Michigan State and Big Ten Basketball Stats Update: The Four Factors

A few weeks ago, I introduced my annual Big Ten basketball preview where I broke down the concept of strength of schedule, performed a deep dive on the conference slate for the Michigan State Spartans, and gave the current results of my state-of-the-art Big Ten basketball simulation.

But there are other statistics that are useful to understand basketball at a deeper level. Today, I would like to reintroduce a concept referred to as the "Four Factors" of basketball success.

The Four Factors have been discussed in great detail elsewhere. 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

Let's first compare the 18 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 for each team as of the morning of Jan. 11.

Table 1: Comparison of Big Ten teams based on adjusted offensive efficiency and the four factors on offense as of Jan. 11, 2026.

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 (No. 13 nationally) is currently the fourth highest ranked Big Ten team in this system behind Michigan (No. 1), Purdue (No. 4), and Illinois (No. 8).

Offensively, the Spartans are below average and are ranked No. 12 in total offensive efficiency in the conference and No. 65 nationally. Michigan State rank towards the middle or bottom in shooting (No. 13), turnovers (No. 17), and free throw rate (No. 11) but are excelling in offensive rebounding (No. 1 in the Big Ten and No. 10 nationally).

Table 1 gives snapshot of the various offensive profiles for teams in the Big Ten. Currently, Purdue has statistically the best offense in league due to strong shooting (No. 2 in the Big Ten), offensive rebounding (No. 3), and limiting turnovers (No. 5). But the Boilermakers are last in the conference in getting to the free throw line.

Illinois' second-ranked offense is balanced as the Fighting Illini are in the top six in shooting, rebounding, and turnover, but also near the bottom in drawing fouls. 

Michigan is shooting the lights out from the field (No. 1) and getting to the free throw line (No. 4). The Wolverines a middling rebounding team (No. 8) but are struggling slightly with turnovers (No. 12). 

Indiana and Iowa are in the top five in the conference in offensive efficiency due to strong shooting. Ohio State gets to the free throw line a lot, while Nebraska limits turnovers.

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 as of Jan. 10, 2026.

On defense, Michigan has the best overall efficiency due low the best field goal percentage defense in the nation. The Wolverines are also in the top six of the conference in defensive rebounding and avoiding fouls, but they are in the bottom half of the conference in creating turnovers.

Michigan State has the second-best defense in the Big Ten. This is due to a combination of strong field goal defense (No. 3) and the nation's best defensive rebounding. The Spartans generally avoid fouling (No. 7) but also do not create many turnovers (No. 11).

Nebraska has the third best defense in the conference. The Corn Huskers are not in the top two of any statistical category, but they are the most balanced team on defense in the conference. They rank in the top six defensively in all four of the Four Factors.

Illinois is also fairly balanced, ranking in the top four in three of the Four Factors. However, the Fighting Illini are dead last in creating turnovers.

Iowa in ranked No. 5 in Big Ten defense almost entirely by being the best team in the conference at creating turnovers. Purdue ranks in the top four in defensive rebounding and avoiding fouls. Indiana has the second-best field goal percentage defense in the conference.

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 2025-26 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 as of Jan. 11, 2026.

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 29 Michigan State seasons.

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.

Despite the No. 65 national ranking in offensive efficiency, the current iteration of Michigan State Spartans is performing above average in all of the Four Factors. They are slightly above the Izzo-era median in shooting and avoiding turnovers. They are in the top quartile in both offensive rebounding and getting to the free throw line.

The Spartans are ranked outside of the top 100 in effective field goal percentage, but the current rate of 52.9% is the highest since the 2019 team (55.2%). However, the turnover rate of 18.4% is slightly higher than the last three years where the Spartans took care of the ball better than any other teams in the Izzo era (16% average).

Michigan State is hitting the offensive boards at an elite level so far this year. The current rate of 39.7% is the highest since the 2009 team posted a value of 40.2%. One has to go back to 2001 to find any other rate over 40% from the Spartans. 

The current free throw rate of 37.6 is just below where the Spartans finished last year (37.9). However, last year's performance in East Lansing was the best in 13 years since Draymond Green's senior year of 2012.

On the defensive end, the Spartans are above average in three of the four factors. The current field goal defense of 45.4% is slightly better than last year's figure of 46.1%. If the Spartans can keep this up, they will post their best rate since 2020 (43.3%). 

This year's team is comparable to last year's team in terms of creating turnovers (16.4%). But this has not been a strength of the Spartan defense in recent years. Outside of the last two seasons, Michigan State has not posted a value over 16% since the Final Four season of 2015.

When it comes to cleaning the defensive glass, as Figure 1 shows, this year's Spartan squad is rebounding better than any team in the Izzo era by giving up an offensive rebound on just 22.3% of all opponents' field goal attempts. The next best value is 24.3% from the 2016 and 2009 teams, although last year's value of 24.4 was a close third.

The Spartans' defensive foul rate is currently sitting at 29.6. This is slightly better than last year's value of 31.9. This has not historically been a strength of Izzo teams. In fact, the first Michigan State team to finish the season under 30.0 was in 2019. The Spartans were similar adept as avoiding fouls in 2020, 2022, and 2023. This year's team is on a similar trajectory.

Four Factors Analysis of Michigan State's Big Ten 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 win versus Iowa back on Dec. 2.

Figure 2: Summary of the Four Factors in Michigan State's 71-52 win versus Iowa on Dec. 6.

Why did the Spartans' win? Despite turning the ball over too much, Michigan State was dominant in the other three phases of offense. The Spartan shot well from the field, got to the line, and destroyed Iowa on the glass.

Defensively, the Spartans fouled more that usual, but did well in rebounding and creating turnovers and held the Hawkeyes well below their average in shooting.

Figure 3 below gives a summary of the four factors in Michigan State's win at Penn State on Dec. 13.

Figure 3: Summary of the Four Factors in Michigan State's 76-72 win at Penn State on Dec. 13.

Why did the Spartans' win? Michigan State lost the turnover battle badly and was average (by Spartan standards) on both the offensive and defensive glass. However, the Spartans were able to outshoot the Nittany Lions from the field and, most importantly, earned a huge advantage at the free throw line.

Figure 4 below gives a summary of the four factors in Michigan State's loss at Nebraska on Jan. 2.

Figure 4: Summary of the Four Factors in Michigan State's 58-56 loss at Nebraska on Jan. 2.

Why did the Spartans' lose? Michigan State was miserable in all phases on offense. The Spartans shot poorly and turned the ball over far too often. They were also below average on the glass and getting to the free throw line.

The dreadful offensive performances took away from a very solid performance on defense. The Spartans posted better than average numbers in every area of the game except creating turnovers. But it was not enough to earn a road win in the Big Ten.

Figure 5 below gives a summary of the four factors in Michigan State's win versus USC on Jan. 5.

Figure 5: Summary of the Four Factors in Michigan State's 80-51 win versus USC on Jan. 5.

Why did the Spartans' win? Michigan State struggled a bit on the offensive glass and on getting to the free throw line, but they excelled in the other areas of the game.

The Spartans shot the ball well and limited turnovers on offense. On defense, they were good in all four phases, especially in the two most important factors of limiting field goals and creating turnovers.

Figure 6 below gives a summary of the four factors in Michigan State's win versus Northwestern on Jan. 11.

Figure 6: Summary of the Four Factors in Michigan State's 76-55 win versus Northwestern on Jan. 8

Why did the Spartans' win? It was a statistical mixed bag. Michigan State out shot the Wildcats and were generally solid on both the offensive and defensive glass. However, the turnover bug on offense in Big Ten play continued to be an issue.

Michigan State did manage to carve out a huge advantage in getting to the free throw line, which helped seal the victory for the Green and White.