UMGOBLUE.COM Michigan Wolverine Football & Basketball
By Fans…For Fans Since 1999
Phil Callihan and Clint Derringer discuss Michigan’s next opponent: Ohio State using Clint’s modified S&P+ analysis methods.
Support the Podcast-
Reward Yourself with Wolverine Gear -> shrsl.com/12ybi
Podcast in iTunes -> Subscribe
We’ve been here before. This is year four of the Harbaugh Era, and the November feeling we are sharing is quite familiar. Take a look at Michigan’s record through ten games under Jim Harbaugh: 8-2 (2015); 9-1 (2016); 8-2 (2017); 9-1 (2018). After a quick review of the 42-7 victory over Rutgers, let’s look for other historical clues about what may be in store for the 2018 team.
| What is S&P+ The original system was based on Success rate and equivalent Points per play. It was an attempt at an OPS-style measure for football, a look at both efficiency and explosiveness. As so many things do, however, it has grown more complicated.In its current state, S&P+ is based around the core concepts of the Five Factors of winning football: efficiency, explosiveness, field position, finishing drives, and turnovers. Full Explanation |
The coaching staff chose to incorporate more passing plays and concepts into the game plan for Rutgers. Michigan passed on 40.9% of plays in a 42-7 game. That’s a tick above the 38.0% season average, and the highest passing ratio since the Big Ten opener versus Nebraska in Week 4. Shea Patterson continued his improvement as he leads the evolution of the offense. His performance (18/27, 260 yds, 3 TD, 0 INT) translated into a 63.0% Success Rate on pass plays, Michigan’s highest since Week 3 vs. SMU. Michigan also averaged 9.6 yds per pass play, marking their third-highest passing YPP of the season.
From a Harbaugh era perspective, the 2018 offense most resembles the 2015 offense led by another QB transfer, Jake Rudock. While Rudock finished with 7.2 yards/attempt, completed 64%, and averaged 237.7 yards/game, the 2015 team finished ranked 32nd overall in S&P+ offense and 8th in passing offense. Through ten games in 2018, Patterson averages 7.6 yards/attempt, is completing 67%, and averages 206.5 yards/game. Michigan’s offense is ranked 21st overall by S&P+, and the passing game is 7th. While those numbers are remarkably similar, there is reason to expect a stronger finish than 2015 when turning your attention to the run game. The running attack is also ranked 7th in S&P+ in 2018, compared to 43rd in 2015. Michigan’s 215.4 yards/game (2015: 158.2) and 48.4% success rate (2015: 43.8%) are key differences, enabling Jim Harbaugh and staff to dictate the flow and tempo of the game.
Rutgers matched Michigan’s rushing output of 193 yards on the day, and capitalized on numerous missed assignments to put their 80-yard touchdown run on the board. As scary and as frustrating as that might make us at first glance, this is no time to panic for Wolverine fans. On the long touchdown run, simultaneous mistakes were made by DE Chase Winovich, LB Devin Gil, and S Brad Hawkins. Rather than worry about this anomaly, I choose to be grateful that this will be a very teachable moment for all three levels of Don Brown’s defense, and that it came in a low-risk game with time to make corrections.
For a historical comparison, we have to revisit Michigan’s 2016 defense that put EIGHT draft picks into the ensuing NFL draft. Both the 2018 and the 2016 units ranked 2nd in S&P+ overall, and 1st versus the pass. Success Rate allowed is almost exactly the same, 29.5% (S&P+ 1st) for the 2016 defense, and 29.3% (S&P+ 2nd) this year. In terms of explosiveness, the 2018 squad (through 10 games) has actually improved over two years ago allowing an IsoPPP of 1.02 (S&P+ 12th) compared to 1.18 (23rd) in 2016. The defense will remain the centerpiece of each game plan as Michigan looks to reverse the trend of November and December disappointments in the Harbaugh era.
MICHIGAN S&P+
Overall: 24.9, 4th (down 1)
Offense: 35.7, 21st (up 3)
Defense: 11.6, 2nd (down 1)
@ Rutgers UM 42 RU 7
Pregame Midpoint S&P+: UM by 22.2, 10-0
Pregame Clint: UM by 45, 9-1
MICH Cumulative 2ndO Wins: 9.3
vs. Indiana: Overall -1.2, 81st
M Offense 35.7, (21st) vs. O Defense 29.6 (75th), Midpoint: 32.65
M Defense 11.6 (2nd) vs. O Offense 27.6 (82nd), Midpoint: 19.6
PREGAME EDGE: Michigan
The midpoint of S&P+ ratings gives a 13.05 point edge to Michigan. Given the weather forecast, and Indiana’s penchant to keep it close before giving way at the end, I think that sounds about right.
GAME WEEK UPDATE: There will be some motivation to score early and often to allow seniors down the depth chart to get onto the field in their last Big House appearance. Despite all of the external noise, the same two critical factors remain: 1) Stay Healthy 2) Focus on the task at hand
Michigan 24 Indiana 10 (PRESEASON: Michigan 24 Indiana 14)
Under Jim Harbaugh, Michigan Football continually puts themselves into solid position through the first ten games of the season. This year, with an improved offense and a dominating defense, the Wolverines will be judged on how they finish their run for a Big Ten title, and a berth in the College Football Playoff.
Phil Callihan and Clint Derringer discuss Michigan’s 42-7 victory over Penn State using Clint’s modified S&P+ analysis methods that indicates Michigan is one of the top teams in the nation. Why Michigan’s offense is so much this season, how to attack the Michigan defense, and much more.
Support the Podcast-
Reward Yourself with Wolverine Gear -> shrsl.com/12ybi
Podcast in iTunes -> Subscribe
Phil Callihan and Clint Derringer discuss Michigan’s 21-7 victory over Michigan State using Clint’s modified S&P+ analysis methods.
Support the Podcast-
Reward Yourself with Wolverine Gear -> shrsl.com/12ybi
Podcast in iTunes -> Subscribe
We are now half way through the season, and the Wolverines are 5-1. I am going to look at the performance versus Maryland alongside some trends and averages to this point. My goal is to provide a useful prism through which we can view these critical upcoming games versus Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Penn State.
| What is S&P+ The original system was based on Success rate and equivalent Points per play. It was an attempt at an OPS-style measure for football, a look at both efficiency and explosiveness. As so many things do, however, it has grown more complicated.In its current state, S&P+ is based around the core concepts of the Five Factors of winning football: efficiency, explosiveness, field position, finishing drives, and turnovers. Full Explanation |
Jim Harbaugh’s offensive philosophy is a popular topic both locally and nationally. Conversations and debates range from Pro-style vs. Spread, to Power vs. Inside Zone, and even Clock Control vs. Quick Strike. I am going to focus on one of Michigan’s main objectives: to use balanced play calling to provide max flexibility by situation. To this point in the season, the Wolverines are averaging 59.3% run plays, and 40.7% pass plays. Total yardage is split even closer at 51.2% run and 48.8% pass. The play calling in the Maryland game followed this trend very closely, dividing 60.9% run and 39.1% pass.
We can also see balance when looking at Success Rate. Through six games, Michigan’s overall offensive success rate is 49.2%. This breaks down to a 50.4% Success Rate on run plays, and 47.5% Success Rate on pass plays. The Maryland game provides reason for optimism by showing the offense is on an upward trend. On Saturday, the Wolverines were successful on 57.1% of their run plays, and on 55.6% of their pass plays.
From game to game, the Michigan defense is amazingly consistent from a Success Rate perspective. The Wolverines are allowing successful plays only 33.2% of the time. The most successful team was Northwestern, with a 39.7% success rate, while the least successful team was Nebraska at 24.0%. Perhaps the statistic that is most emblematic of Don Brown’s philosophy is the yardage allowed on unsuccessful plays: 56 yards. That is TOTAL, through SIX games. Two-thirds of the plays run against Michigan’s defense have accumulated just 56 yards, or 0.2 yards per play. For even more perspective, Maryland’s average of 0.9 yds per play on unsuccessful plays is the BEST by any team versus Michigan so far in 2018.
Overall, the Success Rate versus Michigan’s defense is also very consistent by quarter and by half. However, the two most troublesome performances stand out pretty clearly in their 1st Half / 2nd Half splits. Notre Dame: 1st Half – 42.5% / 2nd Half – 22.2% & Northwestern: 1st Half – 44.4% / 2nd Half – 33.3%. In the three key games coming up for the Wolverines, it feels like the halftime score will be particularly predictive. The key for the Michigan defense will be to eliminate the fast starts for their opponents.
MICHIGAN S&P+
Overall: 22.7, 5th (up 2)
Offense: 36.3, 25th (up 2)
Defense: 14.0, 2nd (up 2)
vs. Maryland UM 42 MD 21
Pregame S&P+: UM by 9.15, 6-0
Pregame Clint: UM by 25, 5-1
MICH Cumulative 2ndO Wins: 5.4
@ Northwestern: UM 20 NEB 17
Pregame S&P+: UM by 10.7, 5-0
Pregame Clint: UM by 17, 4-1
MICH Cumulative 2ndO Wins: 4.4
vs. Nebraska: UM 56 NEB 10
Pregame S&P+: UM by 8.6, 4-0
Pregame Clint: UM by 11, 3-1
MICH Cumulative 2ndO Wins: 3.6
vs. SMU: UM 45 SMU 20
Pregame S&P+: UM by 20.0, 3-0
Pregame Clint: UM by 39, 2-1
MICH Cumulative 2ndO Wins: 2.6
vs. Western Michigan: UM 49 WMU 3
Pregame S&P+: UM by 10.8, 2-0
Pregame Clint: UM by 25, 1-1
MICH Cumulative 2ndO Wins: 1.6
@ Notre Dame: ND 24 UM 17
Preseason S&P+: ND by 0.1, 1-0
Preseason Clint: UM by 4, 0-1
MICH Cumulative 2ndO Wins: 0.6
vs. Wisconsin: Overall 15.3, 13th
M Offense 36.3, (25th) vs. O Defense 27.8 (55th), Midpoint: 32.05
M Defense 14.0 (2nd) vs. O Offense 42.8 (8th), Midpoint: 28.4
PREGAME EDGE: Michigan
The midpoint S&P+ gives a 3.65 point edge to Michigan. The Badger offense is producing right around the rate at which most predicted in the preseason. However, it is a big surprise to see Wisconsin’s defense just barely above average. They were 9th in the preseason S&P+ rankings.
GAME WEEK UPDATE: Michigan would love to buck the trend of slow starts on both sides of the ball. The last thing the Wolverines want to do is spot the Badgers a lead for Jonathan Taylor and their O-Line to protect. I expect this to be very close into the 4th quarter, with a handful of defensive and special teams big plays delivering a huge win for Michigan.
Michigan 24 Wisconsin 20 (PRESEASON: Wisconsin 24 Michigan 21)
Balance on offense, and an attacking defense have led to a 5-1 start for the Wolverines. However, Michigan started 5-1 in 2017 also. Finding success into the November schedule (i.e. wins over Wisconsin, MSU, & PSU) is absolutely required to eliminate Michigan’s reputation for fading down the stretch under Jim Harbaugh.