|04/23/2012 - 9:41am||Fire up Kickstarter||
It's time for MgoBlog to raise $400k for the band. . .
|08/24/2011 - 7:26pm||My favorite restaraunt is||
My favorite restaraunt is Applebee's.
|08/24/2011 - 3:20pm||Football is entertainment. . .||
All I care about is smoke machines and Journey.
|08/24/2011 - 2:37pm||Bar Louie over The Arena?||
Bar Louie = Let the Bodies Hit the Floor of all bars (let alone sports bars). Corporate bullshit.
Why not just call Dave Brandon and get some piped in rawk music to go with your appletini?
|07/08/2011 - 11:16am||Dead Horse||
The reason people like Fuzzy Dunlop keep beating this dead horse is because they are undoubtedly right and can't stand Brian and his cult followers suggesting otherwise. Bad news, MgoBlog nation. We SUCKED last year. That offense did not get it done against top tier B1G teams, until the game was out of reach.
If you're stats tell you otherwise than either (1) your model is not sophisticated enought or (2) your interpretation of the data is wrong.
This like the Rich Rod debate. No matter what excues you make because Brian liked him from the beginning, it doesn't change the fact that homeboy didn't get it done.
I love the site, but Brian derided Hoke and the dude is hauling in a sick class and unifying the program. I FEEL like he's going to win and will soon back-up that up with stats about wins and losses.
|07/07/2011 - 9:58pm||You're totally missing my point||
Maybe it's too nuanced for a message board.
I'm not saying Michigan NEVER did well except in garbage time, I'm saying against Wisco (and PSU and OSU) they ONLY did well in garbage time. See the difference? It's a fairly big one and strikes at the heart of the point I'm raising, which is I disagree with the way Brian uses stats to argue that our offense was actually more effective than average against Wisconsin.
|07/07/2011 - 6:18pm||TRUTH TO POWER!||
TRUTH TO POWER!
|07/07/2011 - 4:59pm||I guess this is my point. . .||
If your stats tell you that our offense played great aganist Wisconsin, despite scoring zero points when the outcome of the games still hung in the balance, then perhaps your stats/model are flawed.
I think there was clearly a pattern last year when we played upper-tier B1G teams, which was we were unable to score while the game was close and then we'd score some meangingless TDs after the game was essentially over. I also think that it seemed like our offense was able to get us to within one TD, but then sputter. That leads me to suspect that opposing defenses were ultimately able to clamp down us when it really counted.
No - I don't have data to support it, but I think it. I also think if the numbers were available, they might prove that I'm right. Maybe I'm totally wrong and if the facts bore that out, I'd admit it. However, I refuse to take the fact that we put up a large number of total yards against Wisconsin after the game was over as a proxy for our offense being "above average."
I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me there are a number of variables in a football game that influence our offensive performance. I think the margin of lead is one of them. I think the fact that we have no defense is one of them. Based on those two points, I think there's reason to beleive defense might take more chances and could lead to us scoring more easily.
Again, I'm not making a definitive statement, but rather saying that Brian has a little too much faith in his conclusions based on total yards coming in garbage time. Points matter if the reason you don't get them is turnovers, but Brian loves to rationalize away points as a statistic, and I'm merely doing the same to his statistics.
|07/07/2011 - 3:18pm||You're missing my point||
The comparison has to be within a single game - and then studying several similar games, not just by Michigan. Not across the season on an accumulated basis. The point is whether yards gained against Wisco are meaningful after being out of the game. The stats you just posted are irrelevant.
And this wasn't my first, I just got dinged into the negative for saying Rich Rod sucks.
|07/07/2011 - 2:35pm||Stats!||
With all due respect, just becuase someone criticizes your interpretation of data you should not straw man them by essentially implying that they're stupid for not agreeing with you. Some of your critics may not be able to synthesize their arguments in the most coherent way, but what they should be saying is not "your stats are wrong/meaninlgess/pointless," but rather "your models/interpretation are wrong" - which I think they sometimes are.
For example, I would argue that your conclusion - based on the yardage Michigan posted against Wisconsin - that our offense was performing well is an overly-simplistic interpretation of the data. Or alternatively, that you're model (measuring gross yards) is not sophisticated enough.
You say, "I could say that 'common sense' suggests that Wisconsin was not trying to let Michigan score in the third quarter and that the overall results should be taken in appropriate context, but then we're back to feelings, man." This is in jest, perhaps, but unearths your model's assumption that scoring on Wisconsin's defense in the third quarter while trailing by 30+ points is the same as scoring in the first quarter when the game is tied.
I would contend that it's not the same and the data (gross yards) are not one-for-one comparable to supprot the conclusion that Michigan can put up a lot of yards on a great defense.
For example, were Wisconsin's starters in the game during the third quarter? If they were, were they playing as intently? Or how about this, let's study the yardage gained by an opponent when the game is tied versus when the defense is leading by 3+ touchdowns? We could study blowout games with meaningless touchdowns in the second half. My gut (and experience for watching games) is that the defense plays tigther when the score is closer.
My belief that your stats are inconclusive is not based on a disdain for stats, but rather based on my disdain for your model and interpretation. It's a simple interpretation of data points that supports your conclusion.
There was a trend that Michigan was able to finally score after being down by major deficits against good teams. Stats need interpretation and that's where, I think, your arguments often fail.
|02/18/2009 - 6:02pm||Gotta Disagree with Brian On This||
I can't argue with the basic proposition that we would be better off with Threet as a security blanket. However, if our season were to go well with Threet on our team he'd be on the bench after three games or so. If Threet is started every game this season we would be in big trouble because that kid is not the future and that would imply that Tate and DRob weren't able to step up.
At the end of the day, Threet didn't accomplish much on the field. You could argue that the best QB performance of the season was put up by Sheridan against Minnesota. I'm not arguing that Sheridan is better, but I would argue that the gap between the two isn't so huge.
I also think you can look at RR's handling of the situation as a positive. Threet (like everyone else) can read the writing on the wall. His chances of playing were dwindling. I'm sure RR and his staff have been more focused on Forcier than Threet this semester. Maybe Threet talked to RR and RR shot Threet straight. Maybe RR told him that if he wants to start for a few years, Michigan isn't the place for him. What's wrong with that? It's honest, it's upfront and it's best for Threet and the Michigan program that needs to move quickly to a dual-threat QB. I think that if RR convinced Threet to stick around to get a few easy wins in the beginning of the season, while transitioning to Forcier/DRob would be the immoral thing to do. It would burn Threet's eligibility and basically kill his career. This scenario leaves Threet in control of his own destiny.
Best of luck to Threet - probably a nice guy, but not a guy that would ever be a serious starter at Michigan.