[Bryan Fuller]
The title of the post still says “Post-Indiana,” but I seriously considered bucking convention and naming it “Pre-Ohio State.” With the stakes of The Game as high as they’ve been in a decade, it only felt right to look at where the two teams’ advanced stats are similar and where they’re different.
Still, it’s worth discussing what happened against Indiana. The offense took a fairly large hit in overall efficiency, falling from 23rd to 41st in success rate. The rushing offense’s success rate saw a nearly identical drop in the national rankings, falling from 21st to 42nd. The passing offense did even worse, with the success rate falling from 45.3% to 42.5% and from 26th to 50th. On standard downs, Michigan’s offensive success rate only dropped from 51.5% to 49.5%, but their ranking tumbled from 22nd to 43rd. The offense fared worse on passing downs, with their success rate dropping from 34.4% (39th overall) to 31.5% (62nd overall). The offense had a difficult time keeping on track, and their inability to pick up the necessary yardage to stay in manageable down-and-distance situations led to the drops in success rate. Of note is that the offense struggled in that department across the board (passing, rushing, standard vs. passing down, etc.) but with little impact on their other numbers, which stayed fairly stable. A few long runs helped keep the offense’s explosive play-realted numbers afloat.
The defense, already at or near the top of most categories, saw little movement. One of the bigger changes was in the defense’s IsoPPP, the number Bill Connelly uses to track explosiveness; Michigan moved up from ninth to fourth. That’s pretty much it. The defense is good. The stats are good. They both remained so against Indiana.
[After THE JUMP: how Michigan stacks up against Ohio State according to S&P+ and FEI]
Ohio State’s offense has the advantage when it comes to staying on track; success rate looks at how often a team got 50% of necessary yards on first down, 70% on second down, and 100% on third or fourth down. You can see from the graph that Michigan’s efficiency, ranked 41st overall, is comfortably above the national average. OSU is just excellent in this area, ranking 14th overall. Essentially they’re able to get the yardage they need to call whatever they want half the time, a pretty impressive number considering the three clunky offensive performances (Penn State, Northwestern, and MSU) factored in.
Ohio State’s offense may stay on track impressively often, but that doesn’t mean they’re barreling toward the station. They just aren’t a very explosive offense, actually falling below the national average in IsoPPP and ranking just 102nd. Michigan’s offense ranks 48th in explosiveness, a ranking they’ve been hovering around for the last six weeks.
Aaaand we’ve reached a near statistical impasse, the first of many for these two teams. Both of them are unsurprisingly near the top of the national rankings in points per trip inside the 40-yard line, with Ohio State 12th and Michigan 17th.
Defensively, Ohio State’s stats reflect the great play they’ve received from their line and secondary. They’re severely limiting the opposition’s ability to get into the situation they want (their efficiency number ranks seventh), yet they just aren’t as good as Michigan. Not terribly surprising when taking into account Michigan’s sub-30-percent success rate, which ranks second nationally.
One of the biggest changes over the course of the season has been Michigan’s rapid ascent up the national rankings in defensive IsoPPP, where they’re now well below the national average (the lower the better) and ranked ninth. Ohio State’s defense is the opposite of their offense in that they’ve borne witness to quite a few big plays; they’re surprisingly susceptible to giving up a long one, ranking just 99th in defensive explosiveness.
For Michigan, the top-ten ranking seems justified, though the movement up nearly ninety spots in the national rankings is a bit suspect. The defense really shouldn’t have been ranked so poorly for so long, but there was a large chunk of the season where they were battering all opposing offenses and didn’t seem to face enough successful plays to drop the number that relates to how far a play went when it was successful.
Here’s another defensive stat where Michigan and OSU are both in the top ten. Michigan’s leading the nation in limiting opposition points when they cross the Michigan 40-yard line. Ohio State’s 3.15 points per trip inside the 40 is seventh best in the country. If you look up at the offenses’ finishing drives graph and then look back at this graph you’ll see that there’s a large enough disparity in points scored and points ceded to explain much of these two teams’ success this season.
It might appear that pulling three of the five S&P+ factors and graphing them is providing a brief overview of the differences between Michigan and Ohio State, but the truth is that the graph of almost any other head-to-head comparison is going to look really, really boring. Combing through the Michigan and Ohio State pages, these teams are really close in basically every other stat Bill Connelly tracks at Football Study Hall. They’re even closer when comparing categories tracked by Brian Fremeau’s FEI.
Ohio State’s raw offensive FEI is a little better than Michigan’s, ranking 12th to Michigan’s 15th. When, however, Fremeau adjusts for the strength of opponent defenses faced, the two teams end up with the exact same number. Both teams are close in other offensive categories, bobbing around the national rankings in the mid-teens in things like touchdown rate, value drive rate (% of drives that start >50 yards from the end zone and reach the opponent’s 30-yard line), and TD after first down rate.
There are two outliers worth looking at on offense. The two offenses turn the ball over on about 6% of possessions, with Ohio State (6.1%) third and Michigan (6.5%) fifth nationally. The numbers aren’t as favorable when looking at first down rate, which is simply the percentage of drives that end in a touchdown or first down. Ohio State’s offense is picking up a first down or TD on 79.8% of drives, good for 17th in the nation. Michigan’s not faring as well, picking one up on 75.9% of drives, which ranks 34th nationally and is far and away Michigan’s lowest ranked offensive category.
As with S&P+, but teams’ defenses are ranked higher than their offenses in FEI. Ohio State’s ranked fourth overall in defensive FEI, while Michigan’s ranked sixth. Michigan’s ranked higher in all of the subcategories (available yards, value drives, first down rate, touchdown rate) save touchdown after first down rate (Michigan’s 19.4% ranks sixth and Ohio State’s 17.9% ranks fifth) and defensive turnover rate. Ohio State has a sizeable lead in the turnover category, ending their defensive drives with a turnover on 15% of possessions (21st overall) while Michigan’s defensive drives end with turnovers on only 9.7% of possessions (89th overall). On defense, everything is really, really close. On offense things are the same, though the two units are ranked a bit lower on that side of the ball. This is exactly what you’d expect from two teams ranked among the nation’s top three.
One last thing to keep an eye on: special teams. This is where things get a bit chaotic. According to FEI, neither team has an impressive field goal efficiency, with Michigan ranking 70th and Ohio State 43rd. Michigan’s kickoff efficiency is just bad (110th), while Ohio State’s is pretty good (24th). Michigan’s kickoffs, however, are much better (sixth), while Ohio State’s are not (81st). Michigan’s punt return efficiency is great (second; thanks, Jabrill) while Ohio State’s is bad (90th), but Ohio State’s punt efficiency (14th) is much better than Michigan’s (77th). In a game of inches, Michigan does have an advantage in net starting field position. Michigan’s offense is starting an average of 9.4 yards closer to the end zone than opponents (best in the nation), while Ohio State’s starting 6.9 yards closer to the end zone than opponents (fifth overall). Neither team has a clear advantage on one side of the ball, and it wouldn’t be a huge surprise to see this come down to the aforementioned chaos of special teams.