Harbaugh Era Rushing Totals and Game Outcomes
This is a very simplistic view, but in the Harbaugh era, Michigan is 27-0 if the team rushes over 200 yards in a game and 41-4 if the team rushes for over 150 yards. Those four losses were OSU (2018), Alabama (2019), Michigan State (2020) and Penn State (2020). Overall, that’s a .911 winning percentage if rushing for more than 150 yards. If that percentage holds over a 12 game season, that would equate to 10.93 wins. The SP+ data, which is a lot more sophisticated, predicts 9.6 wins.
I am very high on this OL and RB group, and the blocking from or TEs and WRs, and their dominance and execution reminds me a bit of the way I felt about the 1997 defense. They just have a special feel and energy about them. I don’t expect 300+ yard performances once we play Wisconsin, MSU, PSU, and OSU, but 150-250 yard performances are definitely attainable with this group. If we can convert on some long throws in those games, which should be open, this could be a special year. With the way Harbaugh coaches and game plans, I like Michigan’s odds the rest of the way and anticipate a 10-2 or 11-1 finish, with 9-3 being the worst case scenario. Winning out is not unattainable, but there are still the challenges on the road for Harbaugh teams, and obviously the OSU cloud that hangs over the program. I’ll go with 11-1 because something just feels different now that we have a dominant skill player like Corum.
Is this too simplistic a view?
Here is the breakdown of wins-losses stratified by different rushing yard ranges:
Rush over 300 yards - 11-0
Rush between 250-300 yards - 10-0
Rush between 200-250 yards - 6-0
Rush between 150-200 yards - 14-4
Rush between 100-150 yards - 8-4
Rush between 50-100 yards - 3-11
Rush between 0-50 yards - 0-3
September 20th, 2021 at 12:25 PM ^
Wait... we played Alabama in 2019?
*googles*
Huh. Who knew?
September 20th, 2021 at 12:31 PM ^
Technically 2020, but the 2019-2020 season.
September 20th, 2021 at 12:51 PM ^
Of course. There's been quite a bit from the past couple of years that's been blotted from my memory.
September 20th, 2021 at 1:38 PM ^
That history has been absolutely burned into most of our fan's psyche.
September 20th, 2021 at 4:09 PM ^
Our last two trips to Columbus are currently taking up all available space devoted to the subject of soul-crushing losses.
September 20th, 2021 at 7:17 PM ^
Bottled from your memory?
September 20th, 2021 at 7:34 PM ^
Maybe I bottled my first response from my memory?
September 20th, 2021 at 1:27 PM ^
You don't remember Bama's backup quarterback throwing a 75 touchdown on the first play of the game? I wish I could forget that.
Us being chosen to play Bama for that bowl game never made any sense. Penn State was ranked higher than us and finished higher in the division yet they were chosen to play....Memphis? WTF? They should have been the ones getting pounded by the Tide while we had the luxury of playing the champ of the American Athletic Conference.
September 20th, 2021 at 2:10 PM ^
Ahh yes, that total scrub of a backup QB Mac Jones.
Let's look at Bama's offensive leaders that game:
QB: Mac Jones, now starting for NE as a rookie
RB: Najee Harris, now starting for Pitt as a rookie
WR: Jerry Juedy - now the No 1 (or 1B) in Denver as a sophomore
WR: Devonta Smith, now the no.1 in Philly - and he won the 2020 Heisman
WR: Henry Ruggs, now a starting WR for Las Vegas, had a rough 2020, looked great yesterday.
WR: Jaylen Waddle, now a starting WR for Miami as a rookie.
September 20th, 2021 at 2:18 PM ^
Great players, and honestly Michigan played them pretty well. The scheme was excellent by Gattis.
September 20th, 2021 at 12:26 PM ^
These sorts of statistics are a huge pet peeve of mine and one announcers love to roll out in almost every game. The gist of it is, "When the team plays well, they are more likely to win." Not overly informative. If we keep running the way we have been against superior competition, this will be a great season. If we can only run like this against bad teams, it won't be.
September 20th, 2021 at 12:35 PM ^
Yeah, a lot of people who probably call into sports talk radio programs see this as a sign that if a team could just run the ball 75 times for 2 ypc then they can win. It's similar to the "this team is 8-0 when scoring first" stat.
September 20th, 2021 at 12:54 PM ^
You won’t have 75 plays total if you run for 2 ypc. While I don’t totally disagree with we need to throw the ball more to be dangerous, but if we are running for 4+ a carry, 5+ a carry, 6+ a carry, we would be fools to stop running like that.
No team is getting 200+ and losing, it shows you are controlling the line of scrimmage and dominating in other ways as well.
September 20th, 2021 at 1:31 PM ^
fuck, when was the last time any of the service academies lost a game?
September 20th, 2021 at 2:10 PM ^
That’s a fair point, and I didn’t think about them.
I guess I consider them major outliers as they don’t run a “modern offense” and have the athletes to actually throw the ball the way it needs to be done to be a threat.
September 20th, 2021 at 1:21 PM ^
I think it also goes to overall control of the game, even from a defensive perspective. If your D is holding an opposition to like 1 yard per pay, then yeah, you can probably win running the ball 75 times for 2 ypc. It's when the D is getting torched and time is the team's enemy that you tend to go for the higher risk/reward passing attack. I'm thinking that 2016 Wisconsin win were UM rushed for like right around 150 at a pedestrian 4 YPC or something like that. And won 14-7. So I'm guessing those low rushing games, were not just because the run game got completely stoned but because UM fell behind early or D was getting torched and UM need to pass.
September 20th, 2021 at 12:38 PM ^
Your objections about this post being "Not overly informative" are overruled. You can't whine about that, and then offer only 'der, when we play good, we win; when we don't we don't; derrr'...
One of the more interesting notes about the actual data presented is that there are 4 losses when the team ran well. Gives one something to look into - why were those games lost?
September 20th, 2021 at 12:59 PM ^
I believe the most recent one was the UM - MSU last year where we ran for 152 yards. Our staff thought Milton should throw 51 times to 34 rushes with Milton actually getting credit for 12, so actually a net 22 RB handoffs. On top of that, our OL went from world beaters in MN (UFR 30.5) to an absolute disaster the next week (UFR -14.5), a net 45 point UFR swing.
So, at least for that one, we would have to place the blame on the OL which may have been due to multiple injuries sustained in that game. I'm not sure as I try not to recall too much about that day.
Maybe the corollary to the above is that rushing is directly proportional to the often overlooked and underappreciated good OL work. Again, not rocket science, but a little more detail.
September 20th, 2021 at 1:05 PM ^
None of those games had an inordinate amount of turnovers (2 is the max in any of the games) and Michigan won the time of possession battle in 3 of the 4 games that they lost (PSU won the time of possession last year). The three explanations are stalled drives that don’t result in points (all 4 losses), getting significantly out rushed (PSU loss), and a porous defense that gives up big plays frequently (the MSU, OSU and Bama losses).
I’m hoping that Mike MacDonald is the answer to the porous defense problem, which I think is the biggest question mark remaining for this year’s team. I don’t think we’ll see as many stalled drives with the offense having significantly more playmakers than in year’s past. Wisconsin, MSU and OSU could all have significantly more rushing yards against Michigan if the defense isn’t quite there yet.
September 20th, 2021 at 12:44 PM ^
This statistical analysis is no different than a TV pundit claiming that a team dominating the LOS on either or both sides of the ball is more likely to win. But, in point of fact, superior rushing numbers almost always determine the winner in Michigan's rivalry games, Rutgers notwithstanding as a would-be rival.
September 20th, 2021 at 5:14 PM ^
It's even more convoluted with football where the winning team is basically always going to be trying to run the ball to eat more clock and the losing team is going to be trying to air it out to score quickly. I'd be surprised if the vast majority of teams didn't have similar numbers when rushing for that much. This stat means almost nothing to me.
September 20th, 2021 at 6:19 PM ^
The same applies to turnovers. Get behind and you need to take more risk which increases the chances of turnovers. So, in some cases, getting turnovers is a result of winning as opposed winning being a result of getting turnovers.
September 20th, 2021 at 12:43 PM ^
I mean, usually when you run the ball well, you control the clock, you win.
September 21st, 2021 at 5:42 PM ^
Ok but you don't usually win because of controlling the clock. If you run well and win it's because you gain yardage, which eventually puts you into FG range or the end zone.
September 20th, 2021 at 12:54 PM ^
I don't think this is too surprising. Big rushing totals usually come from a lot of running the ball, which teams often do when they're winning by a lot to run out the clock. It can be a misleading stat.
September 20th, 2021 at 12:55 PM ^
no wonder they haven't been throwing the ball!
September 20th, 2021 at 12:55 PM ^
I shudder to think how quickly this board will melt down should Michigan go to Madison in a couple of weeks and poop the bed.
September 20th, 2021 at 1:06 PM ^
At least we have plenty of practice!
/s
September 20th, 2021 at 12:58 PM ^
Now do this for time of possession. /s
September 20th, 2021 at 1:06 PM ^
This is excellent data - despite what others say. Perhaps you can argue about inferences to be drawn. But the numbers don’t lie. I conclude that a dominating running game is critical to success. I don’t think its arguable. And aren’t the team’s early results an indication that we are where we hoped we would be in that regard? Doesn’t seem complicated to me.
September 20th, 2021 at 1:15 PM ^
Meh. It’s not nothing, but it is circular (“Michigan usually wins when it plays winningly, hurrah!”).
And even the OP admits it’s too simple, albeit in a weird way. These are his words separated by the meat of his post:
“This is a very simplistic view, but (…) Is this too simplistic a view?”
September 20th, 2021 at 1:07 PM ^
Number of Explosive plays far outweigh any other stat in this era of college football.
Michigan has been one of the least explosive teams in the country under Harbaugh (previous to this year.)
If you want to focus on a stat, this is the one that determines how far this year’s team can go.
September 20th, 2021 at 1:19 PM ^
This team has had explosive plays in the first three games. I’m optimistic because there were some in the Washington game against what I think will prove to be a better than average Power 5 defense. The Wisconsin game will be the barometer - both offensively and defensively (and mentally - I.e. overcoming past struggles on the road, particularly in Madison).
September 20th, 2021 at 1:21 PM ^
I recall Brian had written something along those lines in the past. This is the one piece that so far has given me the most optimism. In order to take one the distance, you need to have the right play design, with good execution and great athletes. What is encouraging is not that we've gotten explosive plays, but even the plays that aren't explosive are often one missed tackle away from going the distance. We are scheming up opportunities for explosive plays.
September 20th, 2021 at 1:07 PM ^
It's a little too narrow for me. For at least both the OSU and Alabama games my memory was that the issue was not with the offense but the defense. In an era of CFB where offenses are increasingly putting up sizable yard/point stats I think you have to be solid on both sides of the ball. So - could I see us putting 200+ yards up on the 2021 OSU defense? Yes. Would I still expect us to have a 3-4 TD gap in the final score? Again yes given how prolific their offense is. I suppose there is something to be said for grind it and control the clock; but if the o line and RBs play well and our defense can't stop Wisconsin or MSU or PSU then I think we are still in trouble. I am very happy with the offense (especially since we seem to have some capability to stretch a defense to give ourselves some room and not let them just stack the box); but going into the season that was not really my concern - it was the defense. So........nice start but jury still out.
September 20th, 2021 at 1:18 PM ^
8-4 is probably the floor at this point. The future is a tricky thing.
Ceiling depends on better data, more of it, and development going forward—both with respect to us and to upcoming opponents.
This has been an excellent and enjoyable beginning of the season. Hoping for an excellent and enjoyable middle of the season, and especially an excellent and enjoyable end of the season.
September 20th, 2021 at 1:18 PM ^
The loss in 2018 to OSU is more attributable to a defense that couldn't do anything to stop OSU's offense, particularly its passing game.
We had 401 yards in 78 total plays for a little over 5 yds per play; OSU had 567 yds on 67 plays for over 8 yds per play, and almost 400 of those yards were through the air.
Part of this was the fact we got no pressure on Haskins—no recorded sacks or QB hurries. By contrast, OSU recorded 3 sacks and 2 QB hurries.
Amazingly enough, Michigan had over a 10-minute TOP advantage. Didn't do us any good.
September 20th, 2021 at 1:22 PM ^
The initial post for this thread is a very good example of why we have more advanced statistical analysis whether it be SP+, Sagarin, PFF, etc for both individual players and teams. All football counting and average stats are only a part of a much bigger overall picture determined by the teams you play, what they did in a particular game, and what else your team did during a particular season or game. Let’s skip the usual mass media play by play and color guys back of the envelope stuff. Not really what this blog is all about to me.
September 20th, 2021 at 1:30 PM ^
The variables tossed into the soup this year that may help make this year different are:
1. New D scheme that looks OK to good so far.
2. Better QB downfield accuracy. Must sustain this otherwise it will likely cost us at least 3 games against stiffer defenses that crowd the box, giving us those 2-3 shots a game over the top.
3. More cohesive TE, OL, RB play.
4. Explosive RBs making good decisions.
Hard to expect all four of these to sustain consistently all year but if they can, this just may be a very, very good year.
September 20th, 2021 at 1:34 PM ^
The supposition that if you just "do something" you'll win, is countered at every data point by the fact that the other team is also playing.
Three outcomes to every binary-like measure in fact. And the majority fall in the non-binary part.
1. You overwhelmingly succeed at rushing.
2. You overwhelmingly fail at rushing.
3. Something that can be debated (e.g. 40 rushes for 151 yards).
With so many factors at play, the chance of one factor being a DETERMINING factor, (not a reactionary - aha!) is predicated on #1 or #2 - which I think is harder to assess. So, majority of the time against semi-equal competition, you fall in #3. Evaluating games (that are not against Northern Illinois' of the world) in terms of one stat or measure, for example, to me, is not easy. To do so, it needs to be overhelming. 6 turnovers, 300 yards rushing. 120 yards given up total. And then there are stats that look amazing, that mean nothing. Stroud threw for 500 yards 2 weeks ago - and they lost.
So, to me, defining "success" is a challenge in absolutes - and otherwise is a combination of many of the key factors - an entire field of study is dedicated to figuring out what those key factors are..
September 20th, 2021 at 1:43 PM ^
I would guess that rushing over 200 yards is highly correlated with winning, regardless of who the coach or the team is.
September 20th, 2021 at 3:24 PM ^
Yeah as others have mentioned, this could also be read as:
"When the other team has a terrible run defense, we generally win". Which, yeah, because we try to run the ball in every game. So if the other team can't stop it, we will win.
September 20th, 2021 at 3:59 PM ^
That is awesome. That must of took awhile to pull all those stats together. This is one of the most telling and informative posts I’ve seen on this here blog in a long while. Well done.
September 20th, 2021 at 6:21 PM ^
We're 1-0 when we throw for 44.
September 20th, 2021 at 6:21 PM ^
I do think this is an interesting fact in that is suggests to me that a defense that has to account for a fairly successful run game will be run heavy allowing for a more successful air game.
We could use more data on passing numbers. Also poor defense would help account for the MSU loss and the OH St as well.
However it is a stubborn fact that if a team is having trouble stopping the run they compensate and make themselves vulnerable to pass.
September 20th, 2021 at 7:16 PM ^
Line play has been exceptional.
We have talented athletic and large O-Lineman that are clearly getting coached.
The schemes they are running is a tribute to the coaches.
The backs are talented hard nose runners and are critically patient in finding the holes that are there.
It’s all clicking.