Turnovers, Turnovers, Turnovers!
First, this is NOT 2009!
Second, I am totally convinced this team will do great things this year!
Third, TOs have little to do with luck and lots to do with skill. So, there is no reason to believe the experience of this year's team will not result in far fewer TOs.
But, fourth -- Turnovers, turnovers, turnovers!
Last year M was 4-1 with a TOM of +1. We all know what happened. Why? We ended the season with a TOM of -12 (that is a MINUS 13! in just 7 games!! ). Few, if any, teams can survive that kind of implosion.
As Brian would say: HOLD ON TO THE GOD DAMN BALL !!!!!!!! (And everything else will take care of itself.)
September 29th, 2010 at 9:39 PM ^
YAy!!11!!!!!11!
September 29th, 2010 at 9:42 PM ^
I thought you were talking about my sales department for a minute there as we laid off five non-producers this week. I got quite confused.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:42 PM ^
Are you illustrating the logic to Phil Steele's break-out teams selection orrrrrrrrrrrr..
September 29th, 2010 at 9:46 PM ^
Phil Steele is totally wrong about the "Turnover = Turnaround" because Steele claims that double digit TOs are primarily due to luck. Nothing could be futher from the truth.
Case in point. M went from -10 TOM in 2008 to -12 TOM in 2009 and improved their record by 60%!
September 29th, 2010 at 10:02 PM ^
That's not an unreasonable claim at all, fumbles are pretty much luck, you just have to get hit the right way (Which is why Mike Hart rarely fumbled, because he was so good at avoiding contact). Turnovers are a key statistic on the final stat sheet, generally the winner doesn't have as many as the loser. You also don't expect teams to post double digit negative turnover margains in consecutive years (For what ever reason Rich Rodriguez teams don't seem to handle the football as well, basically the Calipari free throw effect in football). So to claim that teams that pair a double digit negative turnover margain with good returning talent will be breakout teams relative to their results last year is not totally wrong at all, it's actually a pretty effective metric (Probably one of the most effective metric for detecting a turnaround before any football is even played) to make a prediciton based on zero results.
You're example doesn't refute anything, Phil Steele never generated a linear relationship between wins and turnover, he looks at it as a domain you fit into. Both teams would be considered to be turning it over way too much, and that is reflected in their records. Using the one example equals fact line of thinking, I can claim that since Eric Smith walked on to MSU and is playing safety in the NFL, we must start playing all walk ons at safety in order to increase our output of NFL players.
Cool beans by the way.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:03 PM ^
Actually, I did a detailed analysis last year that "proved" Steele is wrong. Basically, teams that have relatively small TOM (+ or -) can attribute that to luck. But, teams with large TOM fall outside the range of any reasonable "luck" (good or bad).
Details are here: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/turnover-analysis-part-2-do-turnovers-turnar…
September 29th, 2010 at 10:23 PM ^
I dont read Steele's self-promotional diatribes he introduces his analysis with, so I've never seen him claim turnover margain was primarily due to luck. The way I've viewed it is that there are three contributing factos to TOM, luck (fumbles), passing game effectiveness (interceptions), and defensive effectiveness ('run' support to bump TOM up), and when you can identify a team with an awful TOM and a lot of returning starters (with some sort of talent), that's a good metric to try and guess who will experience a big bump the next season, because they've illustrated they have a lot of potential for growth, and with an improved TOM, they'll start winning a majority of the swing games. In the end he picks based on the last two criterea, and whatever his thinking is that led up to it doesn't really change that the resulting metric is about as effective as it gets for detecting success with no results to base your prediction on. And disregaurd the cool beens comment, because that probably made no sense to you. My browser in compatibility view mode stuck your signiture on the end of your paragraph, so that was a little confusing on my end.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:28 PM ^
Ah, I see you did not read my analysis. So, here is the other problem with Steele:
Steele says, “Teams with a positive double-digit TO ratio had the same or weaker records 77% of the time since 1996.
“Teams with a negative double-digit TO ratio had the same or stronger records 80% of the time since 1996.”
Steele bases his analysis on the premise that turnovers are primarily luck and that teams “rarely get a repeat of that good fortune.”
However, my analysis shows:
From 1999 to the present, 72% of all FBS teams that had a winning record of at least +2 (7-5 or better) had the same or weaker records the next year regardless of TOM. This includes approximately 50 teams each year. (Steele: 77% for the teams with double-digit turnovers.)
From 1999 to the present, 74% of all FBS teams that had a losing record of at least -2 (5-7 or worse) had the same or stronger records the next year regardless of TOM. This includes approximately 43 teams each year. (Steele: 80% for the teams with double-digit turnovers.)
Basically, it is very difficult for winning teams to keep on winning at the same rate and very difficult for losing teams to keep on losing at the same rate regardless of what TOM happens to be.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:51 PM ^
I did read it, and it's geared towards refuting the notion of "luck." I understand that TOM is not the end all be all of winning or losing. You're saying that teams naturally experience peaks and lows in the amount of wins (which can be attributed to graduation classes) over time. I completely agree with that. What I'm saying is that TOM can be used as a good metric to find teams with a lot of potential for growth (A 5-7 team with a 0 TOM is probably a team with subpar players, while a 5-7 team with a -12 TOM is probably a team with developing talent or just purely underachieving, because they managed to overcome that TOM to still get 5 wins), and when you pair that statistic with a team returning a lot of talent, you've identified a team with a lot of room for growth, hence a possible break out team. I don't care whether Phil Steele used the premise of TOM being luck in his selection of the metrics, the metrics still are a solid way of finding teams with potential.
September 30th, 2010 at 7:27 AM ^
How many times are you going to misrepresent the Steele Turnover-Turnaround stuff before you get it right?
Love the diaries you've been doing on TOs, but the fact is Steele says teams with DD -TO margin will improve their record--not their TO margin--the following year. 2009 MICH is an example.
Seriously, have you read the article or are you just assuming
September 29th, 2010 at 9:43 PM ^
Go on...
September 29th, 2010 at 9:50 PM ^
According to the folks at Football Outsiders, every TO is worth 4 points, If M was just -3 TOM for the Iowa game instead of -4, we win that game. If M is even on TOM, we beat osu!
Yeah, I know, it is not that easy -- but, I'm just sayin.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:54 PM ^
Fascinating...
September 30th, 2010 at 12:00 AM ^
Wow this TOM guy is really important ...riveting stuff. I hate Wednesdays can't Saturday get here so we have something to blog about.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:44 PM ^
That's a cool story bro.
September 29th, 2010 at 9:46 PM ^
we... know...?
September 29th, 2010 at 9:46 PM ^
September 29th, 2010 at 9:54 PM ^
A lot of folks (myself included) have been crunching the numbers and are looking at a very good season. But, the 800 pound gorilla in the room (which I have never seen accounted for in any number crunching) is TOM -- it can negate all the other calcs.
So, HOLD ON TO THE GOD DAMN BALL!
September 29th, 2010 at 9:57 PM ^
I think the gorilla in the room is our defense!?!
September 30th, 2010 at 8:17 AM ^
September 29th, 2010 at 9:46 PM ^
I think we will. Denard is the key. For starters, he probably won't throw that many INTs because defenses have to be very conscious of his running. Most defenses are likely to bring up a safety to stop the run, leaving the corners in single coverage. He won't have to thread the needle into tight coverage as often as a typical QB.
The other thing is that Tate's great skill - being able to throw on the move - sometimes came back to haunt us as he often held the ball dangerously out as he scrambled in the pocket. He ended up with a pretty high number of fumbles. When Denard decides to run, that's it - he tucks it away and gets going.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:08 PM ^
I agree but add that the O-line is so much improved that Denard (or Tate or Devin) has a lot more time to throw and make better choices with where the ball goes...so fewer INT's for the season (I hope).
September 29th, 2010 at 9:50 PM ^
September 29th, 2010 at 10:22 PM ^
fumbles are created by man not nature. Just ask any running back, quarterback or wide receiver he's faced and they'll tell you the same.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:29 PM ^
If you're Woodson, fumbles are created by nature? I don't follow.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:32 PM ^
I think he is saying that anyone who has faced CW, agrees that fumbles are caused by CW, not luck!
September 30th, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^
w/r/t the Charles Woodson comment, I tried reading this a couple more times and still agree with jmblue... is this a reverse logic thread? Let me try reading it one more time...
