MSU Hoops Stats Update: Float On

Alright, already. Just over two weeks ago the Michigan State Spartans were coming off of a grinder of a win over their archrivals, the Michigan Wolverines. The data at the time told us that the next five games were going to be challenging. Based on the projected point spreads (which were fairly accurate) the math said that most likely Michigan State would end up 2-3 in that stretch and 5-4 in conference play by Jan. 24. 

For better or worse, the math was correct.

While only winning 40% of the last five games is not ideal, there are reasons for optimism. The Spartans were very competitive and even held second-half leads in all five contests. Furthermore, Michigan State played most of those five games without senior forward Malik Hall, and the Spartans only got two days of rest between all five of those games.

Despite the losses, it does feel like progress was made. In other words, despite the bad news that came, I encourage you not to worry. I have a feeling that good news will still work its way into the plans of Spartan fans.

Do the cold, hard numerical numbers agree? Let's dig into those numbers now, starting with an update on the tempo-adjusted efficiency values as provided by Ken Pomeroy.

Updated Kenpom Efficiency

Figure 1 below is the updated Kenpom efficiency scatter plot with data through Jan. 24 (after Michigan State's loss at Indiana). For those who may be unfamiliar with this plot, I broke down what all the data means in a previous article.

Figure 1: Kenpom efficiency scatter plot as of Jan. 24, 2023.

For the last few weeks, the Spartans' adjusted efficiency had been floating right at 15.0. Following the big win over Rutgers last week, Michigan State's efficiency improved to slightly over 16.0, just outside of the corner of the blue championship zone. 

Sunday's loss in Bloomington bumped the Spartans' efficiency back down to the current value of 15.4, but that is still a modest improvement over the past month. Michigan State's current profile is virtually identical to profile of Tom Izzo's 2017 team. To refresh our memories, that team drew a No. 9 seed in the NCAA tournament where they proceeded to beat No. 8 Miami before falling to No. 1 North Carolina in the second round.

Also of note is that the field of competitors for the 2023 NCAA Tournament continues to look rather weak. No. 1 Houston is fresh off a loss at home to Temple and the Cougars' current adjusted efficiency (29.8) is lower than half of Coach Izzo's Final Fout teams (1999, 2000, 2001, and 2019).

Updated Four Factors Data

Let us now turn our focus to the "four factors" which I also explained in detail in a previous article.

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. 24.

The Spartans currently are ranked No. 37 by Kenpom which is good enough for No. 7 in the Big Ten. That said, Michigan State is in a tightly bunch group of Big Ten teams which includes Iowa (No. 35), Penn State (No. 38), and Maryland (No. 39).

Michigan State's current standings in each of the four factors is generally very average with the exception of defensive rebound (No. 1), which is elite and forcing turnovers (No. 14), which is... not elite.

Also note that the Spartans' next opponent (Iowa) currently has the second-best offense in the Big Ten, but they pair that with the worst defense in the conference.

For additional context, Figure 2 below shows the historical four factors box plot for the Spartans. I have also explained this chart in detail previously, but it summarizes the current Michigan State team's performance (diamonds) relative to past Spartan teams (the boxes and whiskers) and the national median (horizontal line) for each statistic.

Figure 2: 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, and the national median as of Jan. 24.

As a reminder, the 2022-23 Spartans are slightly below average when it comes to shooting and defending shots. The other six factors are outliers for Tom Izzo coached teams. 

On the positive side, these Spartans are very good at avoiding turnovers, cleaning the defensive glass and playing defense without fouling. On the negative side, these Spartans are not getting many offensive rebounds, not getting to the free throw line, and not generating turnovers on defense.

Four Factors Performance Against Rutgers and Indiana

Let us now take a closer look at what went right against Rutgers and what went wrong against Indiana. Figure 3 shows a summary of the four factors for Michigan State's home win over Rutgers.

Figure 3: Summary of Michigan State's performance in the four factors (on both offense and defense) in the 70-57 win over Rutgers on Jan. 19, 2023.

Overall, the Spartans showed strong performance in three of the four factors on both sides of the ball. Michigan State kept turnovers under control and forced a larger number of turnovers than usual for this year's team. The Spartans did not get to the free throw much at all, but they also generally kept Rutgers off the free throw line as well.

Rebounding was the area where the Spartans struggled. The Scarlet Knights rebounded close to 40% of their missed shots, which is a season high for Michigan State's opponents. Meanwhile, the Spartans only grabbed 20% of their own missed shots.  This is well below average, even for this year.

That all said, the reason that the Spartans won the game came simply down to shooting, as it often does. The Spartans torched the nets with an effective field goal percentage of 58% while Rutgers' effective field goal percentage was below 36%.

Rutgers took nine more shots from the field than did Michigan State, yet they still lost by double-digits because of the disparity in shooting accuracy.

Figure 4 shows a summary of the four factors for Michigan State's road loss at Indiana.

Figure 4: Summary of Michigan State's performance in the four factors (on both offense and defense) in the 69-82 loss at Indiana on Jan. 22, 2023

As expected, Michigan State's performance in the four factors was not as positive.

Turnovers were not a major story in the game. Both teams kept turnovers under control. Michigan State finished with just one turnover more than Indiana (nine versus 10). 

Both teams got to the free throw line more than usual. Michigan State actually shot four more free throws (28 to 24) but Indiana actually made more free throws (21 versus 19), so this factor was also practically a draw.

As for shooting and rebounding, Indiana appears to have imposed their will onto the Spartans. In all four shooting and rebound categories the Hoosiers performed right at their season averages, while Michigan State's numbers were all below the season averages.

Similar to free throws and turnovers, the raw rebounding result was essentially a draw. Indiana had just a one-rebound advantage. Similar to the game against Rutgers, the team that shot the ball better won the game. 

Digging slightly deeper into the numbers, Michigan State actually shot the ball better than Indiana from inside of the arc (49% versus 43%). But, Indiana was red (crimson?) hot from the three-point line (nine-for-15 or 60%) while Michigan State was just four-for-14 or 29%. That was the difference in the game.

Brief Update on Expected Wins

I am planning to make a more detailed update on Michigan State's position in the Big Ten race following the next two games, but I would like provide a quick update here. Table 2 shows the updated expected wins and win distribution matrix for all 14 Big Ten teams.

Table 2: Updated Big Ten expected wins and win distribution matrix as of Jan. 24, 2023.

Despite the fact that Michigan State went only 2-3 over the past five games, the Spartans' expected win total actually drifted up slightly since I made that prediction on Jan. 9 (from 10.15 to 10.38). Furthermore, Michigan State's current expected win total of 10.38 is now good enough for fifth place in the conference, which is up from eighth place two weeks ago.

In fact, Michigan State's current expected win total is just 0.1 of a win behind Illinois and 0.02 wins ahead of Iowa. Those three teams are essentially tied for fourth place behind Purdue, Rutgers, and Indiana.

That all said, there is still less than 1.5 games separating Indiana in third place from Wisconsin in twelfth place. Indiana made a move of that magnitude just by having two good games in a row. For now, there remains very little separation in the middle of the conference. 

Things have gotten a bit heavy for a lot of Big Ten programs so far this season, but the majority of the teams continue to float on somewhere in the middle.

Alright.