By The Numbers - Iowa recap

Submitted by The Mathlete on
Questions on the by the number check here. Once sentence summary, values represent how many points contributed beyond what the average player/team would have done given the same opportunity.

Expected Points

Given Iowa's defense, in terms of straight point production it was a pretty strong day for Michigan.  The offense scored 3 TDs and based on starting field position they should have scored 23 points on the game.  Warren's pick 6 does not count on either side.

What is not reflected in that number is all of the bad field position they gave the defense.  An average team given Iowa's field position would have averaged 37 points given where Iowa started on the day.  That's a +7 for the defense to go with a pick 6. 

The bottom line is when you are -4 in turnovers, you are going to lose the expected points game and Michigan gave itself a huge hurdle to overcome on Saturday.  Michigan was a -14 for the day on field position and even if you add back in the TD on the return, they still had a full touchdown disadvantage.  The 14 point gap was the 4th largest in any game this week.

Rush Offense

In my abbreviated preview this matchup was listed as a 3 point disadvantage for Michigan, but it was a huge win.  Michigan was +8 in the running game even before you adjust to the quality of Iowa's defense.  The best any rush offense had done YTD against Iowa was +1. 

Most of the value came from Minor (+4) and Robinson (+3 on the ground), however Shaw's (+1) limited carries netted out positive, as well.

Pass Offense

Coming in, this was not going to be Michigan's strong suit and it turned out just so.  I noted it as a -7 coming in and the final tally was -6.  The performance was a flat 0 apart from the two picks, each costing about 3 points.  Overall, Tate was only a -1 but that was bolstered by Iowa's strong defense, unadjusted we was -5. Denard was a +4 including his rushing, but only +1 as a passer.

Rush Defense

Michigan's run defense did slightly better than expected, going +1 on the ground vs a predicted even matchup.

Pass Defense

This one started hot and as a game in total was good, with several plays being glaring exceptions.  This was predicted to be a 4 point advantage for M going in and the early TD started things well in front.  The unit even posted an unadjusted +9 for the day.  However, Mr. Tony Moeaki's big day was good for +9 himself, best in the Big 10 this week.  Take away his catches and it was a huge day for the pass defense.

Special Teams

The Matthews fumble was a 4 point swing (would have had 2 points on average starting where he dropped and Iowa started 2 points better FP than where they would have gotten had Michigan gone 3 and out).  Other than that, Michigan special teams were rather nondescript apart from another outstanding day from Zoltan.

Overall
Very difficult game to measure.  Taking out the fumbles and adjusting for the quality of Iowa, Michigan garnered a +6 for the game. However, taking out the fumbles is great for overall evaluation, but they still happen in the course of the game and were very much the swing of the game. 

It was definitely a game of pros and cons.  A lot of good things happening but still some major red flags.  If the fumbles prove out to be random and not an issue going forward, this performance solidifies them in my projections as 8-4 on the season.  Picking up 1 of the 3 big ones and winning out the rest.  If the fumble disparity continues, 8-4 will continue to be a stretch.










Comments

tomhagan

October 12th, 2009 at 7:59 PM ^

good point on field position...i looked at that last night and Michigan consistently started offensive possessions about their own 20 and Iowa averaged starting position in the mid 30s...huge difference there and it did contribute to the game, in addition to the turnovers.

Wolverine In Exile

October 13th, 2009 at 7:35 AM ^

... The Mathlete is friggin Uhura.

Best part of your analysis is that it actually quantifies my intuition... I always had a feel that field position adjusted for opponent means more than common knowledge accounts for, and now we have a way to measure that.

Party on, you differentiated disciple!