Even for the simplest transition metal diatomic molecules, the most reliable way to know the ground-state spin configuration is often by doing experiments. I will give an example where it's easy to correctly determine the ground state spin configuration, and then an example where it has remained impossible as of the year 2020.
Cr$_2$: Here we can accurately guess the ground-state spin configuration of the molecule with your undergrad-level knowledge about orbital filling: Each Cr atom has 1 lone 4s electron and 5 lone 3d electrons, and when two Cr atoms come together we will get a bonding of the 2 lone 4s electrons, and the 10 lone 3d electrons, which results in the famous sextuple bond with all 12 orbitals that used to be half-filled, now being doubly-occupied, leaving zero unpaired electrons and a spin-multiplicity of 1. This singlet state turns out to be the correct ground-state configuration as far as we know.
Fe$_2$: In this case the idea of just bonding together every half-filled atomic orbital to create doubly-occupied (spin-0) molecular orbitals, predicts a configuration that disagrees with the present best experiments (we even know this from molecules as simple as O$_2$ whose ground state is a triplet). Even wet-lab experiments have not yet been able to confirm unanimously the ground-state of Fe$_2$: It is either $^7 \Delta_u$ or $^9 \Sigma_g^-$ (good luck even arriving at those 2 final candidates using theory alone!).
While doing the research to write this answer about the ambiguity of the ground spin-state of Fe$_2$, I found that the 2015 paper "Fe$_2$: As simple as a Herculean labour." gives a good history of the pursuit to find the ground spin-state of Fe$_2$, which I have tried to summarize even more compactly here:
\begin{array}{cccc}
\text{Year} & \text{First author}& \text{Type} & \text{Ground state}\\
\hline
1975 & \text{Montano} & \text{Experimental} & \text{No conclusion}\\
1982 & \text{Shim} & \text{Computational} & ^7\Delta_u\\
1983 & \text{Nagarathna} & \text{Experimental} & ^7\Sigma_g \\
1984 & \text{Baumann} & \text{Experimental} & ^7\Delta \\
1988 & \text{Tomonari} & \text{Computational} & ^7\Delta_u\\
2002 & \text{Huebner} & \text{Computational} & ^9\Sigma_g^- \\
2003 & \text{Bauschlicher } & \text{Computational} & ^9\Sigma_g^- \\
2003 & \text{Bauschlicher } & \text{Combined} & ^7\Delta_u \\
2009 & \text{Casula} & \text{Computational} & ^7\Delta_u \\
2011 & \text{Angeli} & \text{Computational} & ^9\Sigma_g^- \\
2014 & \text{Hoyer} & \text{Computational} & ^9\Sigma_g^- \\
2015 & \text{Kalemos} & \text{Computational} & \text{No conclusion}\\
\hline
\end{array}
Conclusion: You cannot always know the ground state spin-multiplicity, even of some simple transition-metal diatomics, without doing careful experiments (either in a wet-lab, or on a computer). If you're dealing with a much larger system (which I assume is the case for you, because you mentioned ligands), perhaps you can try DFT with various functionals and various basis sets and see if there is one spin-symmetry that is always coming up as having the lowest energy.