MSU Hoops Odds Update: On the Clock

The calendar on my wall says February and that can only mean one thing: March is right around the corner. It is hard to believe, but Selection Sunday for the NCAA Tournament is just barely over a month away. 

The Michigan State Spartans are planning to play in that tournament for the 25th consecutive year. But with a record of just 14-9 and 6-6 in Big Ten play, there is still work to be done to achieve that goal. 

Despite the fact that the Spartans have now lost five of their last seven games, their current resume does place them easily in the field of 68 teams. In fact, Michigan State currently appears in all 97 of the online bracket predictions as tracked by the Bracket Project website. 

That could certainly change if the Spartans limp to the finish line and end up below .500 in conference play. With the schedule down the stretch easing up, this result seems unlikely, but right now nothing is guaranteed.

I still believe in the potential of this roster. I like a team in March with experienced ball handlers, good three-point shooting, solid defense, and skilled "stretch fours." The Spartans have these things in spades. I also like a team in March that is coached by Tom Izzo. His record speaks for itself. 

I am concerned about the player-level leadership on this squad, and the fact that the pieces don't quite fit together just yet. I do have faith this team has a run and potentially a big run in them. If the Spartans can simply harness a B+ level of play out of four or five of the top guys on the roster, they can compete and beat anyone in the country. Of that, I am sure. 

But with just eight games left, time is starting to run out for that sharp and fully healthy version of Michigan State to appear. The Spartans are on the clock, and that clock is ticking.

Updated Kenpom Efficiency

Figure 1 below is the updated Kenpom efficiency scatter plot with data through Feb. 5 (after Michigan State's loss to Rutgers in New York City). 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 Feb. 6, 2023.

As Figure 1 shows, the 2022-23 Michigan State team continues to hover near an efficiency margin of just over 15.0. The Spartans briefly crossed over 16.0 in efficiency margin after beating Rutgers three weeks ago, but since then the numbers have returned to the former value. This year's Michigan State squad continues to resemble the teams from 2017 and 2022, both of whom lost in the round of 32.

Nationally, not much has changed either. There are still only 13 teams who have the combination of offensive and defensive efficiency in the same range as past NCAA Champions, and most of those teams do not project to be as good as some of Tom Izzo's best teams over the past 25 seasons.

What has changed over the past few weeks is the size of the green oval around the current Michigan State data point. This oval represents the like range of final efficiency scores that the Spartans will most likely have on Selection Sunday. 

Unless the Spartans can outperform the averages and make significant improvements, the historical data suggests that Michigan State is unlikely to advance into the second weekend of the tournament. While I firmly believe that the potential is there, time is running out to prove it.

Updated Four Factors Data

Let us review Michigan State's current performance in reference 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 Feb. 6.

In addition, Figure 1 below the box plot comparing the 2022-23 Michigan State team to past Tom Izzo clubs and the national median. 

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.

The overall data has not changed much over the last month and as an average, it is unlikely to change much over the next eight games. While the Spartans may very well start to play better down the stretch, the performance over the past 23 games will continue to dominate Michigan State's average profile.

As it stands today, Michigan State remains below-average on offense and average on defense among Big Ten teams. The Spartans are not shooting well overall and are slightly below average in effective field goal percentage defense. They do a good job of avoiding turnovers, cleaning the defensive glass, and avoiding turnovers, but creating turnovers, offensive rebounding, and getting to the foul line all remain as issue.

The Four Factors in the Previous Three Games

Let us now take a closer look at Michigan State's performance in the four factors over the past three games, starting with the home win over Iowa.

Figure 3: Summary of Michigan State's performance in the four factors (on both offense and defense) in the 63-61 win over Iowa on Jan. 26, 2023.

Defensively, Michigan State had a good game against Iowa. The Spartans held the second most efficient offense in the Big Ten to just 61 points. As the right side of Figure 3 shows, the Hawkeyes were held below their season average in all four of the four factors.

On offense, the Spartans did a good job of generating shots by limiting turnovers and with a solid offensive rebounding performance. The only reason why this game was even close was due to the Spartans' poor shooting (45.2% effective field goal percentage) especially from inside the arc.

The official box score reports that Michigan State was just 5-for-17 on layups (29%). If the Spartans were to have simply hit half of these baskets, it would have been a very comfortable win.

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

Figure 4: Summary of Michigan State's performance in the four factors (on both offense and defense) in the 77-61 loss at Purdue on Jan. 29, 2023.

The four factors summary for the game in West Lafayette is almost a mirror image of the game against Iowa. Against Purdue, Michigan State shot the ball quite well and actually got to the free throw line. The problem was that the Spartans turned the ball over a lot and had a terrible day on the offensive glass.

As a result, the Spartans only put up 48 shots from the field compared to 58 for Purdue. Meanwhile, Michigan State's defensive metrics were poor across the board. The Boilermakers did not turn the ball over, they hit the offensive glass, got to the free throw line, and (most importantly) shot well from the field. 

Those factors all add up to a blow-out loss, which is exactly what happened.

Finally, Figure 5 shows a summary of the four factors for Michigan State's loss to Rutgers at Madison Square Gardens.

Figure 5: Summary of Michigan State's performance in the four factors (on both offense and defense) in the 61-55 loss to Rutgers on Feb. 4.

The good news for the Spartans is they rebounded the ball well at both ends of the court, which is something that did not happen in the first game against the Scarlet Knights at the Breslin Center. Turnovers were a bit high for Michigan State, but still below average compared to Rutgers' average performance. Both teams took the same number of shots from the field (48).

The problems for the Spartans essentially came down to shooting. Michigan State did a good job defending Rutgers in the half court, based on the effective field goal percentage of just 40.6%. Unfortunately, the Spartans shot a miserable 37.9% which is by far their worst shooting performance of the year.

The other problem for the Spartans was at the free throw line. Rutgers shot 20 more free throws than Michigan State did. Granted, 12 of these free throws came in the final two minutes of the game where Coach Izzo adopted a puzzling strategy of fouling down only six points with two minutes remaining.

But this means Rutgers still was awarded eight more free throws attempts in the first 38 minutes of the game. Furthermore, the box score shows that Rutgers was allowed to shoot free throws on five of their six possessions during a crucial stretch late in the game with between three and six minutes to play. 

If we consider the fact in the first half a combined 11 fouls were called resulting in just nine free throws, the parade to the free throw line in the late stages of the game was... perplexing. 

That said, Rutger's point guard Paul Mulcahy did get to the rim for layups on the two Rutgers possessions immediately following the parade the free throw line. These two plays extended the lead from three points to seven, forcing Izzo into the endgame fouling strategy. That is when the game was effectively lost.