Moving the Stati-Sticks: Post-Wisconsin

[Fuller/MGoBlog]

Michigan’s win over Wisconsin wasn’t put away until Jourdan Lewis executed one of the more dramatic and insanely athletic interceptions most of us will ever see, but the stats show that it should have been over sooner. That won’t come as a shock—if you watched you’re probably thinking of the missed field goals right now—but it does reinforce how good Michigan’s defense is.

Even the most basic stats hint heavily at the defense’s dominance. Wisconsin only ran 53 plays for a paltry 154 yards, or 2.91 yards per play. Michigan’s offense fared far better, running 80 plays for 339 yards, or 4.24 per play. As Jedd Fisch noted this week, no team has crested 330 yards of offense against Wisconsin since the 2015 Alabama game. Not a bad yardage total against a defense that’s still ranked fifth in S&P+.

It’s not all sunshine and roses (or lipstick-shaped trophies), though. Michigan had six scoring opportunities to Wisconsin’s three, but both walked away with 2.33 points per scoring opportunity. Michigan was averaging 6.3 points per trip inside the 40; drives bogging down and missed field goals knocked the points per scoring opportunity number down to below a field goal for the game.

We don’t yet know whether the missed field goals were an aberration or the new, hand-over-the-eyes, college-kickery normal, but it’s relatively clear that Michigan’s offense on the whole did well against one of the best defenses in the nation. Michigan’s offensive Success Rate was 40%, which must have been like a walk in the park for Speight and co. compared to Wisconsin’s offense’s 21%. Wisconsin’s defense is superb; Michigan’s defense is a black hole.

[After THE JUMP: how a low-scoring day impacted the fancy stats]

Michigan’s Efficiency dropped from 44.7% last week, but in terms of national ranking Michigan’s in very nearly the same position, falling from 48th to 51st. As mentioned above, Michigan’s Success Rate was a respectable 40%, which isn’t worth complaining about when you’re facing the University of Rampant Linebacker Chaos. Michigan was able to stay in good down-and-distance situations often enough to get themselves into scoring position fairly often.

The biggest hit of the day came here, with Michigan’s Explosiveness ranking falling from #24 to #63 overall. Speight hit Darboh for 46 yards on the go-ahead touchdown, and three other receivers had 20+ yard receptions. The longest run of the day was Chris Evans’ 22-yarder, so I’m guessing that the number fell the way it did because there were probably six or seven longish plays scattered across just over 30 successful plays. It’s also worth noting that the “long plays” in this game weren’t your typical long plays, so there was bound to be a drop considering this stat looks at how big you broke things when successful, and the answer in this game was “not very.”

Thank you, defense, for putting Wisconsin in some really bad spots on the field.

This was pretty much covered in the intro. Michigan had plenty of scoring opportunities and didn’t convert on a regular basis; had they done so, this game wouldn’t have been close. Michigan’s offense dropped from sixth in the nation to 15th in this category, but the defense jumped from 10th to fourth.

Michigan was expected to get 0.95 turnovers in this game and ended up with two. Their Actual TO Margin ranks ninth nationally, and their Expected TO Margin is 21st. They’ve certainly had some luck, but they aren’t outpacing their Expected number by so much that they look like candidates to come crashing down anytime soon and subsequently miss on some turnover-luck-induced points.

It’s natural to look at the Turnovers section above and connect the dots as to where that extra turnover came from.

(Thanks, Smoothitron)

Can’t words good right now. Talk pass D.

Passing on Michigan’s defense is not a very productive task. Running on Michigan’s defense is also very unproductive, but passing…it’s basically the same as me trying to take notes in class the week of Football Armageddon. I was in class in body back then, but that didn’t mean anything was getting through.

via BillC’s Football Study Hall profile

The one big number, Passing IsoPPP, dropped to 109th after the Colorado game and has been climbing back from the depths each week. It’s also worth looking at the national average, as Michigan has bounced back in two weeks to above average, and it’s pretty dang likely that number will improve this week.

The numbers in the table that really stand out to me are Passing Success Rate and Adj. Sack Rate. The coverage has been so good that the line, already very obviously loaded with talent and ready to devour all comers, is able to actually get home in an era where the ball is coming out quicker every year. When teams do get the ball out on time, they’re not faced with a good option; opponents are getting the yardage they need to stay in good down-and-distance situations on just 22.8% of pass attempts.

I asked The Mathlete for some of the data that he collects, and his Passing Defense Success Rate for Michigan’s pass D is just as robust. All of his stats use Win % Added, which he said is based off of down, distance, and yard line. His numbers have Michigan’s Pass Defense Success Rate at 23.9%, which ranks first nationally.

Multiple sources of data have Michigan as the best pass defense in the country, which has to make Don Brown giddy. He’s emphatic about stopping the run, and his career numbers reflect that. Imagine how much fun it must be as a DC to unleash your creativity with regard to elaborate blitzes knowing that you’re not liable to get beat over the top—or close to the sticks.

Over the rest of the season, Michigan’s opponents rank (by week) 111th, 98th, 75th, 72nd, 53rd, 8th, and 40th in Passing S&P+. Michigan won’t face a highly ranked passing attack until facing Richard Lagow and Indiana in the middle of November, and even then #CHAOSTEAM is #CHAOSTEAM and Lagow is Lagow, so who knows where they’ll be ranked. Should Michigan play to form, their passing defense numbers shouldn’t drop anytime soon.

Looking Ahead

Hmm.