Comparing the Defenses we Have Faced to Future Defenses (without the Michigan Bias)
So I was thinking about the other day how everyone likes to point out how bad the defenses we have faced are and how much better the defenses we are going to face are. They like to point out the statistical rankings compared to future opponents. If you look at average yards per game:
4. Iowa – 242.2
5. OSU – 242.4
18. PSU – 290.4
25. Wisconsin – 301.0
37. Illinois – 322.25
41. MSU – 328.6
51. UConn – 338.4
58. Purdue – 349.5
88. Indiana – 397.25
89. ND – 401
119. BGSU – 511.8
Now this does make it seem pretty bad right? 4 of the bottom 5 are the opponents we have already played. But wouldn't there be a certain bias from having played against our offense? Especially this early in the season. Well with our offense taken out of our opponents averages:
4. Iowa – 242.2
5. OSU – 242.4
18. PSU – 290.4
25. Wisconsin – 301.0
27. UConn – 304.75
38. Illinois – 322.25
42. MSU – 328.6
52. Indiana – 338.33
59. Purdue – 349.5
72. ND – 368.25
112. BGSU – 459.5
Sure we still have the top 4 to come, but the one that I found most interesting was UConn being so far ahead of MSU and Indiana jumping a ways up there (although I would attribute that to opponents and only 4 games). Now what if we look at points?
2. Iowa – 10.2
11. OSU – 14.2
15. PSU – 15.0
29. Illinois – 18.0
32. Wisconsin – 18.2
36. MSU – 18.6
44. UConn – 21.0
51. Purdue – 22.0
70. ND – 24.8
72. Indiana – 25.0
111. BGSU – 36.8
Once again we see the 4 played are 4 of the bottom 5. But again, what happens if we remove Michigan?
2. Iowa – 10.2
11. OSU – 14.2
15. PSU – 15.0
29. Illinois – 18.0
32. Wisconsin – 18.2
36. MSU – 18.6
37. UConn – 18.75
39. Indiana – 19.3
51. Purdue – 22.0
66. ND – 24.0
92. BGSU – 29.75
So not quite as much improvement in terms of relative position, but all teams made a large jump except ND overall. Also of note is how close Indiana and UConn are now to MSU.
So take this for what you will, sure the O will probably drop off somewhat, but I doubt it will be as much as some people want to think. Also by looking at the stats, this probably isn’t the week it drops off. Now we just gotta get that defense going. Also, when looking at most peoples original predictions of around 8-4, that seems to fit the mold in terms of defenses better or worse than what we have faced so far.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:31 PM ^
I'd like to see it in a few weeks, after some Big Ten games.
The reason being that it might be flawed due to the non-conference games, but I guess that all the schools play weak non-conference so maybe it is weighted out.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:56 PM ^
To a degree, yes, I think you're right. Also, what might be most glaring is...Purdue is really, really bad. Like, epic bad.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:34 PM ^
i think you had good intentions but... im still scurred. theres a good chance we might have to punt once or twice more this season
October 4th, 2010 at 10:47 PM ^
Not accounting for strength of schedule means Indiana's D is going to look better than it is and Notre Dame's is going to look worse.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:51 PM ^
(I think it's a weekly feature in the diaries)
October 4th, 2010 at 10:55 PM ^
I hate to admit it, but I listen to 97.1 on my drive home and today I was subjected to listening to Valenti and Foster claim that Michigan offense is overrated and will be pretty easy to contain because "they have played no one with a real defense"...Blah blah blah
Valenti's "logic" was that MSU's defense is sooooo much better than anything Michigan had faced to date. The only problem with that 'logic' is that for the same approach about Michigan "running it up" on inferior defenses. Sparty hs built up the "impressive" defense stats against equally inferior teams (with Wisconsin being a noted exception).
What you started only provides the beginning of data that clearly refutes a talking heads "logic"
October 4th, 2010 at 11:02 PM ^
All I have to say is that it's a good thing our defense doesn't have to play our offense in a real game. It must be ugly in practice.
October 4th, 2010 at 11:02 PM ^
For example, in the Michigan - ND game, Michigan gained 86 of the 523 total offensive yards -- 16.1% of yards from scrimmage -- on two long drives that ended with missed field goals, zero points.
Prior to the Wisconsin game, the conventional wisdom was that MSU's pass defense is terrible again this year, because (subtracting out the FCS opponent), MSU was ranked #110 nationally in passing yards per game allowed.
However, MSU had also had more pass attempts against than any other team in FBS, and was also T-#69 for opponent pass completion percentage (56.3%), T-#39 for passing yards per attempt (6.0); #60 for opponent passer rating (122.48).
Post-Wisconsin, does anybody still think MSU's pass defense is terrible?
You have to look at the other factors -- YPA, Opponent Drive Success Rate, Opponent PPD -- to get a true indication of a defense's ability, not just total yards or yards per game.
October 4th, 2010 at 11:25 PM ^
I don't agree with your argument that yards points is a meaningless stat. While it is obvious that in the course of the game the only thing that actually matters is points scored compared to points allowed, however if we are talking about predictive stats, then total yardage is helpful and I would argue somewhat less variable than total points can be.
October 5th, 2010 at 1:28 AM ^
What if your defense allowed the opponent to go 99 yards on every drive, and then stopped them at the 1 yard line and forced them to turn it over either due to turnover or on downs? After 10 drives, the opponent would have 990 yards -- terrible defensive performance by you, no? -- but 0 points -- awesome defensive performance by you, amirite?
What I am saying is that yardage by itself is meaningless. We really need to go tempo-free, and look at success rate (probably success rate +) and points per drive, among other things.
Yards are important to scoring, but by themselves, yards are meaningless. You can run up and down the field all day long, but without scoring points, you lose. That's why I say "yards without points are meaningless".
October 5th, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^
I don't disagree with your assessment that other stats are more predictive than yards, but to say they are meaningless, is simply ridiculous. In your scenario, giving up 990 yards would be a terrible defensive performance mitigated by some unbelievable luck.
October 4th, 2010 at 11:40 PM ^
Wait, so you're saying that maybe Michigan's D wasn't as bad against Indiana as everyone makes it seem if you look at all the stats(decent YPA, stopped on more than half the drices, etc.)
October 5th, 2010 at 2:13 AM ^
...was -better- [correction: worse] than YTD average in terms of success rate (33.3%, avg 31.7%) -but- [correction: and] worse than YTD average in terms of points per drive (2.33 PPD, avg 2.0 PPD).
October 4th, 2010 at 11:40 PM ^
I hope you didn't waste a bunch of time calculating those out and just took them from my diary.
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/post-week-5-yardage-analysis-and-predictions-score-predictor
Good analysis though about ranking them.
October 4th, 2010 at 11:44 PM ^
Also, most of your numbers haven't been updated through this past weekend.
October 4th, 2010 at 11:56 PM ^
...for pointing this out:
While Michigan is at #102 allowing 433.6 yards a game, Oklahoma is at #95 with 411.6. Funny how Oklahoma is seen as being a very good team, while Michigan is getting slagged both nationally and locally for theirs. For example, on one of the ESPN wrap-up shows Saturday, Lou Holtz made a typical smarmy comment that went something like this:
"Imagine how much fun Denard Robinson must have in practice playing against Michigan's defense."
I still think the most important stat so far is 5-0. And I am looking forward to 6-0.
October 5th, 2010 at 2:32 AM ^
CW here in Big 12 country is that Oklahoma is down this year, especially defensively.
October 5th, 2010 at 8:00 AM ^
They are ranked #6-7 nationally, so I'd say he makes a good point.
October 5th, 2010 at 12:07 AM ^
Here are the numbers for the teams that MSU has faced this year:
Western Michigan - 79th overall - total yards 323 (season avg 351.75)
Florida Atlantic - 101st overall - total yards 301 (season avg 303.25)
Notre Dame - 48th overall - total yards 461 (season avg 404)
No Colorado - 55th in the FCS - total yards 266 (season avg 353)
Wisconsin - 27th overall - total yards 292 (season avg 445.6)
This tells me that they played really well against Wisconsin, but the other 3 teams (FBS division) meet or exceeded their season average.
Still nothing here that tells me they are going to "shut down" our offense.
October 5th, 2010 at 1:55 AM ^
I agree that MSU's defense is not going to shut down Michigan's offense. I don't think anyone in the country can.
What MSU can do, though, is keep Michigan's offense off the field, through its own offensive strategy.
Also, you are again looking only at yards. Look at scoring:
Western: Avg 25.0 PPG, scored 14 vs MSU.
FAU: Avg 17.3 PPG, scored 17 vs MSU.
ND: Avg 24.6 PPG, scored 28 vs MSU in regulation, 31 in OT.
Wisconsin: Avg. 36.4 PPG, scored 24 vs MSU.
With the exception of Notre Dame (who scored 3 points above their average in regulation), MSU has held FBS opponents to below average scoring.
October 5th, 2010 at 2:49 AM ^
unless you transposed the numbers. The only team that exceeded its season average against MSU was Notre Dame. All the others gained less yardage vs MSU than their season average.
October 5th, 2010 at 12:15 AM ^
Updated numbers, plus offense rank
October 5th, 2010 at 1:35 AM ^
you realize that these team numbers are skewed because the played michigan right? id love to see where they ranked if you took out the michigan game.
October 5th, 2010 at 3:02 AM ^
Did you even bother to read anything?
October 5th, 2010 at 10:39 AM ^
durrrrr
October 5th, 2010 at 2:25 AM ^
Maybe /
those defenses /
have horrid stats /
because /
BOOM /
NARDED.
October 5th, 2010 at 8:08 AM ^
So basically no matter what you do with the stats, the harder defenses are yet to come?