Grok breaks down Ole Miss and Michigan State using advanced stats.

OxonianReb · 2025-03-25T16:26:56-0500

Pretty well-balanced summary by xAI's LLM.

Ole Miss vs. Michigan State: Sweet 16 Breakdown
Team Overviews

Ole Miss (No. 6 Seed, 24-11)
Under second-year coach Chris Beard, Ole Miss has reached the Sweet 16 for only the second time in program history (first since 2001). The Rebels have been a revelation, upsetting No. 11 North Carolina (71-64) and No. 3 Iowa State (91-78) with a potent offense and gritty play. Guards Sean Pedulla and Matthew Murrell lead a balanced attack, while Beard’s defensive tenacity has kept opponents on edge.
Michigan State (No. 2 Seed, 29-6)
Tom Izzo’s Spartans are back in the Sweet 16 for the 16th time under his tenure, showcasing their trademark depth and defensive prowess. They dispatched No. 15 Bryant (87-62) and No. 10 New Mexico (71-63), relying on a balanced scoring effort and a suffocating defense. Jaden Akins and freshman Jase Richardson headline a roster that thrives in March.

Advanced Statistical Comparison
Using KenPom and similar analytical tools, here’s a statistical snapshot based on season-long trends and tournament performances. (Exact 2025 numbers are approximated from available data and patterns as of March 25.)

Adjusted Offensive Efficiency (Points per 100 Possessions)
- Ole Miss: ~116 (top 25 nationally)
  The Rebels have been lights-out in the tournament, shooting 58.2% from the field and 57.9% from three against Iowa State. Pedulla (20 PPG in tournament) and a five-man double-digit scoring effort vs. Iowa State highlight their firepower. eFG% sits around 54%.
- Michigan State: ~114 (top 30 nationally)
  MSU’s offense is methodical, averaging 78.2 PPG with an eFG% of ~53%. They excel in second-half surges (e.g., outscoring Bryant 54-34), led by Akins (12.7 PPG season average) and Richardson (11.9 PPG).
Adjusted Defensive Efficiency (Points Allowed per 100 Possessions)
- Ole Miss: ~98 (top 30 nationally)
  Ole Miss forces 14.3 turnovers per game (37th nationally, +5.4 margin ranks 4th), with Pedulla’s 60 steals leading the charge. They held UNC to 64 points but allowed 78 to Iowa State due to rebounding struggles (outrebounded 34-29).
- Michigan State: ~92 (top 5 nationally)
  MSU boasts the nation’s No. 1 3-point defense (opponents shoot ~28% from deep) and ranks 5th overall defensively. They’ve held foes to 67 PPG (3rd in Big Ten), with a knack for late-game clamps (e.g., New Mexico scoreless for first 3 minutes of second half).
Pace (Possessions per Game)
- Ole Miss: ~70 (moderate, adaptable)
  Beard adjusts tempo to exploit mismatches, pushing transition off turnovers (16.2 points off TOs per game).
- Michigan State: ~68 (deliberate, physical)
  Izzo controls pace, emphasizing half-court execution and rebounding dominance.
Four Factors (Dean Oliver’s Key Metrics)
- *Shooting (eFG%)**: Ole Miss 54% vs. Michigan State 53%
  Ole Miss’s tournament shooting (11-19 from three vs. Iowa State) gives them a slight edge, but MSU’s consistency is notable.
- *Turnovers (TO%)**: Ole Miss 13% vs. Michigan State 15%
  Ole Miss’s 8.9 TOs per game (3rd nationally) trumps MSU’s respectable but less elite ball security.
- *Rebounding (ORB%)**: Ole Miss 28% vs. Michigan State 34%
  MSU punishes on the glass (e.g., outrebounded New Mexico), while Ole Miss ranks 15th in SEC rebounding—a glaring weakness.
- *Free Throw Rate (FTR)**: Ole Miss 34% vs. Michigan State 32%
  Both teams get to the line, with Ole Miss slightly better at converting (~74% vs. ~72%).

Matchup Analysis

Ole Miss’s Advantage: Offensive Versatility and Turnovers
The Rebels’ five players in double figures vs. Iowa State (Pedulla 20, Brakefield 19, Dia 18, Murrell 15, Murray 11) showcase their depth. Their +5.4 turnover margin could disrupt MSU’s rhythm, especially if Pedulla and Murray pressure guards like Tre Holloman (double digits in 4 of last 5). Ole Miss needs to sustain their 57.9% 3-point shooting against MSU’s elite perimeter D.
Michigan State’s Advantage: Defense and Rebounding
MSU’s No. 1 3-point defense is a nightmare for Ole Miss, who relied on 11 threes to beat Iowa State. The Spartans’ physicality on the boards (34% ORB%) exploits Ole Miss’s rebounding woes (15th in SEC). Akins and Richardson can match Ole Miss’s guards, while MSU’s depth (9-10 players contribute) wears teams down.
Key Player Matchup: Pedulla vs. Holloman
Sean Pedulla’s scoring (20+ in two tournament games) and steals (60 on season) meet their match in Tre Holloman’s recent surge (10+ points in 4 of 5) and defensive tenacity. If Holloman contains Pedulla, MSU neutralizes Ole Miss’s engine.

Predictive Analytics
Using efficiency margins and pace:

Expected Score: Michigan State 73, Ole Miss 70
- MSU offense (114/100 poss.) x 68 poss. = 77.5, adjusted to 73 due to Ole Miss’s defense (98/100 poss.).
- Ole Miss offense (116/100 poss.) x 70 poss. = 81.2, adjusted to 70 due to MSU’s elite defense (92/100 poss.).
Win Probability: Michigan State 60%, Ole Miss 40% (based on 6-point efficiency edge: 22 combined offense/defense).
MSU’s defensive edge and rebounding tilt this, but Ole Miss’s hot shooting keeps it tight.

Intangibles

Venue: Atlanta is SEC territory (~2.5 hours from Oxford, MS), potentially boosting Ole Miss fan support.
Experience: Izzo’s 16th Sweet 16 trumps Beard’s second, though Beard’s 2019 Final Four run with Texas Tech (over MSU) adds intrigue.
Momentum: Ole Miss’s 91-point outburst vs. Iowa State is electric, but MSU’s second-half dominance (20-12 run vs. New Mexico) signals resilience.

Conclusion
Michigan State should edge out Ole Miss to reach the Elite Eight. Their top-tier defense, particularly against the three, likely cools Ole Miss’s shooting, while rebounding dominance generates second-chance points. Ole Miss can win if they force 15+ turnovers and hit 10+ threes, but MSU’s depth and Izzo’s March savvy make that a tall order. Prediction: Michigan State 73-70.

whitaker_20 · 2025-03-25T16:30:59-0500