4th quarter coaching and playing the numbers

Submitted by taistreetsmyhero on

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.

 

MGoBoard
Football

BlockM

October 31st, 2016 at 7:10 AM ^

Harbaugh believes in winning. The only way MSU was getting back into this game for real was if our offense made some big mistakes. It's not like he wasn't trying to score at all, but ball security and field position were more important than running the offense wide open.

Joined: 07/03/2008

MGoPoints: 40879

UofM626

October 31st, 2016 at 2:36 AM ^

me was the fact at how easily they moved up and down the field minus there couple screw ups every drive. Seems like we are playing kinda tight in my eyes. We really didn't blitz much and they were in Speight's face a lot this game and he missed the deep wide open WR again for a sure TD! Something is just not right the last couple times we played vs anyone who had any talent. Just my opinion.

Joined: 01/02/2012

MGoPoints: 3443

Vengeful Barbarian

October 31st, 2016 at 3:38 AM ^

People put way too much faith in these probability numbers. these are nothing more than guesses. the reason the game is played on the field instead of on paper is that anything can happen. that game was too close for comfort at the end. if not for Dantonio being overly aggressive in 4th down situations, we could have been tied down the stretch.

Joined: 02/12/2014

MGoPoints: 5391

Bodogblog

October 31st, 2016 at 5:50 AM ^

If he had, and I assume you mean kick some FGs, Michigan would not have shut it down. M scored on every possession in the first half. In the 4th qtr they handed off 3 times and then punted, because they knew they were going to win. If it were closer at some point, they would have run the offense, killed more clock or scored. Trust this if nothing else: Harbaugh and his staff are about a zillion times smarter than you when it comes to all things football. This game was never remotely close.

Joined: 06/08/2010

MGoPoints: 26674

indi_blue

October 31st, 2016 at 7:30 AM ^

I tend to agree on people putting way too much faith in probability part.  We need to question the underlying distribution assumption.  Based on the 99%, 98% probability number thrown around, I assume it is normal distribution.

These games are anything but normal statistical distribution.  In my opinion it is more like distribution with fat tails or jump factor needs to incorporated into the analysis.  Even then with sample size of number of games it is a crap shoot.

Just for example, last year MSU game we had 99.99% win probability before snap. 

Joined: 10/04/2010

MGoPoints: 571

ThadMattasagoblin

October 31st, 2016 at 4:25 AM ^

I still would have liked Harbaugh to have Speight throw the ball. They clearly knew that we were going to run it. Throw some type of bomb like we did to Jake Butt early that wouldn't matter much if they intercept it. Also, we should do more Peppers wildcat.

Joined: 08/24/2011

MGoPoints: 64335

BIGBLUEWORLD

October 31st, 2016 at 4:39 AM ^

Big leads have a tendency to cause a little bit of complacency, which can lead to unexpected consequences.

Joined: 07/14/2012

MGoPoints: 4239

reshp1

October 31st, 2016 at 10:35 AM ^

It wasn't a big lead, though. 17-20 points is right in that no man's land area. A bigger lead and you put the back ups in because it's over. A smaller lead and you run your normal offense and defense and try to keep your foot on the gas.

At 17-20 in the 4th quarter, you have a big enough advantage that you start thinking about changing the way you play to protect the lead, because the odds are with you as long as you prevent the large variance events like giving up a huge play quickly, or coughing up a turnover. So, offense runs runs runs, even if it means going 3 and out, defense plays soft prevent style and forces them to eat time getting down the field. I'm sure Harbaugh and all of us would have preferred the defense make some more stops and the offense pick up a first down or two, but in reality, even without those things going our way, the strategy was correct and we comfortably won.

I, like everyone else, would have liked us to preserve the lead, if not add to it, but spending the lead as currency towards a win by being safe is totally fine too. 

Joined: 10/31/2011

MGoPoints: 34170

bacon

October 31st, 2016 at 6:41 AM ^

Going into the 4th quarter, we had a three-score lead with the country's best defense and one of the better ball-control offenses. We were playing a team that had lost 4 straight and was on their backup qb. The game should have been over. We were outscored 13- 3 before the Peppers 2-point conversion score. We also stopped State with less than 2 min left on fourth down (knocking out their backup to the backup quarterback), yet we didn't kill the clock. I think we played the percentages and won, but the coaching and playcalls made it a lot closer than it should have been. The offense went 3 and out, 6 and out, 3 and out. Not helpful.

Joined: 01/04/2009

MGoPoints: 18645

Njia

October 31st, 2016 at 6:53 AM ^

MSU's D sold out to stop the run, and they (and we) knew the play calling was going to be all-run (except for the one first down we got on a pass play). Statistically, that pretty much iced the game; and although MSU went down the field really fast, they needed to do it too many times in a row to put a win into serious jeopardy. Someone said yesterday that it was a typical NFL-like strategy. Our coaches wanted to get the WIN, first, last, and always; not send "mental messages," or any other such bullshit.

Joined: 09/15/2009

MGoPoints: 35773

M Ascending

October 31st, 2016 at 6:48 AM ^

The fact is, or offense has scored a total of 13 points combined in the second half of the last two games -- and seven of them came on long run by Higdon late against Illinois. Other than that, two field goals. This will not get it done in the long run. There are ways to play safe without shutting down the Offense.

Joined: 09/14/2016

MGoPoints: 21499

lmgoblue1

October 31st, 2016 at 7:22 AM ^

is that there could be complacency from coaches or players after what happened last year in this game. I'm just not sure how every play couldn't have been at 100%. That first half was as close to perfection as I've seen. The second half we seem to lose our motivation. Can't do that moving forward. There is no excuse for not icing the game on the last possession, third and one, same as last year. On a personal note, it's cool to be concerned again after being in the desert for years. But now I want more.

Joined: 10/27/2012

MGoPoints: 12428

EGD

October 31st, 2016 at 7:49 AM ^

There are two ways of looking at "complacency" here. You view complacency as running conservative offensive plays, and argue the coaches must have been complacent because they did not try to score more points and put the game away. But an alternative view of complacency is a belief that one's opponent is not capable of coming back, and thus choosing offensive plays irrespective as to their effects on the clock, turnover risks, and other factors that may actually facilitate a comeback. If you want an example of complacency, look at the Rutgers game where M continued to just run the offense even when up a bazillion points. In the MSU game, the staff seemed to view State as a dangerous opponent for the entire 60 minutes and followed the strategy they thought most likely to produce a win. You can disagree with the strategy, but I don't think it can really be called "complacent."

Joined: 09/16/2009

MGoPoints: 35196

Soulfire21

October 31st, 2016 at 6:53 AM ^

I think it's somewhat concerning that we've only scored 13 in the last two halves of both games. Then again we were up big in each, but Saturday's 4th Q was frustrating.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 03/18/2010

MGoPoints: 22717

csmhowitzer

October 31st, 2016 at 7:34 AM ^

As a fan, who is biased, I wanted a blowout. All of the past 8 years answered for in this one game. Seeing a tight game was not a surprise for me. After MSU scored on the first drive I knew that they came to play instead of laying down. As they should, it's a rivalry game. However there was not one time in this game where I felt worried. "If only MSU had 2 more minutse of game time" some have said. Michigan answered every push and punch MSU threw. Scoring on consecutive drives, MSU couldn't stop us. Sparty fans can talk about morale victories, which don't mean anything to players and coaches. Those are for us fans and for our water cooler conversations. The national perspective on this game is "Michigan went up by 20 at the start of the 4th quarter then played conservatively and MSU tried everything they could to make it competitive. Michigan was never in a position to lose this game." That's all that needs to be said. 

TL;DR Let's jsut all laugh at how bad OSU is looking. HAHAHAHAHA NW almost beat you!!!!

Joined: 09/24/2012

MGoPoints: 3659

Njia

October 31st, 2016 at 9:18 AM ^

A few folks have even gone so far as to express concern about not beating the spread in the last two games. This is probably the least of the things that concerns our coaching staff right now.

They know that we're coming down the stretch, and at this point, just winning out - no matter by how much - puts us into the playoffs. So, the strategy has changed from early in the season - where getting noticed for style points matters - to simply securing the "W" in the least risky way possible.

This is just one of the many ways in which our NFL-experienced coaching staff plays chess while almost every other college staff plays checkers.

Joined: 09/15/2009

MGoPoints: 35773

The Reeve

October 31st, 2016 at 7:43 AM ^

Say no to drugs...and everything in this post. Playing not to lose -- on both sides of the ball (Don Brown, I am looking at you) -- will bite you in the ass. It's as if I discovered that Harbaugh has a rare serious disease; I am shocked, concerned, and would crawl on my knees through broken glass to secure a vial of cure for him. It's not about the blow out that fans wanted, it's about bad football, ugly demoralizing football. I'd rather lose being aggressive than to turtle. In the end, we'll be better off.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 09/26/2013

MGoPoints: 1109

Njia

October 31st, 2016 at 5:40 PM ^

That INT happened within the first 4 min of the 2nd half. On the very next drive by MSU, Michigan got the stop on 4th-and-Goal. From the shadow of our own goal line, Speight went over the top to Darboh for a 40-yd gain.

If you recall, they went down the field, and when finally stopped short of the goal line, got the FG to put us up by 3 TDs going into the 4th Qtr. At that point, the odds-to-win were firmly in Michigan's favor, and (according to the FEI) almost 98%.

That's not playing scared; not even close.

Joined: 09/15/2009

MGoPoints: 35773

JTrain

October 31st, 2016 at 7:47 AM ^

No offense...but after the ptsd of the last 7-10 years we are all a little snake bitten.
Winning some really close games last year (Minnesota/Indiana) was good therapy..but SPARTY--trouble with the snap--
that's some pretty hard shot to shake off. And when Strib gave up the TD in the corner...not gna lie-- I may have sharted a bit in my underwear.
We just need to take a deep breath and realize that 99/100 with this coaching staff..it's all going to be ok.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 12/08/2012

MGoPoints: 8459

BoCanHam15

October 31st, 2016 at 7:48 AM ^

Dumbest shit ever! We almost lost! Some people would be mad if they won the lottery! I only won one million! If I would've bet more money! And went all hard at the booth, there's a probability that I win three million! FOH

Joined: 07/08/2016

MGoPoints: 16114

PeteM

October 31st, 2016 at 8:10 AM ^

I understand that getting first downs when both teams know you're going to run is challenging, but a 4th qtr featuring two 3 plays possessions, one 6 play possession and one first down is dissapointing.  I'm glad we won, and don't really care about the margin per se, but I'm also curious to see Brian's UFR the offensive line play as it seemed like we struggled to establish a conventional run game all game but particularly in the final quarter.

Joined: 09/15/2008

MGoPoints: 3496

Carcajou

October 31st, 2016 at 9:38 AM ^

Yeah, I thought the whole point of the fake point and wildly contesting the spot versus Illinois last week probably had to do with Harbaugh saying to O'Korn, "Now your job today is to run the clock out, so we don't have to give it back." and making that happen to build confidence and experience.

Joined: 02/26/2009

MGoPoints: 5796

Sten Carlson

October 31st, 2016 at 9:59 AM ^

I'm not sure what people are tripping over here. The book on stopping Michigan is pretty simple: don't let them run down hill. We say it against UCF, Wisconsin, and now MSU. They were going to make Speight beat them with his arm, and he did -- averaging over 15 yards per completion. This "struggling to establish a conventional run game" netted Michgan 192 yards @ 4.6 yards/carry -- not great, but not terrible either. Now, when it was obvious to everyone that Michigan was going to run, and only run, the MSU defense was -- as is to be expected -- prepared with a stacked box. Despite this fact, however, Higdon's run should have closed the game out if not for what looked like a horrible spot. That spot goes our way, and none of this after the game hand wringing goes on. It's so odd to me that so many Michigan fans simply MUST have something to worry about all the time, even after a very convincing win over a nemesis rival. So many want to make it unconvincing, and question why we weren't dominating them completely. Why? Because, despite being down this year, they're a talented, well-coached, and prideful football team who have a special hatred for Michigan. The game was NEVER in doubt once Michigan tied it up. Why is that so hard to process?

Joined: 11/16/2009

MGoPoints: -56

Rasmus

October 31st, 2016 at 8:40 AM ^

But the outcome was never in doubt. The defense will be fine -- this game will take them to a new level when it comes to containing an opponent with nothing to lose at the end of the game. You can't really reproduce that in practice -- especially the influence of the refs. They will be improved the next time they face it. The bad INT caused problems on offense. I think they must have thought that throwing to running backs coming out of the backfield would work after halftime, but it looked like MSU was expecting it. Not just the INT, also that end-zone play where they threw to Smith. My pet peeve this season is everybody knows Morris is a threat to throw -- you're not going to fool them into thinking otherwise no matter how many times you run that damn play. All it does is knock Speight and the regular offense out of its rhythm. Strangely enough, the Peppers wildcat doesn't seem to have the same effect. It's like one wildcat package can be absorbed, but two of them is a bridge too far.

Joined: 07/02/2009

MGoPoints: 2412

JoeFink

October 31st, 2016 at 8:46 AM ^

Dantonio made several awful decisions in that game, which hurt his team. 1) not running out the first half when he had no time outs left. Led to an interception and Michigan field goal. 2) Attempting a field goal with about 7 minutes left, down by 20. What good is 3 points at that point?; and 3) going for the 2 point conversion. Again what good is 2 points there? I was there and even the Sparty fans around me were scratching their heads.

Joined: 11/11/2015

MGoPoints: 389

Carcajou

October 31st, 2016 at 9:34 AM ^

I understand Dantonio's decision to go for 2 there. The message he was sending to his team is to keep fighting every snap, no matter what happens. If Harbaugh had done the same, we would have been proud.

However if there were a little more time on the clock, though, a playcall like that- an option pitch- with the higher chance of turnover and a possible runback, could have taken away the chance to win with an onside kick recovery.

Joined: 02/26/2009

MGoPoints: 5796

Rasmus

October 31st, 2016 at 10:34 AM ^

He could have been down 6 while hoping a Michigan player would be stupid enough try to advance the onside kick (and then fumble). Instead he opted to try to be down 5. It makes no sense no matter how much time is left on the clock. By taking the risk he did, he only introduced the possibility that what happened might happen: he would end up down 9 and his chances after the kick would be zero instead of near-zero.

No, if there had been any chance of getting a play in after the onside kick, he wouldn't have gone for two at all. That would have been epic malpractice. This was just some weird disrespect-projection thing. Ask MIke Hart about that. Going for two there was just disrespectful of Michigan. It risks getting someone injured, and it's not fun.

Joined: 07/02/2009

MGoPoints: 2412

Rasmus

October 31st, 2016 at 9:39 AM ^

Yes, numbers 1 and 2 probably say something about what he thinks about his team's capabilities, but 3 is just weird. He knows the game is over because they can't advance an onside kick and Michigan won't risk a fumble. I'll guess it is some permutation of the disrespect thing. Maybe we can call it "Lose With Disrespect" or "Lose With Cruelty" ??? EDIT: This is a reply to JoeFink, above.

Joined: 07/02/2009

MGoPoints: 2412

MichFan4Life2

October 31st, 2016 at 9:34 AM ^

Whether it effected the win % or not, the bottom line is that the offensive playcalling and execution in the 2nd half did not match the first half. Both the offense and the defense took the proverbial foot off the gas. Did it end up mattering no, but it could have. The opportunity was left open by the team/coaches relaxing and playing more conservatively than previously.

It's not the first game of the year that's it's happened. We've gone run, run, run, punt before with chance to deliver a death knell

Joined: 06/11/2013

MGoPoints: 3