We offered a five-year comparison before the first meeting this year, and a ten-year comparison along with a 25-game summary before the game just played. The short-run trend is clear, with UM winning six of the last eight games, despite being outscored by MSU in that same time span. It's this most recent short stretch, featuring a pair of one-point wins by Michigan, that is leading many wolverine boosters to claim dominance in the series.
However, as much as they have won 6 of the last 8, they have also won only 6 of the last 12. So how you view the series clearly depends on what time-frame used for comparison. We offer three frameworks for review, each covering a different length of time.
The Short View (5-8 games)
Michigan has come out on top more times in the last few meetings, winning three-of-the-last-five and/or six-of-the-last-eight games. By any recent comparison, UM has the lead in games won, despite giving up two double-digit wins to MSU without any of their own. Most short-term game-counts that favor Michigan include two victories by one-point each that have the effect of counter-balancing the big Spartan wins in the same time period.
Advantage: UM
The Intermediate View (The Beilein Era)
The series is now tied at 7-7 since John Beilein was named coach at Michigan. Michigan State has outscored UM by 54 points over the last 14 games, and leads 6-5 in games decided by more than one point, all double-digit victories. The Wolverines have only one win by more than ten points, and it was in the second game Beilein coached against Izzo.
Advantage: EVEN
The Long View (21st Century)
There have been 26 games since New Year's Eve 2000, and the Spartans lead 17-9, outscoring the Wolverines by 248 points. 15 of the MSU wins have been by double-digits, while four of the UM wins have been by two points or less.
Advantage: MSU
You could go back further in time and still find a few more Spartan wins in a row, then the series would "even out again" in the 1990s, though many of those illegal Wolverine wins have been revoked by the NCAA, leaving their true status as games-played somewhat ambiguous. But there is no reason to track back in time to the days of the covered wagon, as UM fanatics like to do with their so-called "All-Time Wins" record in football. There is really no reason to go back to the days when our predecessors were called the "Aggies" and when MSU didn't actually exist.
(If someone wants to count up the series record from the time Michigan State joined the Big Ten, please go ahead and share with us. Otherwise, we'll use the 21st Century as the long-view measuring stick.)
So the Spartans failed to stem the tide of single-digit wins by UM as they lost the regular season series for the second time this century. We will update the series comparisons when both tournaments are finished.
----------
Tweet ****** Click on NO COMMENTS (or # comments) below to enter and view reader comments. ----- Remember to check Spartan Headline links, updated real time, in the left column of SpartanResource.com (Web version only). *****Note: If you are receiving this post via automated email, you need to go to the site to view headline links and embedded videos in this post: http://spartanresource.com/ (Web version only). SIGN UP TO RECEIVE POSTS VIA EMAIL, TWITTER OR FACEBOOK IN THE RIGHT COLUMN.*****
You do realize Michigan has won six of the last eight, not five as you stated?
ReplyDeleteYou skipped the article again before commenting. Read the first sentence of the third paragraph. Now get back to your schoolwork to improve your reading comprehension.
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed, 6 of the last 8 and also 6 of the last 12. The 25-game summary we posted last week shows the series in five-game increments. Why do we select five-game increments? Because that's THE NORM IN OUR CULTURE. We look at lists in groups of fives and tens, not threes and eights.
You may not have noticed, but our numbering system operates in what's known as "Base Ten". This may be because we have ten fingers, but that's another discussion. Most people think in increments of fives and tens much more often than threes and eights.
I can see why you would want to define the series by only considering the last eight games. It's the best way you can make it look.
I suppose if your women's team won the next two games, you would say, "We are now 2 for 2 against MSU", but you wouldn't have much company on that trip.
Again, congrats on the win yesterday. UM is gaining in the win column and slowly catching up on points.
"The Short View (5-8 games)
DeleteMichigan has come out on top more times in the last few meetings, winning three-of-the-last-five and/or six-of-the-last-eight games. By any recent comparison, UM has the lead in games won, despite giving up two double-digit wins to MSU without any of their own. Most short-term game-counts that favor Michigan include two victories by one-point each that have the effect of counter-balancing the big Spartan wins in the same time period.
Advantage: UM"
Your words: Do you see at the top where it says "5-8?"... That's wrong. It should be 6-8, 5-7 would be acceptable, but "5-8" is completely wrong. So maybe a little less name calling, and a little more proofreading?
Ha! Funny that you should be so interested in my verbal formatting. Glad to accept the friendly input.
DeleteBut I have to tell you something. The reason I listed the number five first is because that's the smallest number we care about when looking at overall program trends. We're not as interested in 3s and 8s as we are 5s and 10s. So five is the starting point.
The reason I listed number eight as the and of the span was to give you your 6-of-8. That's what you wanted, wasn't it? To be able to talk about "6-of-8"? Well there you go, I put it in there for you. You're welcome.
As tempting as it was to begin the second time-span with the 9th-game-ago where the picture looks so much different, I went ahead to the next logical delineation, which was the career of the less-tenured coach of the two, hence the "Beilein Era".
The rest has already been explained in the article, so thanks for the free proofreading and literary advice.
P.S. If we can only go back three years in men's basketball, can we stop going back to the 1800s for rugby scores?
No seriously, you have information that is incorrect on your article. You can play the role of the ostrich all you want, but you're still wrong.
ReplyDeleteNot so much an ostrich as somebody who was having dinner before going to the MSU Women's Basketball game.
DeleteNow what was it you were saying is "incorrect" this time?