[Upchurch/MGoBlog]
Another game, another batch of data lost to garbage time. That’s certainly not a complaint, but it does explain why there wasn’t a ton of movement in the advanced stats. Michigan hit Bill Connelly’s criteria for garbage time with 46 seconds left in the first half, as Karan Higdon’s two-yard touchdown run put Michigan up 28. From there, the lead never shrunk to the point where there was any real threat of exiting garbage time.
The traditional stats paint a picture that matches what we observed: Michigan dominated in almost every area. You can run down the stat sheet and blindly point and likely find a stat Michigan handily won. First downs? Michigan more than doubled Penn State, 25 to 12. Rushing first downs? Michigan had a 14-3 edge. Yards per play? Michigan fell just short of doubling up Penn State with 6.1 to their 3.5. Rushing yards? Michigan’s 326-70 advantage was one of their biggest statistical wins of the day. That stat obviously needs to be contextualized a bit; Michigan still blew Penn State away when looking at average yards per rush, of which Michigan averaged 6.7 to Penn State’s 2.5. That Penn State stayed fairly balanced (28 rushes and 27 passes) and walked away with the aforementioned average yards per rush and 4.5 yards per pass is quite the accomplishment for the defense.
The stats in the preceding paragraph got me thinking about Michigan’s rush defense, and after looking through the numbers it deserves the spotlight this week. The traditional stats help set the table: Michigan has allowed 64 and 70 rushing yards over the last two games. Looking at things a little closer, Michigan has held opponents back in a variety of ways and situations; Bill Connelly’s advanced stats profile reflects that, and some of the non-Bill Connelly total win predictions and win-out percentages seem to have taken notice as well.
[After THE JUMP: Five Factors, counting the ways Michigan’s rush defense has been exceptional, and looking ahead to Wisconsin]
On the topic of total win predictions and win-out/conference win percentages, there’s some good news this week. ESPN’s FPI predicted that Michigan would finish the season with 10.6 wins and 1.7 losses before the Penn State game, and after the game they’re now predicting that Michigan will finish with 11.3 wins and 1.2 losses. Michigan’s win-out percentage skyrocketed from 9.1% before Penn State to 20.1% after, while their odds of winning the conference jumped from 27.4% to 42.0%. They don’t have anything about their methodology listed, so all I can tell you is that Michigan pummeling Penn State (and providing some additional information about how good their offense and defense can be) and Ohio State sitting idle worked to Michigan’s advantage this week.
ESPN is also publishing team efficiencies now using a 0-to-100 scale, with 50 being roughly average in each category. Here’s their explanation of what they’re tracking:
Team efficiencies are based on the point contributions of each unit to the team's scoring margin, on a per-play basis. The values are adjusted for strength of schedule and down-weighted for "garbage time" (based on win probability).
I’ve started keeping these in my spreadsheet now so we can track movement through the season, but for now we have to just run with post-Penn State values. Not that that’s a bad thing; Michigan’s offensive efficiency is 83.9, their defensive efficiency is 86.5, their special teams efficiency is 86.0. and their overall efficiency is 93.5.
Bill Connelly’s advanced stats profiles are more thorough; they may not lump everything into one shiny stat, but that’s, you know, the point. We again start with the Five Factors, as Connelly’s data has found these are the five stats that are highly correlated with winning games.
The defense isn’t just limiting other teams’ efficiency; I think it’s safe to call that stifling. Michigan’s defense is currently second in the nation in limiting the opponent’s Success Rate. Another way to read that is that Michigan’s only allowing opposing teams to pick up half the necessary yardage on first down, seventy percent of necessary yardage on second down, or all the necessary yardage on third or fourth down 21.1% of the time. Efficiency’s actually a few percent lower than Explosiveness in terms of correlation between winning that category and winning the game, but it’s awfully impressive to limit opponents the way Michigan is considering that all snaps are included in Efficiency and that teams are playing from behind the eight ball on 78.9% of snaps.
Explosiveness remains an issue, but not an issue necessitating hand wringing. I mean, at some point someone’s comment is just going to be “scoreboard” and, at least as far as Explosiveness last week is concerned, they’re right. Michigan gave up a 17-yard pass to Barkley and a nine-yard pass and not much else. They’re still ranked in the triple digits (105th), but if things go as they should on paper then the number should fall again this week; Wisconsin’s 55th in Efficiency and 114th in Explosiveness.
Might as well just repeat what I said last week: thanks, Jabrill. Pretty nice to have a guy who’s averaging 22.7 yards per punt return (on 10 returns!) and 40.5 yards per kick return (albeit on only two returns).
Michigan’s been given short fields thanks to their stellar return game and they are clearly taking full, nearly perfect advantage. The defense isn’t letting teams onto their side of the field with frequency, but it has happened at times because of the big plays they’ve ceded. Even so, they’re allowing the equivalent of a field goal every time a team gets past their 40, which ranks tenth nationally.
Michigan was a tiny bit of turnover luck after the Colorado game, as they were .75 turnovers above expected. This week the story’s quite a bit different, with Michigan now outpacing expected turnovers by 2.25 and getting nearly a field goal’s worth of points every game just off turnover luck. Unfortunately, they now look like a candidate to regress to the mean as they’re 16th in the country in actual turnovers.
Long story short, the offense has remained effective through one game of the conference schedule and the defense has gotten better each week. It’s worth noting that the defense’s stats have remained very similar or gotten better against the run after the Penn State stats have been factored in, and that’s notable considering how talented Saquon Barkley is. Their offensive line is again blocking akin to a water pipe with air trapped in it, but Barkley is a guy who was averaging 4.8, 4.3, and 7.6 yards per carry in his three games prior to Michigan, in which he averaged 3.8.
Then he came up against a defense that fills lanes well and doesn’t let opponents stay in favorable down-and-distance situations. After the first four games, Michigan’s defensive Rushing Success Rate is 18.4%. The following graph, which tracks national rank, speaks for itself.
The Y-axis is a little zoomed in here so take that into consideration when looking at the big drop from weeks one and two to weeks three and four. Even so, Michigan’s ranked 18th in the country right now after starting week one at 60th and dropping each week. Remember that Opportunity Rate is the percent of runs on which the offensive line gets five yards for the back. The national average is 39.8%; Michigan’s front seven is seriously suppressing the defense’s number.
This one’s interesting, because it seems like the numbers should be even lower considering Michigan’s D-line and linebackers. Even when looking at the national rankings, Michigan’s rank of 42 seems a little underwhelming. Then you look at the national average (68.2%) and see that Michigan can comfortably be categorized as good—not great, but good—right now. This number should continue to get better against Wisconsin, as they’ve had difficulty rushing the ball in short-yardage situations; Wisconsin’s rushing offense ranked 86th in Power Success Rate.
Michigan’s stuff rate (% of runs that end at or behind the line of scrimmage) may have fallen off a really, really teeny bit in week four, but they’re still ranked ninth in the country. The 2015 Wolverines finished 37th nationally with a 22.2% Stuff Rate, so I think it’s safe to attribute this top-ten ranking to Don Brown (and the development of his Dudes).
To me, what’s really interesting is how teams make are making their run/pass decisions. Opponents are running on Michigan on 55.2% of standard-downs plays, 92nd nationally and well below the national average of 59.3%. They must not like the thought of running draws at Ryan Glasgow and Mo Hurst, as opponents are running on just 25.5% of passing downs, which ranks 110th nationally and is again well below the national average of 34.1%. That being said, opponents might be picking on Michigan and their pa—wait. The Passing Success Rate against Michigan’s defense is 23.1%, second nationally and impressively far away from the 40.7% national average. Defensive coordinators are having to pick their poison, and both are potent toxins. At least they’ll be able to empathize with their special teams brethren when Michigan trots out the Jabrill Peppers/Jourdan Lewis two-returner punt return unit.
Looking Ahead
Wisconsin appears to be similar to Michigan, yet worse in most ways. First, check out Ecky Pting’s weekly S+P+ opponent comparisons on the board. Their defense is excellent but has a tendency to give up big plays; they’re 13th in Efficiency, 12th in finishing drives, and 76th in Explosiveness. That sounds familiar. Digging in a bit further, they’re 17th in Rushing Success Rate, 17th in Rushing IsoPPP (read: Explosiveness), 21st in Opportunity Rate, first in Power Success Rate, and 41st in Stuff Rate. That’s a dang good rush defense. Their Passing Success Rate is 16th, but their Passing IsoPPP ranks 101st. They seem vulnerable through the air, and teams running only 23.8% of the time on passing downs emphasizes it. What really drives home the vulnerability that is their secondary, though, is that they rank 80th in Passing Downs IsoPPP.
At least on paper, Wisconsin’s having trouble running the ball again this season. They rank somewhere between 81st and 102nd in all of the main rushing categories of Bill Connelly’s advanced stats profile. Their standard and passing downs line yards per carry are similarly bad. Wisconsin does rank 19th in Passing Success Rate, but their Passing IsoPPP is 97th. It wouldn’t be a surprise to see their run game shut down by Michigan’s defense, and though turning to the air isn’t the worst thing—Alex Hornibrook has completed 67.4% of his passes for 8.2 yards per attempt—they likely won’t be able to move the ball in chunks through the air, and the odds they can dink and dunk for long periods of time over and over are not very good.