's official Big Ten scoring average has ballooned to 37 pts/game. A more realistic picture is acheived by taking out points scored in overtime to arrive at 32 pts/game, 10 pts/game better than last year.
OSU is at 36.2 pts/game in Big Ten play.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:36 PM ^
I can't believe they are too dumb to just go by points scored in regulation. That's the only fair way to do it; otherwise, Michigan could have improved its defensive ranking by just letting Illinois score in the last few seconds. It's sad how poorly some statistics are applied.
As for time of possession, it's still mostly unimportant until near the end of the game or near the end of a half. Having the option to have a high time of possession is very valuable near the end of games. Otherwise, it doesn't matter much.
I'm pretty sure time of possession is correlated with being a good team overall, due to bad teams giving up turnovers and going three and out. If you eliminated those type of factors, I think there would be very little correlation left.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:42 PM ^
You have to count points scored in OT in the official statistics. They're still points. It's just that in cases like this, people should be mindful of the fact that we scored 22 points in OT (and gave up 20).
November 9th, 2010 at 5:36 PM ^
I'm not saying that the statistics shouldn't exist. I'm saying that they should also provide a version for only points scored in regulation. It's annoying to recalculate statistics so they actually provide a reasonable metric for comparison. This sort of number game wouldn't be tolerated in the scientific community.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:29 PM ^
Once the D catches up to the O, the team will be National Champion contenders
November 9th, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^
Can't wait until we are debating who we will be playing in the Big 10 Championship game next year and enjoying the greatest stat of them all......12 wins and a BCS victory!
November 9th, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^
#1 in total offense by a mile.
You're saying they average 1,760 more yards per game than the next best team? Damn
November 9th, 2010 at 7:01 PM ^
And we don't get the luxury of getting our offensive numbers inflated by playing Michigan!
November 9th, 2010 at 8:34 PM ^
Truth hurts...
November 9th, 2010 at 10:49 PM ^
Oh God. I can't think of a bigger mismatch (except Oregon)
We would hang 50 on ourselves by halftime.
November 10th, 2010 at 7:16 AM ^
I have to admit all I read on that page was #6 in red zone defense.....WOO HOO not in the bottom 10.