TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2015-16 Michigan State  29-6 (0.829)  |  Big Ten
All-Play Percentage: 0.989 (5th)
Schedule Strength: 0.656 (61st)
Record Quality: 0.491 (9th)
Avg. Season Rank: 5.12 (4th)
Pace: 67.90 (278th)
Momentum: -1.50 (242nd)
Off. Momentum: 0.83 (147th)
Def. Momentum: -2.33 (282nd)
Consistency: -9.34 (241st)
Res. Consistency: -11.67 (189th)
Away From Home: -0.43 (220th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -2.12 (273rd)
NOTE: All data below reflects predicted performance against the "AO" (average opponent), a fictitious opponent who represents the average in every stat category.
Hover over column headers or visit "ABOUT" page for an explanation of each measurement.
Includes games through April 4, 2016. Data shown on this page is based on time-dependent ratings.
OFFENSE Eff Upc FTAR FT% FGAR FGMR FG% 3PAR 3PMR 3P% MRAR MRMR MR% NPAR NPMR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
RATING: 119.94 26.12 71.76 86.46 50.09 32.81 44.44 25.09 40.66 28.56 64.88 10.09 16.79 7.78 37.95 29.02 33.03 2.05
RANK: 4th 260th 112th 17th 9th 59th 1st 136th 24th 176th 37th 222nd 75th 78th 97th 194th 252nd 268th

DEFENSE Eff Upc FTAR FT% FGAR FGMR FG% 3PAR 3PMR 3P% MRAR MRMR MR% NPAR NPMR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
RATING: 92.64 26.81 -- 85.12 38.00 27.44 31.51 30.78 32.29 26.90 51.17 9.20 11.81 3.89 32.24 36.16 31.61 2.01
RANK: 28th 95th -- 298th 5th 103rd 28th 341st 36th 96th 10th 50th 14th 2nd 65th 339th 60th 156th

ANALYSIS:
When you talk about the elite teams in college basketball this year, Michigan State most definitely is in the conversation. They have a record of 29-6 and are ranked fifth overall (out of 351) in the latest Haslametrics ratings. Of the 14 schools in the Big Ten (average ranking 84.0), they're currently ranked as the best team in the conference.

Michigan State is undoubtedly one of the best in the business on offense. The team is rated fourth in offensive efficiency, scoring more than 119 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Michigan State is an outstanding shooting team, capable of converting from a variety of locations on the floor and ranking in the top-50 in each of our four most noteworthy field goal categories. The long-ball may be their strength (44.4% from three vs. AO, first in the nation), but the team also makes 64.9% of their near-proximity shots (37th), 40.7% of their mid-range chances (24th), and 50.1% of their total shots from the field (ninth) vs. AO. Michigan State is also one of the very best when it comes to maximizing field goal opportunities. The team is ranked 17th in the NCAA in offensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 86.46 vs. AO.

Michigan State plays at roughly the same level defensively as they do offensively. The team ranks 28th nationally in defensive efficiency, allowing about 93 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Michigan State does a fantastic job to prevent opposing teams from capitalizing on chances from offensive rebounds. The squad allows AO to convert only 3.9% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked second in the NCAA), and with a rating of 11.81, they're 14th in potential points allowed off of the offensive glass as well. Michigan State will also put a good dent in the shooting percentages of several opponents, considering the team ranks in the top-50 in each of the four major defensive shooting categories. They allow AO to make just 31.5% of their three-pointers (28th in the nation), 32.3% of their mid-range shots (36th), 51.2% of their near-proximity attempts (tenth), and 38.0% of their total shots from the field (fifth).
SORTABLE SCHEDULE / RESULTS:
Projections are based on present-day ratings. Stars indicate games played at a neutral location.
Game efficiencies only account for data before a contest has gone analytically final and are adjusted to extract home-court advantage.
CURIOUS TRENDS:
Michigan State performs worse against squads that favor a faster tempo. When facing teams that have a pace vs. AO greater than 68.94, Michigan State is more efficient than normal 36% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 77% of the time.
When playing teams that find ways to get to the free throw line, Michigan State usually performs worse than average. Michigan State is more efficient than normal 29% of the time when facing clubs that have an offensive free throw attempt rate vs. AO greater than 30.05. In all other contests, Michigan State performs better than average 67% of the time.
Michigan State is typically worse vs. teams that tend to capitalize off breakaway opportunities. Against foes that have a potential point rate off steals vs. AO greater than 12.34, Michigan State performs above their norm 27% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 63% of the time.
HASLAMETRICS ALL-PLAY PERCENTAGE RANKING BY DAY: Select data to plot:

HASLAMETRICS TEAM HISTORY: Select data to view:
SUMMARY Rk AP% Rec (WinPct) RQ Conference Pace Con SOS PTF AFH ASR
2024-259th9th12th6thBig Ten231st53rd16th4th115th20th
2023-2417th17th147th60thBig Ten313th172nd5th334th311th14th
2022-2327th26th103rd28thBig Ten306th335th2nd45th267th43rd
2021-2249th47th93rd32ndBig Ten175th67th5th127th237th28th
2020-2162nd62nd159th66thBig Ten211th324th31st41st333rd53rd
2019-203rd3rd43rd15thBig Ten165th209th8th353rd335th6th
2018-194th4th12th2ndBig Ten278th151st5th274th323rd3rd
2017-186th6th5th5thBig Ten215th116th57th229th325th5th
2016-1738th38th127th56thBig Ten240th208th23rd217th282nd45th
2015-165th5th5th9thBig Ten278th241st61st273rd220th4th
2014-1511th11th52nd17thBig Ten276th306th6th305th86th10th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2518th5th24th94th43rd296th126th63rd144th134th15th259th40th27th311th72nd154th83rd
2023-2442nd159th202nd27th49th283rd28th44th251st145th27th76th132nd97th312th53rd200th94th
2022-2321st94th43rd146th25th279th1st26th73rd296th57th244th252nd174th288th25th303rd184th
2021-2231st84th48th196th25th263rd8th56th53rd255th44th196th142nd59th266th46th251st152nd
2020-2182nd26th80th198th75th313th215th45th15th232nd195th285th110th59th308th36th225th106th
2019-205th78th28th110th6th113th50th110th5th246th2nd218th169th57th134th127th270th257th
2018-195th51st10th94th4th111th16th203rd8th145th10th246th48th74th131st214th162nd198th
2017-1818th51st121st119th25th139th34th191st50th143rd31st326th77th34th143rd200th156th174th
2016-1747th106th286th258th19th136th42nd308th86th80th20th309th199th44th115th304th66th170th
2015-164th260th112th17th9th59th1st136th24th176th37th222nd75th78th97th194th252nd268th
2014-1515th89th341st111th10th104th8th131st51st255th8th97th187th51st125th139th278th248th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-255th76th--147th8th248th1st274th75th40th36th70th20th14th267th282nd40th61st
2023-249th44th--72nd13th285th41st243rd64th9th39th19th25th57th324th271st11th19th
2022-2352nd45th--250th35th278th111th259th11th86th84th19th70th25th257th242nd60th72nd
2021-2286th129th--267th52nd223rd71st269th119th161st46th231st50th33rd191st237th120th145th
2020-2146th301st--206th10th52nd14th313th25th205th17th125th326th133rd44th312th203rd278th
2019-209th81st--295th3rd180th4th337th8th65th21st192nd104th39th128th329th39th110th
2018-195th16th--337th2nd251st16th272nd6th205th2nd83rd208th16th182nd229th135th165th
2017-189th141st--264th1st98th103rd302nd4th178th1st198th46th3rd67th293rd145th223rd
2016-1742nd123rd--214th25th104th58th265th9th179th33rd192nd34th19th91st262nd162nd221st
2015-1628th95th--298th5th103rd28th341st36th96th10th50th14th2nd65th339th60th156th
2014-1515th179th--178th5th117th6th257th6th151st22nd91st124th62nd117th252nd151st197th