MSU Hoops Stats Analysis: Stuck in Neutral?

A few weeks ago, I introduced two of the most important areas of basketball data analysis: tempo-adjusted efficiency (as summarized well by Ken Pomeroy) and the "four factors of basketball success". In those introductions, I showed where the current Michigan State Spartans basketball team stands in those areas relative to past Michigan State teams and the rest of the current field.

Now that Michigan State has a few more games in the win column, it is time to briefly revisit those numbers.

Updated Kenpom Efficiency

Figure 1 below is the updated Kenpom efficiency scatter plot with data through Jan. 12 (after Michigan State's win over Wisconsin). For those who may be unfamiliar with this plot, I broke down what all the data means in my previous article. 

Figure 1: Kenpom efficiency scatter plot as of Jan. 13, 2023.

The bad news for Michigan State fans is that despite the return of both Jaden Akins and Malik Hall from injury, and despite big wins over Nebraska, Michigan, and Wisconsin, the Spartans' efficiency has changed very little since early December. 

The current Spartan team continues to resemble past Michigan State who failed to advance past the first weekend of the NCAA Tournament. The Spartan's current efficiency is in the range of a typical No. 9 seed in the Big Dance. Based on the green oval, the historical odds that Michigan State will improve enough to enter the blue "championship zone" are also growing smaller.

But there is some good news. First, I do think that it is likely that Michigan State will continue to improve as the Big Ten season wears on. Second, and perhaps more important, is that the competition nationally continues to look weak. Afterall, the Spartans will not be competing against teams from 2015 or 2019 in March. They will be competing against the current field.

As shown by the red triangles, there are currently only 10 total teams who fall into that blue championship zone. In most years at this stage that number is closer to 15 or 20 teams. Furthermore, if we look at the current list of contenders, do any of them strike fear into Spartan fans?

The current No. 1 Kenpom team is Houston from the American Athletic Conference. That team currently has a lower efficiency margin than half of Coach Izzo's eight Final Four teams. While Houston is certainly not a bad team, does a team from the AAC really frighten anyone? 

Tennessee is No. 2 in Kenpom (and off scale in Figure 1) but they are coached by Rick Barnes, the biggest March underachiever in history. Speaking of post-season underachievers, No. 6 Purdue is also in the championship zone and is seeking their first Final Four since Jimmy Carter was President.

Michigan State has already played No. 5 Alabama to a fairly competitive game without two starters. No. 3 UCLA previously lost to Illinois. No. 4 UCONN has lost three of their last four games. No. 8 Texas just lost their coach. No. 7 Kansas is, well, "Kansas-like", and then there is No. 11 Virginia and No. 19 Creighton, who scare exactly no one.

2023 still appears to be a year of opportunity.

Updated Four Factors Data

That said, the fact remains that Michigan State's adjusted efficiency remains below expectations. One way to try to understand why is to dig deeper into the "four factors" which I also explained in detail in a previous piece.

Table 1 below summarizes the four factors on both offense and defense for all 14 Big Ten teams.

Table 1: Summary of the "four factors" on both offense and defense for the Big Ten as of Jan. 13.

Once again, the teams are sorted by overall Kenpom efficiency margin where the Spartans currently rank No. 42 nationally and ninth in the Big Ten.

The data in Figure 1 suggests that Michigan State needs to improve more on offense than defense in order to become a championship contender. Based on Table 1, it is a little easier to see why. The Spartans are not in the top half of the conference in any of the four categories.

On defense, the story is not much better except for one area: defensive rebounding. Michigan State has improved to No. 1 on the Big Ten and is currently in the top 10 nationally in this category.

For additional context, Figure 2 below shows the four factors box plot for the Spartans. I explained this chart in detail in my previous post. Going forward I have also added the current national median to each column as a horizontal purple line for reference.

Figure 1: Box plot showing Michigan State's historical performance (from 1997 to 2022) in each of the four factors on both offense and defense. These data are compared to the Spartans' current performance, the national median, and the performance in the past two games.

As expected, the overall numbers have not changed much since the last update. The 2023 version of the Spartans are slightly below average on both offensive and defensive field goal percentage. Michigan State is not turning the ball over or fouling, but conversely, they are not creating turnovers or getting to the free throw line much themselves. Michigan State is not grabbing many offensive rebounds, but neither are their opponents this year.

How did the Spartans perform in their last two Big Ten games? 

Against Michigan, very little went right on the offensive end. The Spartans shot very poorly and had more trouble than usual getting offensive rebounds and getting to the foul line. The only saving grace was that Michigan State held the turnovers in check, more or less.

Michigan State clearly won the game against the Wolverines on the defensive end. Michigan shot the ball extremely poorly, turned the ball over more than they usually do, were kept off the offensive glass and did not shoot many free throws. It was Michigan State's best performance on the year on defense, and they needed it to be such.

Against Wisconsin, the situation was a bit different. On offense, the Spartans continued the trend of not getting offensive rebounds. Furthermore, the turnover bug reared its ugly head. Fortunately, the Spartans had their best shooting night of the year and got to the free throw line a lot. This offset the loss of possessions due to the turnovers.

On defense, Wisconsin shot the ball very well also and did not turn the ball over. The Spartans were able to overcome these issues because they did a very good job on the defensive glass and were able to play defense without fouling. That was enough to steal the very important road win.

Overall, for the last two games Michigan State was only above average in three of the eight offensive metrics and in five of the eight defensive metrics relative to past Spartans squads. This is as good of an explanation as any as to why this Michigan State team does not have better efficiency overall.

Each game is an opportunity to improve and to pick up another valuable win. The Spartans will get that opportunity tonight in Champaign against the Fighting Illini.

Tweet:

Michigan State is currently healthy and on a seven-game winning streak. But, are they playing a "more efficient" brand of basketball that predicts postseason success? Let's check in with Kenpom and the "four factors" only on Spartans Illustrated (premium).