Mailbag: Stats Love Us, Saban Manball Canary, Substitution Style, Cole Absence, Playcalling Approach

On S&P+

S&P+

Number 3? For the statistically challenged, what do you think of this methodology?

S&P+ is as good as any other ranking system that drills into play-by-play data to get a clearer picture of a football game than scoring margin alone can give you. Bill Connelly, the guy behind it, also runs Football Study Hall. He does a lot of smart things. S&P+ is a valuable look at who is playing the best.

Unfortunately, it can only go on the data that exists and in early-season college football that's always going to be sparse. Meanwhile some folks will dispute lot of the assumptions S&P+ makes, primarily that turnovers are super random and not major factors in the rankings. It also values all games evenly in ways that humans aren't always big fans of. Utah is significantly below Michigan because:

• the Michigan-Utah game was about even down to down and turned on turnovers
• Utah did not significantly outgain Utah State or Fresno State
• Michigan yardage-murdered everyone other than Utah

S&P+ is not trying to be a descriptive ranking (ie: these teams have had the best season so far) but rather a predictive one (ie: if these teams were to meet who would win). Michigan has performed like an elite team so far according to S&P+, and I can see why it thinks that.

FEI, the other major ranking that takes more than score into account*, is more skeptical than S&P, but I think that's because that still bakes some preseason assumptions into the ranking.

*[AFAIK Sagarin only uses the final score.]

Can we manball it when even Saban flees to spread-type behavior?

It seems that Nick Saban has recently admitted that his current style is a bit outdated, that he needs to adjust to the recent trends in college football. It is pretty obvious that teams like OSU, Oregon, TCU, Baylor, even BGSU are seeing a lot of success by utilizing both up-tempo and featuring quick guys in space.

Can you speak to offensive philosophies such as Alabama and Stanford and how this may or may not be a concern for us going forward? I understand that "smashmouth" football is not mutually exclusive with up-tempo and quick guys in space. But it just seems to me that Harbaugh's style doesn't seem to emphasize either of these current successful trends.

Thanks,
UNCWolverine

Given how the season has gone so far I actually think Michigan might occasionally run into the opposite problem. They've been absolutely lights out against six consecutive spread offenses. (Not very good spread offenses, sure, but Michigan isn't holding these guys to 20 points and high-fiving afterwards. They are crushing opponents.) Meanwhile the Harbauffense is winning plays against teams that aren't always comfortable putting heavy D packages on the field or filling all the gaps Harbaugh creates.

Saban's move to a more spread and tempo oriented offense is a reaction to the many times his defense has been blown out of the water by those kind of attacks over the past few years. When the Tide get to line up against one of the remaining "pro style" offenses, the results are generally ugly. Ask Georgia.

Michigan might not have that issue. Durkin seems very comfortable devising ways to neutralize spreads. I will have trepidation when and if Michigan does come up against… well, pretty much just Alabama.

On and off and on and off

Brian or Ace-

Do you know, or, if not, could you ask someone, why Dan Liesman (I think that is who it is, at least according to my Mini-Program; it is #54) comes out a few yards onto the field between plays almost every time when we are on defense. It is as if he is not sure whether he is going in or not, but since he NEVER goes in, it is obviously for some other reason. Is there some rule about substitutions that this relates to, are we trying to confuse the opposition, or does he just like to pretend he might be going in? There has to be a reason, and I would think most MGoBloggers would love to hear it. Thanks

David

We've seen Ross and Gant also do this. It's just a substitution strategy. After the play Michigan sends guys who may or may not be in the defensive package, depending on what the offense does, to about the numbers. (Any farther could get you an illegal substitution penalty.)

If opponents send in two or more blocky-catchy types, the linebacker will stay in and a DB will be removed. Since every team Michigan has played almost never uses two or more blocky-catchy types the LB heads back to the sideline almost all the time.

Liesman specifically is interesting because Michigan usually has Ross available; I haven't noticed if sometimes he is poking his head on the field when Michigan's already in a 4-3. That would imply Michigan has a heavy package in case someone tries to manball them.

Someone was confused.

Mr. Hammond

I wanted you to know how much I appreciate and enjoy your broadcasts of Notre Dame football.  Your kind deference to Our Lady's University is a beautiful expression of the christian love that infuses your broadcast persona.  Thank you so much!  You are a good man.

May God bless you and yours.

Andrew V.

I did flip over to the Notre Dame-UMass game when it was interesting for a minute and heard Hammond's dulcet tones. He's missed.

I assume that guy who made the Tom Hammond tie is in Congress by now.

[After THE JUMP: early drives allowed, Harbaugh's playcalling system, a search for superclusters.]

Why do we give up that shaky drive early?

Hey Brian,

After watching Mattison defenses for the last couple years, it seems to me that a lot of times teams come out and march down the field on the first drive. (Almost like a Rich Rod first drive, which it seemed like always got points).  Anyway, the opposing team gets points, we make adjustments.
Is this first drive scoring normal on other teams?

Do you see any reason for this? I assume everyone makes adjustments on defense (except GERG of course) but do you see Durkin playing a more basic defense the first drive?

And lastly, if this is a trend shouldn't he ramp up the first drive defense?

Thanks and go blue,
Ron K.

I couldn't Google up anything to confirm or deny the idea that early drives are generally more efficient than others, but there's an obvious reason why that might be true: teams enter a game with various things they've practiced but haven't shown on film, and the first time they run them they hit big chunk plays. We're certainly seeing that with Michigan's offense, which has frequently had first-half drives on which the defense gets torn up by new plays.

I think there's something real and universal there. The other part of it is probably bad luck. Oregon State's opening drive featured a clear uncalled hold and a pinpoint perfect pass from a guy who doesn't specialize in those. BYU's early drive saw Michigan get edged a couple times, as did NW's early FG attempt drive. In both cases they saw what was happening and adjusted.

As far as adjustments. I don't think you can adjust to stuff you haven't seen, and a lot of these drives are not even approaching the endzone.

Where did Cole go?

Any news on the severity of the injury to Brian Cole?  Based on the OSU and UNLV games I figured it was just a matter of time until we blocked a punt.  It didn't seem that likely against BYU and I figured it was probably because one of our best pure athletes were injured.

I don't have any insight there. I don't know if we'll get any even if he's out a long time. Michigan may not want to bring him back particularly quickly if they don't think he's needed. Cole is eligible for a medical redshirt.

One makes a lot of sense. As a recruit Cole was an extremely raw extraordinarily athlete, so he's the kind of guy you want to give yourself that fifth year option with. Michigan has to balance that with how much use they could get out of them this year. Is Cole more likely to block a punt than, say, Drake Johnson? By how much? Is he likely to contribute at WR? The answers to those questions are probably such that the redshirt is a better option.

"Good shit Jedd" after the two-pointer against Maryland

How does the playcalling work?

I recently listen to a podcast where they mentioned some weird tendencies of Harbaugh's teams, particularly the 49ers, to split up their offensive play calling among a number of coaches.

Is this something he's continued at Michigan? Whatever he's doing is working great so no complaints, but I'd be interested to hear his perspective as to why he does this when others don't, at least to my knowledge.

Koby

Since that podcast was from February and Niners Nation had not yet accepted the fact that their team was run by a nincompoop I'm guessing the context here was frustration at an offense that fell off significantly during the last NFL season. Niners fans complained a lot about delay of game penalties and burned timeouts, apparently not without reason.

Harbaugh has continued that at Michigan:

"It's unique (compared) to what I've done before," Fisch said Wednesday. "But it's something I would always do from now on."

Instead of designating one person to serve as the team's chief offensive play caller, or limit the discussion to himself and one other coach, Harbaugh keeps an open dialogue going with his entire offensive staff from snap-to-snap on the sidelines during game days.

Some coaching staffs allow the offensive coordinator to call plays on his own, with the head coach serving as the only voice who has veto power. At other places, it's the head coach calling the plays, and taking only suggestions from the rest of the group.

For Harbaugh -- at every stop he's made -- the conversation about what to run during any given situation involves everyone.

Jedd Fisch's "passing game coordinator" title is more than frippery.

We haven't heard much from Harbaugh himself about his philosophy here, but it makes sense. A supremely confident leader is going to take all available advice in order to make the best decision, and reinforce subordinates' ability to both contribute and disagree. (Bo legendarily started fights between his staffers in order to pierce the veil of politeness and get everyone's actual opinion.) Pinging staffers in case he's forgotten something or they see something he doesn't no doubt helps Michigan find those RPS+3 plays.

And so far the apparent downside with the 49ers has not reared its head. Michigan's taken its share of "whoops" timeouts, but seemingly no more than an average team. The payoff has been clear.

Comparing a truly collaborative system with Dave Brandon's management approach is an exercise left to the reader.

Can you think of something bigger than a galaxy?

Is there a better example of the coaching upgrade than AJ Williams' improved play?

Andrew

In terms of player development, probably not. The competitors there would be Stribling/Clark, Ben Braden, and maybe tentatively the running backs. (They had a very good day on Saturday.) Braden is a strong candidate but even late last year he'd improved a reasonable amount, and OL often take a long time to round into form. Williams

If we're expanding the search to include things other than "this player is better now" I would submit the Chesson kickoff return, he general offensive playcalling, and the acquisition of Jake Rudock and Blake O'Neill.

I cannot pick between these things. They're all pretty great. I like 2015.