March Madness is over, but Michigan State has some lessons it could learn from the final four participants.
March Madness is over and it’s time for the offseason speculation to get fully underway. For most Michigan State fans this means dreaming of next year’s freshman class; stressing over the impact the transfer portal will have on the roster; and pontificating about the changes the Spartans need to make to get back on a national championship path. As the offseason kicks off, let’s take a moment to look at a few key lessons this year’s Final Four can teach us.
Defense (Still) Matters
Let’s start with the most obvious – and blatantly most positive for Michigan State: Defense. Each of the four final four teams found success or failure, largely through their defense. Let’s break down some stats:
Purdue: Season Averages: 82.3 points scored p. Game, 69 points allowed.
Excluding a 106-67 absolute blowout of Utah State in the 2nd Round, Purdue did not get to its season average on offense once.
Fitting for a team ranked 12th in adjustment defense on KenPom, their ability to stifle opponents helped offset their dip in offensive production. In every game they won, they held teams below their season average of points allowed.
Their lone loss, was allowing UConn in the final to score 75 – though even that was below UConn’s season average. Purdue kept themselves in the game in the first half by playing solid defense. When that defense fell apart and the offense went cold, they lost the game.
NC State : Season Averages: 75.6 points scored p. Game, 71.8 points allowed.
The Wolfpack held every team except Oakland (including Purdue who they lost to) to below their season average for points allowed. They did score more than their season average on offense in their impressive postseason run, defense kept them in games as well. They relied on outperforming their defensive performances from most of the regular season. This commitment to defense fueled the unlikely run through the ACC Tournament and into the NCAA Tournament.
UConn: Season Averages: 81.4 points scored p. Game, 63.4 points allowed.
Even with prolific offense in the NCAA Tournament, the Huskies still failed to hit their season average in 3 of the 6 NCAA Tournament wins. Notably all to Big Ten Teams (Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue), a league more renowned for its defense than most.
UConn’s dominance on defense though is part of what carried them this year. Holding teams to 63.4 points is insanely low. Their adjusted defensive rating on KenPom has them ranked number 4 for the year. Yes, UConn absolutely dominated teams offensively (KenPom has them ranked number 1 in offensive efficiency), but their defensive performance was at times even more impressive. Case in point the absolute strangle hold they put on Purdue in the second half of the national championship.
Alabama: Season Averages: 90 points scored p. Game (2nd in the nation), 81.2 points allowed.
Admittedly Alabama is on the surface the one exception. This is a team that relied on offense in essentially every way possible. Their defense allowed every team in the tournament, except Grand Canyon (who almost pulled off the upset by holding Alabama nearly 20 points below their scoring average) to score more than the Tide’s season average allowed points. And they still made the final four.
While Alabama is the exception in terms of defense across their postseason run, they lost in the final four because they could not play defense. UConn used its defense to hold Alabama to its lowest point total of the season (tied with the Grand Canyon game). Alabama had defensive answer facing that type of defensive effort from the Huskies.
Lesson for Michigan State: they can win with defense.
Michigan State is solid on defense. Their adjusted defensive rating on KenPom has them at 9th in the country. Tom Izzo is in the Hall of Fame because of his gap-help defense. So this is the rare lesson that says the Spartans should keep focusing on this area – even if it drives fans nuts at times.
Size Matters – and Not Just at Center
This should be obvious in a game dominated by giants, but size matters – in a way it didn’t used to in the NCAA Tournament. The NCAA tournament has historically been dominated by guard play. The ideal NCAA Tournament Champion had multifaceted guards who could shoot and mix it up (see below for shooting – which clearly still matters). Yet, this tournament featured three of the four final four teams being led in many ways by players that were physically enormous.
Purdue’s Zach Edey at 7’4” and 300 pounds is clearly the prime example. There is a reason he was the national player of the year two years in a row.
Yet, two other teams had individual behemoths as well. UConn had 7’2” Donovan Clingan and his 280 pound frame to rely on. NC State had the comparatively tiny DJ Burns, Jr. who stands only 6’9” but also weighs 275 pounds (and spins like a ballerina…but I digress).
These three teams used towering size and football offensive lineman like builds to pound the ball inside.
Teams quailed in front of these three throughout the tournament. In a future article it may be time to break down the rise of the big man in college level basketball, but for now suffice to say that size made the difference for these teams.
Alabama may appear to be the exception to this as they do not have a seven footer or human wrecking ball like DJ Burns. What they used was height across their entire lineup to help them dominate.
So more interesting than perhaps the lesson of simply “get a 7-footer” or a “giant man who can move,” is the broader lesson of size at every position.
UConn dominated Purdue in large part because of size. This happened even though Purdue’s starting front court was notably taller at center and power forward than the Huskies. The problem for Purdue was their backcourt was simply too short to compete with UConn’s. Purdue’s back court measures, 6’0”, 6’1”, and 6’4”. UConn is taller at every position, measuring: 6’4”, 6’5” and 6’6”.
The Lesson for Michigan State: The Spartans need to be concerned about size across their roster. If they can’t get a 7-footer (sorry fans, there are not that many of them), they need to start looking at their wings and guards. This past year’s lineup featured Tyson Walker generously listed at 6’1” and two guards listed at 6’4” (Akins and Hoggard). Next year could have Akins back at 6’4” paired with two 6’2” guards, Tre Holloman and Jeremy Fears, Jr. A lineup that includes those three and Coen Carr at 6’5”, means Michigan State could easily be undersized at four out of the five positions.
There is an odd trend at Michigan State that many of its recruits seem an inch or two undersized. This has persisted for years, even with some of those recruits turning into great players – and even pros (Draymond Green comes to mind as a bit undersized and successful). This is a serious problem that needs to be rectified, as size matters more than ever in the college game.
Three Point Shooting
The three point shooting of the Final Four teams compare to Michigan State in the following ways (These are season totals).
Stats from ESPN
NC State
NC State is the outlier in this chart in terms of the other final four teams. NC State did not have a particularly efficient offense this year (ranked 48th on KenPom – one spot higher than Michigan State), in part because it went too heavy on the threes at some points.
Their ACC and NCAA Tournament runs actually saw them reduce their reliance on the three pointer by about 1% in terms of shot selection. Their success and adjustment can be credited to the late season emergence of DJ Burns (who similar to Purdue’s Edey took a large percentage of the teams shots). Even with that reduction of reliance on the three point line, NC State still took substantially more 3s in the tournament (and in the regular season) than Michigan State.
UConn
UConn clearly had the size to dominate inside. Beyond their center, Clingan, their wings and guards had the athleticism to score in the paint throughout the season. Even with this size advantage, the repeat national champions relied on the three pointer substantially more than many other teams. It was a key part of their approach to spread the floor – even though they shot a relatively pedestrian 36% from deep – good for only 72nd in the nation according to KenPom.
Alabama
Alabama is the obvious high point here. 47% of their shots being taken from three fits with coach Nate Oats dedication to analytics. He is among the most prominent embracing offensive efficiency (KenPom ranks them number 2 in that category) as the guiding principle behind his players shot selection. Alabama was able to use their high reliance on three pointers shooting a similarly pedestrian percentage to UConn.
For all the preference for the three displayed by Alabama, Purdue may actually prioritize the three even more.
Purdue
Purdue has the highest three point shooting percentage on the chart by a large margin. Yet they are squarely in the middle of the pack in terms of the percentage of their shots that are three pointers. This can be explained simply by Zach Edey.
Considering Edey accounted for 28% of his teams attempted field goals and he took one three pointer all year, he changes their overall metric a bit (ok a lot). Matt Painter does not have an aversion to three pointers, he simply had a team that was dominated by an in-the-paint center.
Even with Zach Edey being the dominant force on the team, the Boilermakers still used the three pointer 5% more often than Michigan State. If you take Zach Edey out of the mix and look at the shot distribution for everyone not 7’4”, Purdue used the three point line in 48% of their (non-Edey) shot selection. That’s even higher than Alabama’s overall approach.
Lessons for Michigan State: Considering the Spartans were dominated by their back court, it’s almost unfathomable that they relied so little on the three point line. Only 30% of their shots were from deep on a team that largely had no post offense.
The common counter argument is the Spartans struggled to hit their threes. Looking at the chart, Michigan State is a bit lower than the rest of the teams and only slightly better than NC State – a team that struggled from three for much of the year.
The problem with that logic is that Michigan State was actually significantly better from long range than the above chart shows.
If you remove the Spartans 2 for 31 start to the season across its first two games, their shooting percentage jumps to 38% for the year. In Big Ten play it hovered close to 40% for much of the year. That would actually mean the Spartas were arguably better three point shooters than three out of the four final four teams (Purdue was very good from long range).
And compared to Purdue, the Boilermakers still chose to use the three point line 5% more often than the Spartans did – even with Purdue having Zach Edey dominate their offense.
The long and short of it is Michigan State needs to incorporate three point shooting more into its offense. Coach Izzo can yell about analytics as much as he wants but the game today simply requires more efficient offense – and simply using the three point line more is a central key to keeping up.
The Spartans are in the middle of remaking their roster for next year. Hopefully the coaching staff is looking at the lessons from the Final Four to build a team capable of contending.