It's the Turnovers, Stupid
The commonly accepted logic is that Michigan is not winning against quality opponents because our defense sucks balls on a historically bad level. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t, but in trying to answer the question for myself over the weekend I kept running into the same problem - we turn the ball over so frequently (especially against B10 opponents) that it is nearly impossible to objectively measure the performance of our defense relative to historical Michigan benchmarks or other top teams.
The following table tracks net turnovers (including failed 4th down attempts and missed field goals) in each of our wins and losses over the past two seasons:
| Adjusted | |||||||||
| W/L | Turnovers | Penalties | |||||||
| W/L | Margin | (Net) (a) | (Net Yds) | ||||||
| 2010 Season | |||||||||
| Connecticut | W | 20 | 3 | -3 | |||||
| Notre Dame | W | 4 | 1 | -70 | |||||
| * | Massachusetts | W | 5 | -1 | 30 | ||||
| Bowling Green | W | 44 | 0 | -3 | |||||
| Indiana | W | 7 | 2 | -59 | |||||
| Michigan State | L | -17 | -4 | 30 | |||||
| Iowa | L | -10 | -5 | -30 | |||||
| Penn State | L | -10 | -2 | -40 | |||||
| * | Illinois | W (3OT) | 2 | -5 | -1 | ||||
| * | Purdue | W | 11 | -1 | -35 | ||||
| Wisconsin | L | -20 | -2 | 15 | |||||
| Ohio State | 27-Nov | ||||||||
| Average Turnover Margin in 4 Losses (2010 YTD) | -3.3 | ||||||||
| 2009 Season | |||||||||
| Western Michigan | W | 24 | 3 | -57 | |||||
| Notre Dame | W | 4 | 0 | 16 | |||||
| Eastern Michigan | W | 28 | 1 | 10 | |||||
| Indiana | W | 3 | 0 | -8 | |||||
| * | Michigan State | L (OT) | -6 | 1 | 79 | ||||
| Iowa | L | -2 | -2 | 20 | |||||
| * | Delaware State | W | 57 | -3 | -15 | ||||
| Penn State | L | -25 | -1 | 2 | |||||
| Illinois | L | -25 | -5 | -3 | |||||
| Purdue | L | -2 | -1 | 10 | |||||
| Wisconsin | L | -21 | -2 | -8 | |||||
| Ohio State | L | -11 | -5 | 15 | |||||
| Average Turnover Margin in 7 Losses (2009) | -2.1 | ||||||||
| * = Winnner of turnover battle did not win game. | |||||||||
| (a) Adjusted Turnovers (Net) is defined to include interceptions, fumbles, failed | |||||||||
| 4th down conversions and missed field goals. | |||||||||
In 16 out of 23 games, the winner of the turnover margin won the game. Of the remaining 7 games, we won 6 (2 in which the turnover margin was 0 and 4 in which we were able to overcome a negative turnover margin because we were playing significantly inferior opponents). In only one game over the past two years did Michigan actually win the turnover battle but still lose the game – that was our loss to MSU last year in East Lansing (we had a turnover margin of +1 but lost in overtime).
I’m all for identifying and fixing the problems on defense, but the offense needs to accept some of the blame for the defense’s statistical woes (especially points allowed per game). Regardless of who Michigan has as a DC, what base scheme he runs or how many experienced players he has in the secondary, we will never consistently be competitive against the best teams in the country until our offense stops turning the ball over multiple times per game.
[Note: I included a column in the table to track net penalty yards to see if there is any obvious correlation with wins and losses. I cannot find one.]
November 24th, 2010 at 10:42 AM ^
I agree with the sentiment that our offense needs to protect the ball more, but is our defense generating turnovers at a consistent pace with the past as well?
Off the top of my head, it seems like Michigan's defense has been poor the past few years in generating turnovers, which leads to the net TO margin being more difficult to get positive.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:53 AM ^
This year we are ranked 71st in turnovers gained, with 17, and 98th in turnovers lost, with 24. We are also 90th in INTs thrown and 91st in fumbles lost.
So we're not great at getting TOs, but not terrible, and we've improved on that since last year, when (IIRC) I believe we only gained 10 TOs.
I agree with the OP: we're simply turning it over too frequently. I think this will go down once a) Denard matures and learns to make better decisions, and b) the KOR and Punt Return teams "HOLD ON TO THE DAMN BALL."
November 24th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
thanks for doing this
November 24th, 2010 at 10:47 AM ^
November 24th, 2010 at 10:57 AM ^
thanks for the data to back it up.
Tie it in with field position and TOP, and that hurts the defense.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:04 AM ^
I think you do a great job here of highlighting a very over looked issue that we have. Michigan has turned the ball over in alarming fashion.
As good as our Offense is, it's gotten progressively worse at turning the ball over through the course of this season. I'm hoping something happens, maybe a little luck on our side, that helps us win the TO battle against Ohio State this weekend.
Here's to hoping.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:04 AM ^
I like you but you're crazy psychomatt.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
November 24th, 2010 at 11:37 AM ^
Enjoy Life has been doing a series that tracks turnovers, but it's really dense.
He also recently starting talking about unforced errors:
I think you guys are saying pretty much the same thing.
November 24th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
TOM against Wiscy was 0. We both lost a fumble and got picked off.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=303240130
Great job though. Wisconsin was clearly a better team than us, but we may have been able to keep it closer if we keep the ball on the drive where Denard got picked. Otherwise turnovers have been killer, as expected. I'm a believer that as our QBs mature, those will reduce (RBs too).
November 24th, 2010 at 4:00 PM ^
My gut tells me that while we have turned the ball over too much (and when I say turnovers i mean interceptions and fumbles) but at the same time i don't think they were the reason we lost the games we lost. Several of the seemingly most costly turnovers (fumble at the 1 against IND, pick 6 against PUR) came in wins. Of the four losses it seems the most winnable was PSU and in that game there were no fumbles or interceptions.
broadening the definition as you do to include missed FGs and missed 4th down conversions really highlights a special teams kicking problem not an offense problem. We have gone for fourth downs where other teams would have kicked the FG because our kickers can't convert.
There are other things you don't include that could be considered turnovers. I think one of the most costly plays of the year was the personal foul on Lewan on the second drive against Iowa. We are up 7-0, defense has stopped them and we get the ball back, then Lewans penalty turns 2nd and 3 into 2nd and 16. 2 plays later we punt. Of course you never know how an alternate universe would play out but that was such a momentum killer and isn't captured in your numbers as it was just a punt. so to your point there is no correlation between net penalty yards and wins, but there may be a correlation with drive stopping penalties like that one.
November 24th, 2010 at 4:38 PM ^
Turnovers don't just "go away." The OTHER teams have a sneaky lil way of playing...oh...what do they call that thing? Umm---Oh Yeah! DEFENSE! And the other teams have, uh, er...COACHES! YES!
It's not as if UM's offense is getting sick of all the "improvement" and is just walking up to Michigan State or Purdue defenders and going, "Excuse me, but would you like this football? Then take it! I'm SICK OF IT!"
This offense DOES present some hope for RR supporters, because you'd have to assume that for Denard and Co, next year their experience will mean better hands, reads, and techniques.
November 24th, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^
I thought that RR main focus was on limiting turn overs, so what gives we are averaging more this year than last. Also we are getting called for more penalties, looks like a problem to me
November 24th, 2010 at 9:40 PM ^
It has been a major issue. It's killed us against MSU and Iowa. It may not win every game obviously, but we need to get on the + side of this to have a chance against our better opponents. Denard started to remind me of last year against Illinois and Purdue - too many INT/Fumbles. But he's battling back and will get better.
The D isn't good, but we need to take advantage of every opportunity. I think this is why our yards per points or points per possession are not as good as some people may want. We have a lot of drives that have ended by turnovers in the redzone. all for nothing. Hope it gets better, but has been a trend.
I'm going to the game this weekend and we need to be +3 IMO to have a chance.
Go Blue
November 24th, 2010 at 10:40 PM ^
shitty defense for a 1000, please.
Comments