4th quarter coaching and playing the numbers
Watching the 4th quarter gave me horrible flashbacks to Lloyd ball, playing not to lose, and the 1999 Illinois game.
But after friends, family, and mgoblog helped me down from the ledge, I went back and looked at the win probability stats for some perspective.
These numbers obviously aren't perfect by any stretch (source is ESPN), and they rely on season statistics while ignoring the heuristics of how the game was actually being played and the rah rah rivalry feelingsball stuff. However, it makes sense that the cumulitive season stats should be taken into account because this Michigan team is a vastly superior team to MSU. Overall, the numbers generally feel about right when you step back and look at it objectively. They also make all of us who were panicking look a little crazy.
http://imgur.com/gallery/jSCw9
Highlights:
- 96% win probability coming into the game.
- 89.7% at end of the 1st quarter was lowest of the game.
- 98.5% to start 3rd quarter.
- 97.4% after Speight INT with 11:26 left in the 3rd Q, after which we shut down the offense (at least IMO).
- 98.7% after MSU TD to make it 30-17 with 7:31 left.
- 97.5% was lowest in 4th quarter at the 2:22 mark with MSU driving.
Summary:
The numbers speak for themselves. It may have looked ugly to some of us, but objectively we were never in "real" danger of losing. And Lloyd ball makes sense. The only way that 2.6% chance of losing becomes a reality is if you make stupid mistakes or the other team gets fluke plays. Shutting down the offense and playing prevent D minimizes the chances of that happening. So, bottom line for me is that I wish we had gone for the jugular, but the conservative coaching didn't really decrease our win probability to any significant degree.
October 31st, 2016 at 1:38 AM ^
jet lag is a bitch
October 31st, 2016 at 8:02 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 31st, 2016 at 1:43 AM ^
The 2001 game taught us what Sparty could pull outside the expected norms to steal the game in that stadium. Throw out the records and the numbers - it's a rivalry.
October 31st, 2016 at 1:57 AM ^
October 31st, 2016 at 2:00 AM ^
So football games always go to form? There are no upsets?
October 31st, 2016 at 2:11 AM ^
but I'd also acknowledge that it would be more worrying to only have a 14 point lead with 7 minutes left against Iowa, or Nebraska, or Clemson, etc.
October 31st, 2016 at 8:21 AM ^
October 31st, 2016 at 2:08 AM ^
October 31st, 2016 at 2:19 AM ^
if there are more upsets in rivalry games compared to non-rivalry games (or underdogs beating the spread to account for closer-than-expected losses like this one). Would be a pretty clear way to settle this argument, but I doubt that info exists.
October 31st, 2016 at 2:22 AM ^
October 31st, 2016 at 2:45 AM ^
https://www.teamrankings.com/blog/college-football/mailbag-can-you-thro…
it's not great data (misses rivalries where teams are from different states), but it's better than nothing. interesting to see that no real difference exists any more.
I tend to fall on your side of the argument that we just naturally tend to remember close/upset rivalry games more than non-rivalry games. I mean Alabama almost got knocked off by Ole Miss, Clemson by NC State.
EDIT: here is a better one-- https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/please-do-not-th… --same conclusion, better data.
October 31st, 2016 at 6:53 AM ^
October 31st, 2016 at 2:22 AM ^
Upsets in rivalry games tend to be more memorable...UM-OSU, Texas-Oklahoma, USC-UCLA and Auburn-Alabama have had memorable upsets
October 31st, 2016 at 8:26 AM ^
October 31st, 2016 at 2:21 AM ^
I don't think it's that simple.
In 2013, a mediocre Nebraska team held us to 13 points and under 200 yards of offense in our own stadium. A week later we kicked three FGs in regulation at Northwestern. And then a week after that, we dropped 41 points and 500 or so yards on undefeated Ohio State. Was that offensive explosion just random chance, an oddball occurrence that could have happened against any team? Or was there a reason it happened against that opponent, a team we know Brady Hoke's teams prepared extra for all season?
The point of "throwing out the records" is that coaching staffs don't prepare for all games equally hard, despite what they say. They spend extra time getting ready for rivalry games. And the players, too, tend to take game prep a little more seriously for those games. So in those games, you see the fruits of their extra labor. That's where those unexpected performances come in.
Would you doubt that MSU's staff and players spent more time over the past 12 months preparing for Michigan than they did for Wisconsin, BYU, Indiana, Northwestern and Maryland?
October 31st, 2016 at 2:38 AM ^
October 31st, 2016 at 6:27 AM ^
October 31st, 2016 at 9:10 AM ^
If that's your argument then I don't think we are disagreeing. If a team puts more effort in preparing for a certain game on its schedule, it would stand to reason that it would perform better (maybe not win outright) in that game.
Unless you are arguing that teams literally prepare for every game the same way, I'm not sure what your disagreement is.
October 31st, 2016 at 6:39 AM ^
Upsets in rivalries happen for the same reasons upsets happen in other games. "Ignore existing evidence because this game is a rivalry" is a broadcaster's narrative to hype a matchup.
Have to disagree, 100%. Not everything in sports can be explained by math and analytics. I believe completely in the idea that motivation does something to the brain and brings out what might be called an inspired performance, above and beyond your usual limits. Happened to me, and I would think almost anyone who's played a sport at any somewhat competitive level would have a similar story. I don't believe for a second that rivalry upsets are just statistical noise that are bound to happen if you roll the dice enough times. It may not be measurable, or provable beyond anecdotal evidence, but there absolutely is a mental aspect to performance, and it can certainly be affected by motivation.
October 31st, 2016 at 8:33 AM ^
I agree with that in its entirety.
October 31st, 2016 at 12:20 PM ^
October 31st, 2016 at 2:05 AM ^
Dumbest thing I've seen posted in a while.
October 31st, 2016 at 2:39 AM ^
October 31st, 2016 at 1:58 AM ^
Yes, a game 15 years ago with totally different players and coaches on both sides was very relevant to this game.
October 31st, 2016 at 2:33 AM ^
This is a terrible example. Yes, MSU has long been able to "pull outside the expected norms" in this series. But 2001, while featuring a favored Michigan team, was not a slam dunk by any means. Michigan that season was mediocre at best on offense (sophomore John Navarre, lousy running game, nobody to support leading receiver Marquise Walker) and struggled to score any points, especially on the road. The defense was only ok. MSU still had a lot of Saban talent on that team.
I knew going into that game it would be a dog fight, and it was. Still took MSU 60:01 to win, but it was by no means a fluke. Nothing at all like this past Saturday.
A better example would be a game like 2000, even though none of these games have any real bearing on this season.
October 31st, 2016 at 3:28 AM ^
i think you missed my point. even though the numbers say Michigan was going to win, games like 2001 give us the easy feeling, backed up by the percentages or not.
October 31st, 2016 at 2:00 AM ^
I don't know about anyone else, but I thought Higdon got an absolutely atrocious spot on the potentially icing 3rd down run. They didn't even measure.
EDIT: We've got an autonegger out in force! Sour grapes, perhaps?
October 31st, 2016 at 5:53 AM ^
October 31st, 2016 at 2:01 AM ^
97.4% after Speight INT with 11:26 left in the 3rd Q, after which we shut down the offense (at least IMO).
We didn't shut it down until the 4th quarter. On the possession after the INT, we had Speight throw a deep ball from our own endzone (which was completed). We went on to kick the FG that gave us 30 points.
October 31st, 2016 at 2:04 AM ^
and we really did shut it down after that, when the win probability was 99.4% to start the 4th quarter.
October 31st, 2016 at 8:25 AM ^
And somehow extrapolating it to a potential loss.
- Michigan still won, and a last second TD to pull within one score (and then back to two scores) doesn't change that
- Michigan had opportunities for more first downs easily in the 4th quarter. The "Lloyd-ball" stuff is nonsense. Higdon misses the C gap and instead cuts back into the A gap on a power play that may have gone for 6. If Mason Cole gets anything on McDowell on the last Shane Morris play (trap to Smith) that may go for 6. Those were big plays that were there in the framework of the playcalling that were missed because of execution, the same as taking a deep shot but missing the target (only the clock still continued to run)
- Up until the 4th quarter, MSU hadn't really moved the ball with great success after the first few drives. Certainly not through the air. Then they put in a new QB. Against one of the best defenses in football. You're not expecting to give up points there, regardless of what your offense does. And on several instances, it was 4th down to end possessions that Michigan didn't finish. Again, plays were there.
Harbaugh/Drevno didn't botch the 4th quarter. There were some missed assignments that otherwise would have turned it into a 4+ possession game. It happens. Michigan still won. They played that situation correctly.
October 31st, 2016 at 9:28 AM ^
I love your analysis and appreciate it. It did seem to me that we went to what we did against Rutgers and Illinois, which was running the ball like crazy but this time, instead of breaking off the big runs, MSU shut them down.
October 31st, 2016 at 10:06 AM ^
"If Mason Cole gets anything on McDowell on the last Shane Morris play (trap to Smith) that may go for 6."
Yeah - but the best predictor of future performance is past performance, and that play has been a complete crap show every time they run it. Any play CAN work, but that was a poor choice from a statisitical likelihood perspective.
October 31st, 2016 at 10:13 AM ^
Cole did not have a good game against McDowell. They didn't ask him to make a great block. They asked him to get anything, to cut him off or at least fall in front of him. At some point, guys need to execute. I know that goes against everything some preach around here, expecting players to execute, but at the end of the day it's the truth.
So, what do you call in this situation that doesn't require Cole to execute his assignment against McDowell? Need something. I'd say a play that is "give me anything and we'll win" is a pretty good play to call.
Also, that was the first time they ran that play from that look. They faked the sweep with Morris as a lead blocker (the first time was a tendency breaker as well, by the way) and ran a trap inside off the sweep action. All the LBs and safeties bit hard on the sweep because Harbaugh and Co set it up. They hadn't run that look yet this year. So it hasn't been a disaster each time they ran it (and they had a ton of success with trap plays against Illinois as well).
October 31st, 2016 at 10:26 AM ^
Every single play they have run with Shane Morris in at QB during the competitive portion of the game this year has been an abject disaster.
What do I call in this situation? A play that doesn't involve taking my starting QB out and replacing him with someone who has had zero success all season.
October 31st, 2016 at 11:32 AM ^
Against CU, they ran it for 7 yards. They also had some called back only due to holds on the outside that were mostly unnecessary for the plays success.
And besides that, they showed a clear tendency (all being sweeps while utilizing Morris as a lead blocker) that uses the QB to add numbers to the point of attack forcing the defense to commit more players to the point of attack (generally DBs and LBs), and then they broke that tendency and got exactly what they wanted out of it. So the previous plays success or lack thereof does not have any indication about the success of this play, besides the fact the actual film against MSU shows that the threat of the previous plays with Morris at QB successfully forced the defense to over-commit and leave itself vulnerable to the trap play. Michigan's staff got exactly the reaction they wanted, and one player failed to get their block.
With Speight in the game, Michigan doesn't get the MSU overreaction, so executing the assignment is actually more difficult. But keep on telling yourself you're right in this instance. Execution be damned, every failed play call is 100% on the coaches; and every time I mess up at work it's probably because some professor in college didn't teach me well enough. Pass that blame on.
October 31st, 2016 at 11:59 AM ^
Execution be damned, every failed play call is 100% on the coaches
No - generally failed play calls are on both the coaches and the players.
Execution matters.
Choosing the plays that your players execute better and more consistently matters.
October 31st, 2016 at 1:27 PM ^
October 31st, 2016 at 2:41 PM ^
Further, do you really think that Harbaugh is calling plays that the team isn't already adept at executing?
Absolutely, yes.
How much you wanna bet we see it again versus Maryland, and he adds yet another wrinkle?
I suspect we'll see it several more times.
I suspect it will fail to work most of those times.
October 31st, 2016 at 3:53 PM ^
October 31st, 2016 at 4:11 PM ^
You actually think that Harbaugh -- a coach known for his thoroughness of preparation and attention to detail -- is going to call a play in a game, let alone in a game against MSU, that, despite repping dozens and dozens of times, the offense is NOT adept at executing?
Yes.
Really?! What could possibly lead you to that conclusion?
Years of playing organized sports, including football. Years of playing in music in dozens of groups.
Coaches/Conductors don't wait until you're "adept" at executing plays before they start calling them - in fact, I'd argue it's almost impossible to be adept without game reps... thus impossible to become adept without calling plays which you aren't adept at.
October 31st, 2016 at 4:39 PM ^
October 31st, 2016 at 5:23 PM ^
adept: very skilled
synonyms: expert, masterly, virtuoso
There is a wide range between winging it and adept.
October 31st, 2016 at 5:40 PM ^
November 1st, 2016 at 7:48 AM ^
You can rep a play in practice.
You can execute the play well in practice.
You can execute the play well in a game.
...and still not be adept at it.
There are lots of plays you'll use which:
1) You rep a lot in practice
2) You execute in practice
3) You are only decent and not adept at executing
October 31st, 2016 at 10:34 AM ^
I think when people see d-bags like Dantonio throw a specific player under the bus, they rightly recognize it as a coach being a d-bag. However, you or I or anyone else has not obligation not to call them out publicly, and this is where people get confused.
Space Coyote saying "Cole blew it on this play," is great analysis.
When Drevno gets after Cole for blowing his assignment during a team meeting, that is just coaching.
Dantonio saying, "Man, if only O'Connor had not made the DUMBEST F'N PLAY in his life, we'd be in this thing," during an interview is just the wrong way to do it.
October 31st, 2016 at 1:59 AM ^
October 31st, 2016 at 10:36 AM ^
He smacked the ball and said, "LOL not even in your house."
October 31st, 2016 at 1:30 PM ^
You are not Mike Hart, are you?
October 31st, 2016 at 1:59 AM ^
Lloyd Ball sucks. Period.
I'm not frustrated by how we played the fourth quarter any longer but I am flummoxed because it was totally out of character and against what Harbaugh espouses to believe in.