S&P+ Five Factors Matchup: UM vs. Wisconsin

Submitted by Ecky Pting on September 29th, 2016 at 2:49 PM

Here's the next installation of Bill Connelly's Five Factors metrics matchup between UM & Wisconsin. It's a bit busy, but what you see are columns of raw metrics for both offenses and defenses. The Category of the given metric is given in the column at the left. To the right of the team offense and defense metrics are the National Averages for that category.  The last two columns are where the rubber meets the road...

The "M Offense vs. UW Defense" column averages those two metrics to gauge the performance of the UM offense against the Wisconsin defense. Likewise, the "UW Offense vs. M Defense" averages the other two to gauge the performance of the Wisconsin Offense. From there, the column with the greater aggregate number has the competitive advantage...EXCEPT, in the three categories with asterisks: "Stuff Rate", "SD Sack Rate" and "PD Sack Rate", which are contra-metrics that gauge the offense's ability to avoid the given categorical description.

Anyway, the numbers showing the advantage are in bold, and as such it appears the matchups tilt in M's favor in all four of the non-turnover Five Factors. Breaking it down further, UM has the advantage in all but four sub-categories, as follows:

  1. Rushing IsoPPP (rushing explosiveness, measured as pts. scored per successful rushing plays)
  2. Power Success Rate (percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown)
  3. SD IsoPPP (pts. per successful standard down), and the same as against Colorado & PSU...
  4. PD Line Yards per Carry (bonus yards gained by running on passing downs...a.k.a. breaking contain!). As with the Buffs & PSU, gap integrity is going to be an important discipline for Wolverines success against the Badgers.

The IsoPPP advantage of Wisconsin in both the standard downs and rushing plays will mean the UM must continue to make improvements defensively in order to contain explosive plays, particularly on Standard Downs, which is a weakness of the UM Defense. It's apparent that the most likely means to Wisconsin success against the Wolverines will be through the explosive plays.

In general, however, I would say this matchup looks more promising than I'd expected just based on the what little I've seen of Wisconsin's play and other standard statistics.

FIVE FACTORS M Off. M Def. UW Off. UW Def. Nat'l
Avg.
M Off v
UW Def
UW Off v
M  Def
1) EXPLOSIVENESS:
IsoPPP 
1.41 1.41 1.13 1.29 1.26 1.35 1.27
2) EFFICIENCY:
Success Rate 
44.7% 21.1% 43.9% 30.6% 40.2% 37.7% 32.5%
3) FIELD POSITION:
Avg. FP 
37.8 26.2 33 23.2 30.1 30.50 29.60
4) FINISHING DRIVES:
Pts./Trip in 40 
6.3 3.06 4.39 3.13 4.65 4.72 3.73
5) T/O MARGIN:
T/O Luck (PPG)
2.81 -1.06      
RUSHING              
Rushing Success Rate  44.7% 18.4% 40.8% 30.3% 41.0% 37.5% 29.6%
Rushing IsoPPP  1.14 1.18 0.93 0.9 1.08 1.02 1.06
Opportunity Rate  42.0% 31.2% 36.2% 31.5% 39.7% 36.8% 33.7%
Power Success Rate  87.5% 61.5% 61.9% 33.3% 69.0% 60.4% 61.7%
Stuff Rate  13.3% 29.2% 15.5% 23.3% 18.6% 18.3% 22.4%
PASSING              
Passing Success Rate  44.7% 23.1% 48.2% 30.9% 40.2% 37.8% 35.7%
Passing IsoPPP  1.68 1.54 1.36 1.6 1.48 1.64 1.45
STANDARD DOWNS              
SD Success Rate  47.5% 25.4% 45.8% 34.6% 45.8% 41.1% 35.6%
SD IsoPPP  1.22 1.4 1.08 1.08 1.11 1.15 1.24
SD Line Yds/Carry  3.25 1.43 3.16 2.58 2.96 2.92 2.30
SD Sack Rate  3.6% 16.7% 3.4% 2.3% 4.7% 3.0% 10.1%
PASSING DOWNS              
PD Success Rate  37.5% 14.9% 39.2% 23.8% 30.3% 30.7% 27.1%
PD IsoPPP  2.01 1.44 1.3 1.81 1.74 1.91 1.37
PD Line Yds/Carry  2.76 2.49 2.02 1.18 3.4 1.97 2.26
PD Sack Rate  3.3% 17.1% 7.6% 9.8% 8.0% 6.6% 12.4%

 

Comments

The Maizer

September 29th, 2016 at 3:00 PM ^

I disagree with some of your analysis. For example, Rushing IsoPPP: just because the UW offense vs. UM defense has a slightly higher number than the UM offense vs. the UW defense does not mean that you should expect UW to have explosive rushing plays against UM. That same logic would be like saying UW got a 54 yard punt return while Jabrill only got 52 yards on a punt return, so UW won't have to worry about punt coverage.

The Oracle

September 29th, 2016 at 3:02 PM ^

This is the first game where they absolutely need Speight to play well. If late season Rudock had been there from the beginning last year, it would've been a 12-1 season.

WestBrew

September 29th, 2016 at 4:43 PM ^

there should be some sort of adjustment for strength of opponent to really get at these. lsu + msu are probably harder to run on than our opponents.  either way wisc has an impressive def power rate - we should not try to run on 3rd and 1!

Mongo

September 29th, 2016 at 5:30 PM ^

UM-O vs UW-D:
Run points = 16.3
Pass points = 19.5
Total Std points = 35.8

UW-O vs UM-D:
Run points = 14.7
Pass points = 14.8
Total Std points = 29.5

That is just a 6-7 point spread ... Vegas must be adding in a high percentage chance Peppers scores or puts it directly into scoring position off a punt / kickoff in order to get to the 10.5 spread.

Mongo

September 30th, 2016 at 8:53 AM ^

UW-D takes a big drop in explosiveness without Vince Biegel. Pass and Run success rate for UM-O is going to be higher by 10-15%. I don't think the scoring will be super high because UW-O will be in slow motion (like normal). By the revised percentages but adjusted for lower snaps, I would peg it at:

UM 34 - UW 20