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

poseidon7902

October 31st, 2016 at 12:24 PM ^

This was my biggest gripe with Lloyd.  Guy would dominate the second half and then play not to lose instead of playing to win.  I get that you don't want to run the score up, but there's a huge gap between running up the score and being 3 TD's up and running delayed hand offs up the middle.  Granted our playcalling wasn't that pendantic, but I felt that we definitely took the intensity out of our second half.  If you don't feel confident putting in your second string, then don't play like you have the win in hand.  

Joined: 11/09/2013

MGoPoints: 5474

Reader71

October 31st, 2016 at 10:00 AM ^

The key is that the coaches and players know the odds as well. Not that they have an ESPN feed, but they know that a 13 point lead with X amount of time left is a likely win, and so they call offensive plays that have a lower chance of turnovers and defensive plays that are designed to keep everything in front. Those are the types of plays that drastically shift those odds, and that is what they are playing and coaching against. For an example, consider MSU's deep completion on one of the later drives. The safety was not even in the picture as the ball was caught. He was playing much deeper, simply to prevent a touchdown. Even if they complete the pass, they still have to run more plays to get it in the end zone, decreasing their odds of a win. I'd venture that if the game was tied or MSU was driving to tie, a different defense is called, and the safety tries to make a play on the ball instead of just keep the ball in front of him. I tried to talk a fellow blog reader down last night -- expecting one unit to act as if it has no advantages in score and time is really misguided. And it think that's the issue. If MSU does not score with 1 second left, I don't think anyone is upset about the defense to any major degree. In fact, a stop there might have led to more praise for the defense which would have been excellent in the red zone.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

Sten Carlson

October 31st, 2016 at 10:20 AM ^

Well said! So much of the worry seems to be a perception that MSU is a horrible team. They're not, but they're playing the worst football they've played since MD took over. Why? I don't know, that's for them to figure out. But they're still a talented group, and this was (and always is) their Super Bowl. We know this as a fanbase, yet I think the "blowout" meme seeped into those who are "concerned" too much in the week(s) leading up the game. After the half, the only way Sparty win that's game is if Michigan turns the ball over 2-3 times -- especially if one of those times is a score of sets up an very short field. Low and behold, Speight chucks a bad INT and a pretty good return ensued. One down, two to go before it's, "Oh Shit!" time. Fortunately, the defense held them and turned it over on downs after the turnover, but it was a bit of an eye opener. Michigan then marches 69 yards and gets a FG, and is up 30-10. At that point the only thing we could do is beat ourselves.

Joined: 11/16/2009

MGoPoints: -56

Reader71

October 31st, 2016 at 10:37 AM ^

Small disagreement: MSU is a horrible team. Sure, they have talent, but they don't execute well, making them a bad team. You are what film says you are. So I'm not going to give Michigan any credit at all for beating a tough team. My point is that in these late game situations, the quality of the opposition is just one variable, along with size of lead, time left, weather, how tired your defense is, how fast they can score, etc etc. Would I expect M to be a bit more aggressive with a 13 point lead and 7 minutes to play against OSU? Maybe, because they can score quicker than MSU. But maybe not, because we might be more likely to grind out some offensive first downs against their defense. This game was never in doubt. MSU never had a chance to tie or take a lead. M coached and played accordingly, given that the win was the desired outcome. I'm sure coachs and players wanted to have won by more points, but they smartly didn't gamble in an effort to prevent a particular lead, which could have led to a crap out and the game actually becoming in doubt. And also, like Space Coyote pointed out above -- there were plays to be made that we missed. It's easy to see those and create a narrative out of it, but I really must stress that players and coaches don't think that way. They don't need a story. If you ask them why something happened, if they are honest, they will tell you it happened because X didn't get off a block and Y took a bad angle. And they will be right.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

Rasmus

October 31st, 2016 at 11:00 AM ^

Here is how I was trying to expalin it to my brother, who doesn't watch sports much (despite having been in a national-championship rowing boat). I had told him he needed to see this defense play, telling him how historically good it has been. So he came over to watch. [And yes, you can blame me for this game.]

So we're sitting there and you can imagine my chagrin. The way I ended up explaining it was that Michigan State has better athletes than most of those Michigan has faced. They're not a good team, but they have more than a few good players. The problems were more about finishing -- the defender was where he needed to be, he just didn't make the tackle, and so on.

But it was fun watching the goal-line stand after the INT. That was a season-defining moment, IMHO.

Joined: 07/02/2009

MGoPoints: 2412

UMForLife

October 31st, 2016 at 12:51 PM ^

It was a typical NFL game against a underwhelming team. Does miracles happen? Of course. Could we have thrown the ball a few times and close the game out? Yes. We could have. If we would have thrown a pick-six, all the people complaining about conservative play would be saying something else. I thought I saw a NFL game yesterday where the team closed the gap but not close enough because they had a comfortable lead. Harbaugh cares less about style points. As SC said above, we ran plays that could have given us a big deal. We just didn't execute. Stuff happens. Happy with the win and the game was never close.

Joined: 11/04/2013

MGoPoints: 63391