Throughout the season, I have provided updates on the prospects for the Michigan State men's basketball team using predictive metrics and simulation to estimate how the full Big Ten season is likely to play out.
Following the win this weekend over Rutgers, the Spartans overall position remained mostly unchanged. Michigan State is mostly likely to finish 12-8 or 11-9 in conference play in roughly fourth place. The Spartans have about a 2.0% chance claim a share of the Big Ten regular season title.
Michigan State continues to have one of the easier overall and remaining Big Ten schedules. The Spartans also continue to be the least "lucky" team in the conference as measured by the difference between actual wins and expected wins (based on probabilities derived from point spreads).
In the previous data-driven update, I introduced the Kenpom efficiency scatter analysis, which revealed that despite the disappointing win-loss record, Michigan State continues to have the efficiency of a borderline national title contender. The Spartans are also one of only nine teams currently ranked in the top 30 of both offensive and defensive efficiency.
Today, I would like to introduce a new concept for this year that also will help us to understand more about the 2023-24 Michigan State Spartans. That concept is referred to as the "four factors" of basketball success.
https://michiganstate.rivals.com/news/michigan-state-hoops-analysis-the-four-factors
The Four Factors have been discussed in great detail elsewhere, including on this site about a year ago. Briefly the four factors on both offense and defense are:
1. Effective field goal percentage (eFGPct)
2. Turnover percentage (TOPct)
3. Offensive rebounding percentage (ORPct)
4. Free-throw rate (FTRate)
Basically, the four factors account for how well a team shoots or defends shots (eFGPct), the ability of a team to create (or lose) shots opportunities (TOPct and ORPct), and the ability of a team to score or avoid points from the free throw line (FTRate).
Big Ten Breakdown
As a start, let's first compare the 14 Big Ten teams based on the four factors. The Table 1 below give the adjusted Kenpom offensive efficiency and performance in the four factors on offence.
 |
Table 1: Comparison of Big Ten teams based on adjusted offensive efficiency and the four factors on offense.
|
The teams are list in order of overall Kenpom efficiency margin, which is typically an accurate estimation of points spreads on a neutral court. Michigan State is currently the fourth highest ranked Big Ten team in this system.
The Spartans are currently ranked No. 5 in adjusted offensive efficiency (AdjOE) behind Purdue, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa. The remainder of the table gives some context as to what each team does well or poorly on the offensive end.
Michigan State is ranked No. 4 in effective field goal percentage, which is the most important of the four factors. The Spartans are a little above average in avoiding turnovers (No. 6), a little below average in offensive rebounding (No. 9), and very poor at getting to the free throw line (No. 13).
As for the rest of the conference, Purdue is very good at shooting, offensive rebounding, and getting to the free throw line. However, the Boilermakers do have a tendency to turn the ball over.
Wisconsin has good overall offensive numbers, but the Badgers get there mostly by avoiding turnovers and getting to the free throw line. Wisconsin is just average at shooting and offensive rebounding. Illinois is average is all categories except for offensive rebound, where the Illini are ranked No. 1 in the conference.
Iowa and Northwestern are okay shooting teams but both teams take very good care of the ball. Maryland and Rutgers both rely on getting to the free throw line. Michigan and Minnesota both shoot the ball surprisingly well and are okay at rebounding, but tend to be careless with the ball.
Table 2 below provides the same analysis, but on the defensive side of the ball
 |
Table 2: Comparison of Big Ten teams based on adjusted defensive efficiency and the Four Factors on defense.
|
|
So far this year, the Spartans are a bit better on defense than on offense (ranked No. 4 in the Big Ten). Michigan State ranks in the top 5 in field goal percentage defense, creating turnovers, and defensive rebounding. The only area where Michigan State is below average is putting opponents onto the free throw line.
As for the rest of the conference, Rutgers is the strongest defensive team and Maryland ranks No. 3. Both teams rely on strong field goal percentage defense and a skill for creating turnovers. Purdue ranks No. 2 in Big Ten defensive efficiency, but the Boilermakers rely more on defensive rebounding and avoiding sending opponents to the free throw line.
Illinois ranks No. 5 in total Big Ten defensive efficiency. The Illini rank in the top 3 is field goal defense, rebounding and avoid fouls, but Illinois ranks last in generating turnovers.
Comparisons to Past MSU Teams
Tables 1 and 2 above show how Michigan State currently matches up with other Big Ten teams. A second and interesting analysis is to compare the statistical profile of the 2023-24 Michigan State team to past Michigan State rosters. Figure 1 below provides this comparison in the form of a box plot.
 |
| Figure 1: Box plot comparison of the current Michigan State team to all MSU teams since 1997 for the four factors on both offense and defense. |
The diamonds represent the metrics for the current Michigan State team. This is the same information given above in Table 1 and 2. The additional comparisons in Figure 1 are the set of vertical lines (the current national median for each statistic) and the boxes and whiskers, which represent the full range of values for each statistic over the past 27 Michigan State seasons.
A more detailed explanation of this figure can be found here, but briefly each box and whisker represents a quartile of the data set with the median value in the center of each rectangle where the colors meet.
Figure 1 tells us that the current Michigan State team is currently a good shooting team that ranks in the top 25% of past Tom Izzo teams. The 2023-24 is also currently on track to be the best team in the Izzo era at avoiding turnovers.
For the two other offensive statistics, the Spartans are not performing as well. The current team is above average nationally in offensive rebounding, but they are in the bottom 25% of all Izzo-coached teams. The team is also struggling to get to the free throw line.
On the defensive side of the ball, the Spartans are currently performing at a historically average level in three of the four areas. The 2023-24 team is a slightly above average in field goal percentage defense relative to past Michigan State squads. They are also slightly below average in defensive rebounding and in creating turnovers.
Interestingly, the one area where the current team falls in the top 25% of past Michigan State teams is in avoiding fouls.
Four Factors Analysis of Last Three Games
The four factors can also be a helpful tool to better understand what went right and what went wrong in the games that have already been played this year. For example, Figure 2 below gives a summary of the four factors in Michigan State's loss at Northwestern on Jan. 7.
 |
| Figure 2: Summary of the Four Factors in Michigan State's loss at Northwestern on Jan. 7. |
In this style of graph, the solid bars show the actual performance in the four factors on both offense and defense. As a reference, the season average for both Michigan State and the opponent is shown as a reference using the patterned bars.
The solid green bars represent good performance for Michigan State relative to the Spartans' and opponent's season averages in that statistic. A yellow bar presents mediocre performance while a solid red bar indicates poor performance.
At a glance it is fairly straight forward to see what went wrong against Northwestern. On offense, Michigan State did rather well. The Spartans shot well, rebounded well, and got to the free throw line. Michigan State did turn over the ball too much, but Northwestern ranks No. 3 in the Big Ten in creating turnovers.
The problems in Evanston were almost exclusively on the defensive end. Michigan State was okay in the areas of rebounding and committing fouls, but the first two factors were a major issue. Northwestern had an effective field goal percentage of 61.9% and only turned the ball over on 7.7% of their possessions. Both of these value were the worst of the year for Michigan State on defense.
Basically, Northwestern got a lot of shots and they made most of them. Some of this was poor defensive focus on the part of the Spartans, but sometime on the road shots just go in.
Figure 3 below provides a similar analysis for Michigan State's loss at Illinois on Jan. 11.
 |
| Figure 3: Summary of the Four Factors in Michigan State's loss at Northwestern on Jan. 11. |
In this game, Michigan State did a lot of things fairly well. Both teams shot slightly below their season averages, so this statistic was essentially a push. Overall Michigan State won the turnover battle and the rebounding battle.
So why did the Illini prevail? The home team had an enormous advantage in getting to the free throw line (40 free throw attempt to field goal attempt ratio compared to just 10.1 for Michigan State). There is little more to say about this fact other than life on the the road in the Big Ten is sometimes challenging.
Finally, Figure 4 provides a similar analysis for Michigan State's win over Rutgers on Jan. 14.
 |
Figure 3: Summary of the Four Factors in Michigan State's win versus Rutgers on Jan. 14.
|
As expected in a 18-point win, the Spartans did a lot of things well against the Scarlet Knights. Michigan State shot the ball well and defended from the field. The Spartans took care of the ball, cleaned the defensive glass and avoided putting Rutgers on the foul line.
The only area where the Spartans did not perform well against Rutgers was on the offensive glass where the Spartans only collected 25% of their missed shots. Michigan State did not get to the foul line very often and were a bit below the season average in turnover creation, but otherwise it was a solid effort all the way around.
Comments
Post a Comment