Preview 2011: Heuristics and Stupid Prediction Comment Count

Brian

Previously: The story, the secondary, the linebackers, the defensive line, the offensive line, the receivers, the running backs, the quarterbacks, special teams, defensive questions, offensive questions.

Heuristicland

Turnover Margin

denard-fumble

The theory of turnover margin: it is nearly random. Teams that find themselves at one end or the other at the end of the year are highly likely to rebound towards the average. So teams towards the top will tend to be overrated and vice versa. Nonrandom factors to evaluate: quarterback experience, quarterback pressure applied and received, and odd running backs like Mike Hart who just don't fumble.

Year Margin Int + Fumb + Sacks + Int - Fumb - Sacks -
2007 0.15 (41st) 14 15 2.46(33rd) 14 13 2.17 (67th)
2008 -.83 (104th) 9 11 2.42(33rd) 12 18 1.83 (57th)
2009 -1.00 (115th) 11 5 1.83(68th) 15 13 2.33 (83rd)
2010 -0.77(109th) 12 7 1.38(98th) 15 14 0.85(10th)

WELCOME TO YET ANOTHER YEAR where I predict Michigan's turnover rate plunges towards zero. I'm seriously this time though.

For the first time on this chart Michigan should have a non-insane person running things. In 2007, it was either injured Henne or Mallet; 2008 was death, 2009 was freshmen QBs, and last year was essentially a redshirt freshman. With Denard's return this is the first time since 2006 Michigan can expect their QB to be less turnover prone than the year before. (This obviously goes out the window in the event of a major injury to Denard. Also out the window: life, hope, puppies.)

But… I'm seriously this time. Even if Rodriguez had some weird evil turnover juju when he was around he's gone. Turnovers regress like a mofo. People have argued with me about this plenty and I do believe them somewhat:

  • NFL turnover margins regress like a mofo and always will.
  • College TO margins might have extra regression because low turnover teams tend to have senior quarterbacks and then break in new ones, and high turnover teams tend to have young quarterbacks who return. What looks like randomness is potentially roster turnover.
  • Sucky defenses case fewer turnovers because things are easy.

So Rodriguez-era stuff was negative because the defenses were turrible and the quarterbacks were young. The defense does trace a largely negative track as it declines from 29 turnovers in the last Carr year to 20 in RR year 1, 16 in RR year 2, and 19 in RR year 3. Turnovers from the offense are about constant in the era of lots of freshmen, but in 2006 Michigan coughed it up just 12 times.

If Robinson remains healthy Michigan should improve significantly. The defense has to suck less and Robinson's responsibility should improve rapidly relative to players more than a year removed from being novelty freak shows. I'm afraid that Robinson is just a fumble-prone guy—Mike Hart didn't need experience to hold on to the damn ball—but the interception rate should dip considerably.

On the other side of the ball, a defense that rushes more than three players and has Martin, RVB, and Roh should get back to at least average in sacks. The center of the Gaussian distribution here is probably –3 turnovers on the year; even that would be massive improvement.

Position Switch Starters

Theory of position switches: if you are starting or considering starting a guy who was playing somewhere else a year ago, that position is in trouble. There are degrees of this. When Notre Dame moved Travis Thomas, a useful backup at tailback, to linebacker and then declared him a starter, there was no way that could end well. Wisconsin's flip of LB Travis Beckum to tight end was less ominous because Wisconsin had a solid linebacking corps and Beckum hadn't established himself on that side of the ball. Michigan flipping Prescott Burgess from SLB to WLB or PSU moving Dan Connor inside don't register here: we're talking major moves that indicate a serious lack somewhere.

mark-moundros-nw

Last year there were a half-dozen of varying severity. This year I'm not sure there are any, except insofar as people on the defense are all switching positions because of the scheme change. I'm not sure how much those count.

Here's a dossier:

  • RVB is now a full time three-tech instead of a 5-tech on a three-man line. He's already started as a three tech in his career.
  • Roh is now a WDE full time instead of a 3-3-5 OLB/DE.
  • Kenny Demens is now a MLB instead of a snack for a guard.
  • Thomas Gordon is a starting safety instead of a SLB/safety-type-object.
  • Some wide receivers are flipping outside from the slot.
  • Third string TE Steve Watson was on defense last year.

None of this comes anywhere close to Mark Moundros maybe starting at LB, Cam Gordon starting at FS, and Roh moving to LB. Anyone who's starting is moving to a spot they've played before or goddamn well should have (Roh).

The lone exception is Thomas Gordon, who is going to be playing at a new position after being a random DB his freshman year, then a spur. That's still not flipping sides of the ball.  It is a concern. At least this year there are no obvious panic moves. Sliding Gordon from a nickelback to safety is not starting John Ferrara or pushing Mark Moundros as the solution at MLB.

An Embarrassing Prediction, No Doubt

Worst Case

There's no bottom if Denard and a couple of other key defensive players are hurt. Leaving the worst-worst case out, a relatively healthy Michigan has no business losing to WMU, EMU, Minnesota, or Purdue at home.

San Diego State, Northwestern, Illinois are all losable but Denard should be able to snake at least one of those. 5-7 is the floor.

Best Case

The schedule is fairly soft, with no true road games until Michigan State (the game at Northwestern will be at least half M fans) and both Penn State and Wisconsin rotating off. If the offense maintains its current level of productivity and Mattison mediocres the defense real good, the only game that still seems entirely out of reach is Nebraska.

That's not to say Michigan can reasonably expect to win all games in reach. Taking more than two from Notre Dame, Michigan State, Iowa, and the Akron State Golden Bobcats seems to be irrational optimism. 9-3 is about all you can reasonably hope for.

Final Verdict

There are a lot of ugly predictions like 5-7, 6-6, and 7-5 from the newspaper folk after their fifty words on the running backs* and it's easy to see why if you're looking at the surface. If you look at the final scores of last year's games it's easy to find extra losses but not extra wins.

If you look at the yardage margins and turnovers it's an entirely different picture. Michigan is poised for a big bounce. Robinson should cut down on his enormous mistakes considerably and a defense that bothers to rush will increase those of opponents. Nineteen starters return; Brendan Gibbons will either be much better or quickly replaced. GERG is gone. The offense will change and that's a drag but the things that made Robinson so insane are not that hard to exploit and he is still rapidly developing. This looks like a team that had a combination of bad luck and youth last year that should improve by leaps and bounds.

The catch: depth. It is a huge issue on both sides of the ball, with a half-dozen players essentially irreplaceable. Injuries happen; with Michigan which injuries will be huge. Huyge or Heininger or Cam Gordon going down is no big deal. Losing Denard or Martin or Demens is massive. A fully healthy Michigan looks like a (fringe) contender for a division crown, but football teams are not fully healthy.

OOC
9/3 WMU Must win
9/10 Notre Dame Tossup
9/17 EMU Must win
9/24 SDSU Lean to win
Conference
10/1 Minnesota Must win
10/8 @ NU Lean to win
10/15 @ MSU Lean to loss
10/29 Purdue Must win
11/05 @ Iowa Tossup
11/12 @ Illinois Lean to win
11/19 Nebraska Probable loss
11/26 Akron State Lean to loss
Absent:

Wisconsin, Penn State, Indiana

I add it up and I come up with eight wins and change. Assume one irreplaceable player is annihilated and that comes back down to an even 8-4. Unlike last year, when I predicted 7-5 but thought 6-6 was more likely than 8-4, I think Michigan is more likely to surprise to the positive until such time as we have another Woolfolk ankle explosion pity party.

Some commenters have suggested that the exactingly specific predictions in the previous posts today suggest I'd be predicting something better than 8-4, but I think turnovers, while getting much better, will still be in the red. Though the special teams issues can't be as bad they will still be a problem that could kill Michigan in a close game.

Also, 50th in advanced metrics is still bleh territory since they correct for schedule strength. For example, that's worse than Purdue and Penn State last year; the Nittany Lions gave up at least 21 points in every Big Ten game and Purdue got bombed for at least 34 five times in conference.

--------------

*["Michael Shaw is expected to start but power back Fitzgerald Toussaint will also see time. If he had any newshole anymore we would tell you about Vincent Smith, but oh well."

/end running back "scouting".]

Comments

profitgoblue

September 2nd, 2011 at 3:26 PM ^

I can't keep up with all the new posts!  Information overload! 

/me in fetal position sucking on thumb

 (of course, the information is spectacular and I continue to be football smarter than I was yesterday.  Thanks Brian.)

 

colin

September 2nd, 2011 at 3:37 PM ^

i really really would like to get through this season without anything brain-melting occuring.  8-4 would be so awesome.

and if one of the 8 is against OSU then i don't think i could ask for much more.  though i'd really rather not lose to State.  ND...whatever.  they're due.

profitgoblue

September 2nd, 2011 at 3:48 PM ^

After the past three years, all I care about seeing is some good football.  Wins/losses don't even really matter all that much to me right now.  I just want to see both sides of the ball play smoothly and see Denard's abilities maximized.  Watching him play is so entertaining, so much so that seeing him play well in a game can almost get me through a loss to a lesser opponent.  We haven't seen a player like him since Woodson and I'm so excited to see #16 on the field again.

 

JeepinBen

September 2nd, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^

And thanks for all the content this week. If they'd been monitoring my internet usage at my new job I'd be fired by now. The Akron State Golden Bobcats might be my favorite line I've ever read on this site.

But you're wrong. Ceiling is 14-0 and don't tell me otherwise. It's coming. Let's Shock the World (to steal a phrase from the basketball team). In my opinion we're going 14-0, and I wont believe otherwise.

Go Blue

MillerTime

September 2nd, 2011 at 4:03 PM ^

Best case scenario means simply that: best case. Best case has to be 14-0. Maybe the prediction should change to "Overachieving Result" and "Underachieving Result" - worst case scenarios didn't include losses to App State and Toledo; those were certainly worst case scenarios. I also don't think that 9-3 is all that "best case" let's say we lose to ND (understandable - they could make a big jump) and Nebraska (understandable). We've been saying MSU is overrated and we've shot ourselves in the foot against Iowa the past two years... I don't see why "Overachieving Result" isn't 10-2.

magonus

September 2nd, 2011 at 7:51 PM ^

Week 2 against Notre Dame is the difference between opening 7-1 and 8-0. They'll be much improved, but I can see us winning because it's at home. Obviously enormous upsets can happesn (The HORROR, Toledo, MSU the past three years), but realistically we should win every other game in September and October. November gets toughers, but we should be able to split @ Illionis, @ Iowa, Nebraska and TSiO. So 9-3 if we lose to ND, 10-2 if we Michigan goes undefeated in night games at the Big House.

oakapple

September 2nd, 2011 at 4:17 PM ^

I agree, more or less, that anything from 9-3 to 5-7 is possible without predicting miracles on one end or total collapse on the other.

Regardless of the number of wins, it is difficult to imagine anyone being satisfied unless MSU or Ohio is one of the victims. A 7-5 season in which Michigan defeats at least one of those two could nevertheless be considered progress. That same record with losses to both major rivals, or with another season-ending swoon, could not be.

Despite the old cliché is that “a win is a win,” it really does matter how you get there. As the post notes, Michigan was a weak 7-5 last year, because all of its losses were by double digits, but four of the wins were by one score or less, and three of the four close wins were against unimpressive opponents.

Although wins and losses are the most important statistic, for those who care about progress, it is just as important whether Michigan seems at least to be competitive against the conference’s better teams. The last four years, the Wolverines haven’t just lost to Ohio State; they were never really in the game at all.

Other Andrew

September 2nd, 2011 at 4:20 PM ^

Because it means it's finally time for Michigan Football! Woooh!

Rock solid analysis as always, Brian. Have to say I agree. Going to be some more frustrating games this year, but hopefully continuing to trend in the right direction.

MichFan1997

September 2nd, 2011 at 4:24 PM ^

might be the end of the previews for this year. Even if it's not, great job all around to everybody here for previews, press conferences, and various random write ups. I defy somebody to find me a more previewed college team on the Internet.

markusr2007

September 2nd, 2011 at 4:35 PM ^

Michigan's schedule, while pretty tough, is not as tough as those of Nebraska, Minnesota, Indiana and Purdue.  Yet MIchigan faces the 4th toughest schedule in the Big 10 (Phil Steele's estimate - ranked 32nd out of 120 in the nation). And that is without having Russell Wilson and the Wisconsin locomotive on the slate.

Hoke will have UM up for NDame, Iowa and MSU, no question.

My worry is about the "under the radar" teams like Northwestern and Illinois this fall.  I predict both to be much better squads.

Also, LOL "Akron State". Please use that name in the November preview even if the Buckeyes happen to miraculously be 11-0.  That's good juju.

MICHIGAN 38

Western Michigan 20

funkywolve

September 2nd, 2011 at 5:44 PM ^

but it's about as easy a schedule as we'll see in a while probably.

Only 4 away games - only 3 of those are out state and as Brian mentioned one is Northwestern where half the stadium will be UM fans.

Cross Division games:  OSU, Illinois and Purdue.  They're always going to have OSU so any year where PSU and Wisky are off the schedule is almost always going to be a favorable slate of cross division games.

ND, OSU and Nebraska are all at home. 

Looking ahead to future years.

2012:  Alabama, @ ND, @ Nebraska, @ OSU.

2013:  @ UConn (it'll be interesting to see whether they can keep the mo going with Edsall leaving)  should be a win but a rare road game against an out of conference BCS team

Drop Purdue and Illinois and add PSU and Indiana.  They have to go to Happy Valley.  The second half of the year is:  @ MSU, Nebraska, @ NU, @ Iowa, OSU - with no byes in there.

2014:  @ ND, @ Nebraska, @ OSU.  Penn St is at home.

2015:  Wisky hops back on the schedule.

It's probably not until 2017 where we get OSU, ND and Nebraska at home and might have both PSU and Wisky off the schedule.

Waters Demos

September 2nd, 2011 at 4:39 PM ^

Quite a lot of respect given to MSU.  To have ND as a tossup, but MSU as lean to loss is a bit surprising.

I think ND is the type of team that can give M greater problems than MSU can, particularly given the pass-happy offense. 

Jeff

September 2nd, 2011 at 5:04 PM ^

I haven't looked into it, but the running backs return for MSU I think.  Good QB and good RB can make life dangerous for a "less than great" defense.

Also, I think a major reason for the categorization of those games is the home (and first night game ever...) vs. away difference.  At Notre Dame this year would probably be lean to loss or likely loss.  Home against MSU would be more of a tossup.

Waters Demos

September 2nd, 2011 at 5:29 PM ^

Also Larry Caper, a junior, returns, and is arguably as talented (if not more so in certain areas, e.g., catching and blocking) as the two you mention.  He was out part of last year with injuries for which reason he fell behind the other two.  But he's right up there.

CRISPed in the DIAG

September 2nd, 2011 at 4:52 PM ^

Not to pick nits, but NFL experiences regression w/r/t fumbles lost, fumbles recovered and defensive interceptions, according to Football Outsiders.  Offensive interceptions, IIRC, aren't subject to regression.  Good defensive turnover margins are not replicable.  Fumbling the football and throwing interceptions can definitely replicate in the NFL.

Seattle Maize

September 2nd, 2011 at 6:43 PM ^

Respectfully, I disagree that turnovers are as random as they are made out to be here.  They are the result of either bad decision making (interceptions) or lack of fundamentals (fumbling).  Mike Hart, for example, carried the ball high and tight and therefore did not fumble and until our backs/quarterbacks/recievers do the same they will continue to have fumbling issues.

Gene

September 2nd, 2011 at 9:45 PM ^

The claim isn't that the cause of turnovers is random; it's that it strongly regresses between years (or "regresses like a mofo" in the poet's words.) This really isn't up for debate - it's a statistical claim, and is borne out by the statistics.

G Money

September 2nd, 2011 at 7:02 PM ^

...obviously there are factors to consider.


How much it is emphasized by coaching is a key consideration.

 

Why doesn't Lloyd have to qb's throw over the middle?

What does LC have THAT guy returning kicks? He's slow!

There was a method to the "madness"....

Contrasted with...

...Why is Gallon still back there returning kicks?

...Or putting in DRob in 2009 (which is fine, but probably was more TO prone than Tate)..

 

Experience is the obvious player factor (experience at qb with regards to INT's).

I'm guess Hoke will emphasize ball control more the Rich, but we'll have to see. Just speculation at this point.

Totally2

September 2nd, 2011 at 7:34 PM ^

Great and funny writing. Love it.

"Turnovers regress like a mofo." 

"Communist Football Almanack"

Beautiful. Where you gonna get that?

The Blue Robe is the closest thing to a religious experience . . .

All that tribal, group selection stuff banging hormonally.

Just another DNA-transport vehicle throwing elbows in the long dance.

Brian is a mofo tribal priest.

It's Christmas Eve!

My therapist says . . .

Screw him. He don't evol psych.

 

 

 

BigBlue86

September 2nd, 2011 at 8:31 PM ^

I think Michigan will play lights-out against Nebraska and beat them, but I think we're gonna have to wait until next year for the OSU revenge. Going to be a good day tomorrow!

M-Wolverine

September 2nd, 2011 at 11:42 PM ^

To a week ago when on the radio you thought 5 wins was more likely than ten. Progress of some sort?
<br>
<br>Also interesting that variability of turnovers is brought up the same day that Sports Illustrated has multiple side articles emphasizing the skills and effort towards creating turnovers. (With nice discussion of Woodson as the "King of the Strip"). Top 3 teams last year in turnover margin? Patriots, Packers, and Steelers. I don't think anyone is expecting them to regress in turnovers enough that they're not going to be some of the top teams in the League.

uminks

September 3rd, 2011 at 1:47 AM ^

Past predictions:  '08 6-6 (-3)

                            '09 6-6 (-1)

                           '10 7-5  perfect

 

My theory is that an improving defense, improvements on special teams and decreasing turnovers will allow Michigan to win more close B1G games.

If we stay injury free and can win all the games through MSU...may be 9 or 10 wins.

The injury bug will be the only way this team will win less than 7 games.

 

BlueTuesday

September 3rd, 2011 at 8:06 AM ^

The defense will be vastly improved, the offense will be about the same(fingers crossed). One cannot under estimate the value of good coaching.
<br> 9-3 is my final answer with losses coming from MSU, Iowa, and Nebraska.