I Was Wrong

So I predicted yesterday that the game between the Hoosiers and Rebels would be all about turnovers. It wasn’t. Predictably, the Hoosiers turned it over a lot. But that didn’t matter because they turned it over only one more time than Ole Miss did. The problem with turnovers is that they prevent you from taking shots. As it turned out, both teams took the exact same number of shots in the game. Mississippi just connected on more of them, probably because they were repeatedly able to knife down the lane for a layup or a dump-off for a dunk or layup by someone else (typically Murphy Holloway, who hit 12 of his 18 2 point shots) or an occasional wide-open 3. The Hoosiers had some, but less, of that, and their heretofore white hot shooting beyond the arc deserted them. Ken Pomeroy has pointed out that eFG% is far and away the most important of the four factors, and that (not TO% as I predicted) was certainly the case in this game.

Some other random thoughts:

• IU’s spunk and fight was good. They made two solid pushes in the second half and never stopped fighting. That’s nice to see.
• Jordan Hulls looked completely overmatched against the aggressive and quick Mississippi perimeter defenders. That was probably just some shock at the drastically improved quality of the competition.
• Neither team seemed particularly interested in defensive rebounds. IU grabbed 45% of their own missed shots, outdone only by the Rebels getting to 47% of theirs.
• Jeremiah Rivers is better for the team, but he needs to settle down a little. Twice in the half court, he probed the middle of the D with the dribble, then stopped, pivoted and fired a pass to the wing … where it bounced straight out of bounds. Later in the game, I heard Tom Crean holler to Jordan Hulls, “Jordan, see the open man!” after a turnover thrown to someone on the IU bench. That might be good advice for everyone handling the ball.
• Speaking of handling, Verdell’s behind-the-back dribbling in traffic needs to stop. That move twice turned the ball over in the first half, once when it bounced off his back heel.
• Regarding the importance of eFG%, 2 point jumpers are the most inefficient shots a player can take on the floor. This isn’t some conjecture of mine. It’s a fact. The Hoosiers took 24 of those shots out of 68 total shots from the floor, their highest percentage of this young season. Obviously, the defense plays a role in what shots the offense can take, but it would be nice to take fewer of those.

In Defense of Devan

I'm not completely sure what to think of the Hoosiers' win over the Spartans of USC Upstate (HD Box), which both the Girl and I though was an ironically named school in California. But I do know that it’s a win, and wins are, like, better than losses. Also, this team is young and still not that good. Tom Crean keeps telling us that, and we would probably do well to believe him rather than to let a seemingly solid performance against an even more inferior Howard team distract us from that knowledge. That’s probably even more reason for Hoosier fans to be happy with any sort of win that they can get their hands on. In this case, it seemed like IU just couldn’t figure out how to salt the game away, despite building a 20 point lead with less than 8 minutes left.

All things considered, the IU defense was pretty good. They kept the Spartans from shooting especially well, got a bunch of steals, cleaned the defensive glass, and created a good number of turnovers. Either the IU offense wasn’t so great or the Upstate D was nearly as good as IU’s. A 7’3” German patrolling the paint probably had something to do with them hitting only 45% of their 2’s, but the Hoosiers stroked it from beyond the arc to the tune of … 46%. That seems to be the difference in the game. Then again, the Hoosiers really kept the visitors in the game by hitting only 16 of their 30 free throws. That’s just not good.

Here are the ratings calculations for the Hoosiers from this game. I’ve added a couple more columns that relate to how the team’s efficiency when the player was on and off the floor. It looks at how the team did on both offense and defense with the player on the court vs. off it. So OEff+/- is the difference in the team’s points per 100 possessions when the player is on the court and off it. DEff+/- is the same thing, but for the opponent’s point per 100 possessions  And EffMargin+/- just subtracts the previous 2 columns. Remember that, since smaller numbers are better when talking about defensive efficiency, a negative number in that column is a good thing. (Likewise, negatives in the OEff+/- and EffMargin+/- columns are bad.)

USC Upstate             ScPoss  Poss    PtsProd FlrPct  ORat    Usage   OEff+/- DEff+/- EffMargin+/-
Minus, Sharod           0.86    6.89    2.73    0.12    39.64   29.96   -15.88  -24.91  9.03        
Gordon, De'Marion       4.52    11.02   8.84    0.41    80.17   29.79   -24.17  35.34   -59.51      
Schneiders, Nick        3.28    6.96    6.47    0.47    93.02   19.33   -19.44  2.19    -21.63      
Chavis, Josh            3.06    7.58    8.33    0.40    109.90  16.47   66.39   -6.25   72.64       
Uzochukwu, Mezie        6.95    9.46    13.69   0.73    144.65  19.72   27.08   18.71   8.38        
LeGates, Ryan           3.31    8.10    8.00    0.41    98.73   22.51   -13.89  2.41    -16.29      
Posey, Pat              3.82    8.57    8.29    0.45    96.69   19.94   32.16   -7.14   39.30       
Cook, Carter            1.52    5.27    2.80    0.29    53.18   18.83   -27.60  12.54   -40.14      
Rogers, Chalmers        1.37    5.65    2.94    0.24    52.06   12.83   10.06   -35.63  45.70       
Palkert, Caleb          0.00    0.76    0.00    0.00    0.00    5.42    -7.64   40.44   -48.07      

Indiana                 ScPoss  Poss    PtsProd FlrPct  ORat    Usage   OEff+/- DEff+/- EffMargin+/-
Hulls, Jordan           1.38    3.20    3.41    0.43    106.72  10.00   4.19    23.60   -19.41      
Watford, Christian      7.40    13.03   15.82   0.57    121.44  23.69   22.22   32.09   -9.86       
Creek, Maurice          5.17    7.18    11.75   0.72    163.69  18.40   -15.76  33.33   -49.10      
Rivers, Jeremiah        2.92    9.71    5.74    0.30    59.08   19.42   17.39   -1.19   18.58       
Moore, Daniel           0.65    0.89    1.00    0.73    112.55  17.73   -37.06  -35.29  -1.76       
Jones III, Verdell      6.28    12.97   13.19   0.48    101.72  26.47   22.87   15.27   7.60        
Muniru, Bawa            0.63    1.78    1.23    0.35    69.10   29.71   -48.51  36.36   -84.87      
Capobianco, Bobby       0.00    0.58    0.00    0.00    0.00    7.22    76.35   -6.35   82.70       
Pritchard, Tom          1.54    2.54    3.46    0.61    136.60  11.52   -44.21  72.69   -116.90     
Roth, Matt              0.87    2.44    2.00    0.35    81.68   27.14   -19.10  18.46   -37.56      
Elston, Derek           4.78    8.17    10.73   0.58    131.36  22.70   54.65   -37.99  92.65       
Dumes, Devan            1.12    8.48    2.50    0.13    29.50   24.22   10.53   -37.99  48.52       
Jobe, Tijan             0.00    0.00    0.00    NaN     NaN     0.00    -31.77  -55.44  23.67       

A few thoughts on the individuals who played for the Hoosiers:

• I still like me some Christian Watford. I’ve read numerous postgame articles praising him for all his glorious skills. However, after the game, he thought he hadn’t really scratched the surface, and a closer look might bear that out. His stat line on offense is both impressive and efficient, especially given his significant usage. And he once again did solid work on the boards, especially on the defensive end. However, despite grabbing those boards and tallying IU’s only blocked shot of the night, these numbers indicates that the team played better D when he was off the floor than on it. So that might be an indicator of one way he can improve.



• I coudln’t figure out why Devan Dumes was on the floor so much. Like is often the case, I tended to notice what he was  doing on the offensive end more than anything: clanging all his 3’s, missing his only freebie, and turning the ball over 5 times. So why was he out there? It seems like the folks at Inside the Hall were wondering the same thing. Well, the HD Box shows that he had the second best +/- on the team, so he was clearly not killing IU that much. There must be something more. And the numbers above back that up. No other player who played more than 5 minutes had a better defensive efficiency +/- number. So Devan’s 1 steal and 5 defensive rebounds were only part of what he was bringing to the table on defense.



• I was kind of down on the game of Jeremiah Rivers, thinking that he got out of control and turned the ball over too much, while not being able to hit anything from the floor or FT line. Sure he had 5 assists, but he had 4 turnovers, too. Once again, the numbers indicate that he’s good for the team, as IU was more efficient on both ends of the floor when he was out there than when he was sitting. That was a tad surprising to me, but what was more surprising is that he had a bigger positive effect on the O than the D. Goodonya Jeremiah.



• Maurice Creek put up double digit points again and obviously played efficiently with his team high offensive rating. However, the team was outscored by 2 points while he was on the floor and was less efficient on both ends.



• I still love me some Derek Elston, and he was once again great for the team. Remember way back when I mentioned that Dumes had the second best +/- for the night? Well someone had to beat him, and that someone was Derek Elston. He had the best +/- number, and you can see above that IU was better on both ends of the court with him on it. Not only did he hit his shots (75% eFG%), and dish out two assists, he also grabbed about 25% of the available rebounds on both ends of the floor. That’s quality contribution, right there.



• I would like to see us get Matt Roth a few shots when he’s on the floor, but that might be more sentimental than anything. There’s no need to force anything to him when the team hits 45% from the outside.

Hoosiers Thunder Like Bison, Beat Them

Tom Crean keeps talking about wanting to push the pace and play up-tempo (an idea that John Gasaway thinks will be nothing but good for the typically ploddingly-paced Big 10), and the Hoosiers did just that against Howard (HD Box), to the tune of 74 possessions. It remains to be seen if the Hoosiers are able to push the pace the rest of the year, as last year’s team managed  86 possessions in their opening game win over Northwestern St.

Everyone’s talking about how the freshmen on this squad hit the ground running, and they definitely did, but there aren’t many other options, really. Those freshmen are 6 of the 16 players on the roster. So it’s no surprise that the young ‘uns are contributing.

There are a couple of things that stood out to me from the game, though:

• It wasn’t just that he hit all but his last shot, but I loved Derek Elston’s game. He seemed to want to hustle for  boards and take what came to him. Plus, for a big man, he’s quick and has a nice stroke.
• The Hoosiers seem to have real trouble guarding the interior. Both early against Howard and in the exhibition games, it felt like when the opponents got the ball inside, they either got an easy shot (which they often missed in the exhibitions) or went to the line. The 2-1-2 and 2-3 zones seemed to help clog up the lane against Howard, but it bears watching this season. Those zones also helped encourage the cold-shooting Bison to hoist 22 of their 53 field goal attempts from beyond the arc, of which they hit only four (“a number so small you can spell it” as Gasaway might say). I did think that a lot of those 3’s were open. So a team with shooters would obviously fare better. However, saying that it will be tough to defend a team that can score in the paint and shoot the 3 is about as revelatory as telling you that there’s a different strain of the flu out and about this year, so we’ll not belabor that point.
• Christian Watford grabbed 9 of the 22 shots that the Bison missed while he was on the floor. That’s a pretty sick 41% of all the possible defensive rebounds available to him. If that’s in any way an indicator that he has some defensive rebounding prowess, he could form a potent combination with the offensive rebounding skills of frontcourt mate Tom Pritchard.
• At first blush, Jordan Hulls didn’t seem to do much on offense. And the numbers bear that out (see efficiency numbers below), but he sure didn’t do much to hurt the team. He only took 2 shots – and hit one of them – but he still found away to collect 5 assists without turning the ball over. According to the efficiency numbers, that comes out to a tidy 178 ORating while using a miniscule 10% of the possessions while he was on the floor. Good stuff. His usage will probably increase and his rating will drop, but there’s some room for both of those to happen.

Here are the efficiency calculations for the Hoosiers (sorted by minutes played):

Indiana                 ScPoss  Poss    PtsProd FlrPct  ORat    Usage
Rivers, Jeremiah        3.80    11.66   8.61    0.33    73.79   25.35   
Watford, Christian      5.84    9.12    13.64   0.64    149.54  19.41   
Creek, Maurice          6.74    10.20   15.76   0.66    154.51  22.17   
Jones III, Verdell      3.84    9.99    9.31    0.38    93.23   23.23   
Pritchard, Tom          4.98    5.62    10.85   0.89    192.88  15.20   
Hulls, Jordan           2.19    2.84    5.06    0.77    178.46  9.45    
Elston, Derek           2.67    3.31    6.60    0.81    199.43  14.39   
Dumes, Devan            2.89    8.12    7.15    0.36    88.07   33.85   
Capobianco, Bobby       0.29    3.58    0.69    0.08    19.23   23.83   
Roth, Matt              0.60    1.60    1.31    0.38    81.37   11.46   
Muniru, Bawa            0.58    1.53    1.26    0.38    82.03   15.31   
Moore, Daniel           0.00    1.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    10.00   
Finkelmeier, Brett      0.30    0.30    0.64    1.00    211.40  7.57    
Jobe, Tijan             0.00    0.00    0.00    NaN     NaN     0.00    
Barnett, Kory           0.00    0.00    0.00    NaN     NaN     0.00    
Gambles, Steven         0.00    1.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    33.33   

So Maurice Creek was the only high usage player (more than 20%) who was particularly efficient. I suspect we’ll see better numbers out of Rivers, Jones, and Dumes, and worse out of the other guys, but I like the roles of the team so far.

All in all, it was a good start. I’m thrilled to have hoops to watch and think about, and I’m even more glad to see the Hoosiers with more than 7 guys to contribute.

Ask and Receive

Yesterday, I suggested that Indiana needed to figure out how to play some D in their game against Minnesota (HD box). And figure it out they did, holding the Gophers to a mere 0.887 points per possession. While Minnesota is no offensive juggernaut, that was an excellent defensive performance. I don't know if it was that the Hoosiers finally recognized that Dan Dakich is the head coach now, or if it was something else, but they should try to remember what it was and do more of it.

Looking at the play-by-play, it's clear that the Hoosiers salted this game away by getting to the free throw line and hitting them down the stretch. Sure, Bassett hit a huge 3 (on nice drive and kick from Gordon), DJ hit a jumper, and Gordon had a layup, but, after the last tie at 48-48, Indiana reeled off a 14 - 2 run to put the game out of Minnesota's reach. Half of those 14 points came from the line. Gordon also scored 7 of the points in that run (and 20 for the game), proving once again that he is an absolute weapon down the stretch in games.  However, he was not the player of the game for IU last night. 

DJ White had another very good game last night. He wasn't able to rebound as well as he normally does, but he was still a beast, posting a 125.6 O rating while using a less-than-typical-for-him 23% of the team's possessions while he was on the floor.  That slightly smaller usage can be attributed to Minnesota running a 3-2 zone for most of the night to keep it out of his hands. Granted, DJ still put up 20 big points, but he was not the player of the game for the Hoosiers.

The player of the game for IU last night was none other than Jamarcus Ellis, the same player whom I had suggested might not be completely on board with the new coaching regime. He was marvelous last night.  He only used 14% of possessions on the offensive end while he was on the floor, but he was deadly efficient with them, putting up a 159.8 O rating. Also, he was a terror on the glass on a night when Minnesota worked hard to keep DJ from getting rebounds. Ellis pulled down 17% of possible offensive rebounds and 33% of possible defensive rebounds, both of which are excellent numbers. But I believe that Ellis's real value to the team lies on the defensive end. While thinking about that, I played with some of the HD box score numbers to figure out how the team did on offense and defense while players were on the floor and off of it. Sure, the +/- column shows how the team did overall, and Ellis's +/- is appropriately the highest on the team.  But we can break it down a little more, and here's how it breaks down for Ellis:

	O Eff	D Eff	Eff Margin
On floor	113.0	77.8	35.2
Off floor	100.0	162.5	-62.5
Difference	13.0	-84.7	97.7

 

Remember that smaller numbers are better when talking about defensive efficiency. Thus, those numbers show that, while Ellis had a positive impact on the team's offense, his impact on the defense was much, much bigger. Goodonya, Jamarcus Ellis!

Overall, that game was just what the Hoosiers needed. If they can pull out a road win against scrappy Penn State on Sunday, and both Wisconsin and Purdue win their last conference games (in which they'll be prohibitive favorites), Indiana will have the #2 seed in the conference tournament.

Not a Lot to Say

I suppose I could just say that the Michigan State game (HD box) was a good, old fashioned hole-stompin' and leave it at that. However, I don't think that would be quite right.  Instead, I will offer a few thoughts.

• I mentioned before the Ohio State game that I thought IU was due for a friction loss with all the upheaval, maybe this game was it. Really, it could have saved the Hoosiers another loss, too, since this one was two losses at a time.
• I didn't think the Hoosiers stood much of a chance before the game, and I didn't even realize it was Senior Day in East Lansing.  Couple that with the Spartans turning the ball over on and excellent (and thus aberrant) 12.5% of their possessions, and this was a perfect storm of ass-kickery for the Hoosiers to encounter in the Breslin Center.
• When GameDay was in Bloomington for round 1 of MSU-IU this year, Jay Bilas kept saying that he thought Michigan State was the best team in the Big Ten, but they weren't playing that way. They were just turning the ball over too much. I was hollering at the TV in our hotel room, arguing that, at some point, you are what you are, and Michigan State was a very talented team that couldn't take care of the ball. Gasaway pointed to it way back in January, and it was a problem for a similarly made up MSU team last year. I felt vindicated that night, when IU cruised to victory on the strength of Sparty TO's on 27.9% of its possessions.  Yesterday, I'm sure Bilas felt a little vindicated, as that was as impressive performance as I've seen this year.
• Of course, a 71.3 eFG% is going to win you most games, given that shooting dominates the other four factors.
• This is the second time in the last three games that Indiana has displayed new levels of futility on the defensive end, both in terms of defensive efficiency and opponent's eFG%. I hope that's indicative of an adjustment process rather than suggestive that Sampson was the key to the team playing acceptable D.
• Maybe we can just write this off as a day where things didn't go right for the Hoosiers, given that they couldn't hit their free throws. On the season, IU players make freebies at a 76.3% clip, 10th best in the country. Against MSU, they hit only 62% of them. Particularly poor was DJ White's 4 for 10 outing, which is most unusual for a 69.5% shooter.
• Speaking of FT's, Indiana's x-factor FT defense failed them, too, allowing MSU to hit 80% of their free ones.
• Finally, I will suggest that, if it doesn't demoralize the team, it doesn't matter a whole lot for IU. It might hurt their potential NCAA seed by a spot, but they have time to resuscitate that in the conference tournament. As far as the conference tournament goes, a win would most likely have led to a 3-way tie for first, which would have given IU the #3 seed due to tie-breakers. If they can right the ship and beat Minnesota at home and Penn State on the road, they'll still be the #3 seed (barring upsets of Purdue and/or Wisconsin).

Free Throws and Three Fours

Now that I've had a day for the Ohio State - Indiana game to percolate (HD box), let's talk about it a little. This was a win the Hoosiers had to have to stay in the conference championship race. (Wisconsin has the clear edge there, given their schedule the rest of the way, but that's not the point right now). And the Hoosiers got that win.  It wasn't pretty, but they got it.  Really, though, we couldn't have expected it to be pretty, given the way the Buckeyes play. 

Much has been said in this space about the Ohio State D (OK, so I said it all, but that doesn't change the fact that it's been said), and their numbers are quite good.  Some of that bore itself out on Tuesday, too. The Hoosiers put up worse efficiency numbers on O than is typical for them, and they shot atrociously from beyond the arc.  Ohio State does have the best statistical D in the conference, and they are best at defending both 2- and 3-pointers. I was already to think it was just tough OSU D, and maybe it was, but PostmanE's take made me think a little more about it. He suggested it was just a bad shooting night, and if you look at the numbers it was horrific for Stemler and Gordon. Those two were a combined 1 - 14 on 3's, meaning the rest of the team was a not-great-but-certainly-acceptable 4 - 11. It seemed to me that both of those guys had mostly open looks on their three-balls, but they just couldn't get them to fall. But, the Hoosiers did shoot right on their conference number for two point FG%. So that's a case of the irresistible force of IU's 2-point offense overcoming the immovable object of OSU's 2-point defense. Still, the three point shooting of Stemler and Gordon really hurt the team on O. In fact, Gordon had one of his worst offensive games as a Hoosier this year, posting an ORating of only 80.1 while using an impressive 32% of the team's possessions. Notice I didn't say "of the team's possessions while he was on the floor." That's because, despite his poor shooting and his turnovers, Gordon never sat down. I know that sounds like a criticism of Dakich, but it's not really.  It's just an observation. Clearly, Dakich thought he was making the team better by being out there, and he does play some very good D (he managed 3 steals and 3 defensive boards, both of which are good). And Gordon is an absolute weapon down the stretch. You know he's going to get to the line and hit his FT's, which he did once again against the Buckeyes.

But I don't think all of those missed shots were the key. Granted, if a good percentage of them go in, then IU doesn't have to sweat the outcome of the game at all.  And if you look at the fact that IU went to the live 24 times against the Buckeyes, who are best in the conference at keeping people off the line, then that is clearly a key to the win.  In conference games, OSU's defensive FT Rate is a paltry 16.0. In this game, it was 39.3. Indiana's irresistible force beat OSU's immovable object there.

The other factor isn't so obvious. I was talking with Lawton yesterday and starting to claim that the +/- stat of HD box scores is only useful for guys who sit for a significant amount of time.  I was thinking you might need to sit for 10 minutes to make the number useful. In the case of Gordon, who played the whole game, we have no idea how the team would do without him on the floor.  And really, how much time does it take to make a noticeable impact? It can't be just a few minutes. However, just as I was saying that, I noticed Kosta Koufos's line in the HD box. His +/- was +9. While he was on the floor, Ohio State scored 9 more points than Indiana. That means that the Hoosiers outscore the Buckeyes by 12 when Koufos was on the bench. So Koufos must have sat a lot, right?  Wrong. He was out of the game for only 4:44.

So there you have it, getting to the line and hitting the freebies. 4:44 of bench time for Koufos.  Those were the keys to IU's win over Ohio State. Just like the title of this post says.

Now IU fans need to root for Northwestern, Ohio State, and Michigan against Purdue and Michigan St., Penn St., and Northwestern against Wisconsin to give the Hoosiers a chance at the Big Ten conference championship and #1 seed in the conference tournament.

Then and Now

Then

The Hoosiers got a win on the road at Northwestern Saturday night. I haven't written much about it, because I'm not completely sure what to say. I suppose a quick look at the numbers is in order, if for no other reason than to say that, even more than the second Wisconsin game, the two teams' defenses just didn't bother about this game. A look at kenpom's Indiana game stats numbers (sorted by defensive efficiency) shows that it was the worst defensive game Indiana has played all year. However, it was also Northwestern's second worst. On offense, nearly all of Indiana players were stellar. Bassett was excellent, while taking on a go-to guy share of possessions (26%). Jordan Crawford was sublime. Seriously, look at his +/-. I'll wait. DJ White was his normal self despite playing with the flu. Eric Gordon was his normal self, and Kyle Taber had another do no evil game on that end. I'm not going to talk about who played poorly on offense, and I'm not going to talk about anyone's bad +/- numbers, because I don't care. Given the situation with Coach cum Verizon Guy Sampson, I told the Girl that the Hoosiers were likely to go up there and lose. That they managed to pull out a victory, regardless of anything else, was excellent for the team. And for that, Indiana fans should be happy.

Random side note, I was confused a couple of times in the second half about whether IU was running a man or a zone. I even started to holler about why we were going back to the man when it wasn't working (not that the zone really was). Turns out that Dakich had decided to junk it up by running a triangle-and-two. I didn't recognize it at all, and I need to go back to look at it. Dakich claims that defense was key to getting back in the game when IU was down 7 or 9 in the second half.

Now

Tonight the Hoosiers host a dangerous, if struggling, Ohio State team. I did a preview based on whole season stats before the game in Columbus, and I think we can still apply most of that. Last time around, the Hoosiers pulled out a victory by forcing Ohio State to keep the ball outside the arc with an active 2-3 zone, leading the Buckeyes to jack up 27 3's, hitting only 7 of them. More than half of the Buckeye field goal attempts came from beyond the arc, and it just didn't work for them. It's unsurprising that it didn't work, too, since we pointed out in our preview that Ohio State is best at hitting 2's and worst at not so good at hitting 3's. FWIW, Indiana's excellent free throw defense came through for them again, as OSU hit only half of their eight freebies.

On the other end, Indiana managed to get 4 more shots than the buckeyes by turning it over on only 125 of thier possessions. That, and they overcame a stout Buckeye D in hitting more than half of their 2-pointers. Also, they hit every one of the few free throws the Buckeyes gave up.

But that was last time, and I'm supposed to be talking about now. Nevertheless, I think Indiana's defensive game plan last time was sound, given that Ohio State is first in the conference in 2-point FG% and next to last in 3-point FG% (only Michigan is worse). If Indiana can force contested 3's with an active zone again, they could win. However, I have this odd feeling that the program's turmoil almost has to cause a "friction loss" at some point, and it will be interesting to see if the Hoosiers can focus and take care of business at home tonight. On offense, Indiana might as well stick with its strengths and try to make 2's, because OSU has the best defense in the conference, and they are #1 in both 2-point and 3-point FG% D. That may not happen, though, because OSU's opponents attempt 42% of their shots from outside the arc in conference games, more than against any other team. 'T'will be interesting, without question.

Finally, my player to watch tonight is Jamarcus Ellis. It looked to me like he was not completely with the team emotionally or mentally in Evanston on Saturday. Sure, he picked up a silly technical, but it was more that he seemed disinterested in listening to Dakich in huddles and on the sidelines. Much of that is understandable given the situation, but Indiana needs his defense, rebounding, and distribution to be good.

Hoosiers Turn It Over Lots, But Also Turn Over Boilermakers

A big win by the Hoosiers last night makes the Big Ten a three pony race.  IU, Purdue, and Wisconsin all stand with two losses (although Purdue has 12 wins, while IU and Wisconsin have 11).

It certainly wasn't the prettiest game I've seen (no good, bad, and ugly theme this post-game recap, as it was mostly ugly.)  IU turned the ball over 22 times according to our HD Box Score, or 23 times according to the Indianapolis Star's Box Score.  (They have D.J. White down for a third turnover.)  I have them with 24 turnovers, as they surely  threw it away once more while going down the tunnel after the game.  It was as sloppy as I've seen them handle the ball in quite some time.  That being said, it's par for Purdue to force teams into so many turnovers.  As Abs pointed out to me, Purdue ranks #11 at forcing turnovers.  The numbers sometimes do tell the story.

What the Hoosiers lacked in safeguarding the ball, they made up for in rebounding.  They were solid on the glass (except for a stretch in the second half where they allowed Purdue to make a comeback).  IU sported a +16 rebounding margin, which offset their strong desire to give a cold shooting team a chance by giving them extra possessions.  Purdue was not as sharp from the floor, shooting only 24% from behind the arc (they average 36%) and a dreadful 52% from the free-throw line (they average 71%).  Of course, the numbers tell the story for the FT%, because as we've pointed out before (here and here), the Hoosier's bring out the worst in other teams at the free-throw line.  In fact, they continue to sport the 3rd best FT defense in the nation... 62%.  Abs and I laugh about this being the X-factor.

D.J. White starting was a surprise to me, but not so much as the 36 minutes he played.  Early reports indicated he'd miss a few weeks, and he clearly wasn't 100% but he was still very sharp.  The Hoosiers went to him early and established his presence in the low post.  They came away empty, but it set a tone and Purdue usually looked to double-team him.  His 19 points were a great contribution, but I believe his 15 rebounds were even more valuable.  Either way, a double-double from a player expected to be out for a knee injury is a well-received contribution.  Purdue didn't have the big bodies to match, and so it changed the focus of the game to have him play.  I have doubts as to the outcome of this game if he didn't.  I'm not suggesting the Hoosiers lose, but it's a much different game without him.

Our readers (both of them) know about our affinity for Kyle Taber and he was brilliant last night.  3/3 shooting for 6 points, 5 boards, 2 assists, and 1 steal in 21 minutes.  That's a good line, but what doesn't show up in the stat line is the constant screening that he did, particularly at the elbow and higher.  The Hooseirs are not a pick and roll team, but the high screen is essential for allowing Gordon and Bassett the ability to gain a step and drive to the hole.  Repeatedly we saw Gordon step through double-teams, and the seam was created by the screen.

Armon Bassett's play was also sparkling.  He shot a perfect 4 of 4 from beyond the arc, and was extremely effective in drive and dish attacks.  His +22 +/- rating and this lofty 2.17 Points Per Weighted Shot tell the story.  He was on the bench during the second half run where Purdue closed the gap to 2 points.  I had been yelling at the TV for Sampson to put him back in.  Once he got back in, Indiana built their lead back up to stay.

Eric Gordon had a tough night shooting, but showed that he knows how to use his quickness to drive and draw fouls.  He has a toughness that goes under-appreciated.

Brent Musburger is terrible.   How is he gainfully employed by ESPN?  I kept yelling at him to talk about THIS game, talk about THESE players.  When there weren't long pauses (presumably where Steve Lavin was poking him to wake him up)  there were inane pontifications about how much a hot dog and a soda cost at Mackey Arena, or how Midwestern barber shops are the best places to get your hair cut and learn what folks are talking about.

Lavin has a sharp coaching perspective and if set up, can deliver some gems that you might not see.  But he was never set up.  It must make him want to return to coaching more than anything.

Chucking It From the Not-So-Cheap Seats

The Girl and I took a trip to Bloomington this past weekend to see our beloved Hoosiers in person.  We made the plans a long time ago, bought the tickets off of eBay, and had no idea at the time that we were going to be attending a game amid the maelstrom that is the IU basketball program right now. Thankfully for us, we were able to see a win for the Hoosiers, and it was marvelous for this fan to see a game in which they played as well as they have all season.

Piggy-backing on some things Lawton already pointed out, I will say that I thought the team got excellent contributions from just about everyone. Not good contributions.  Excellent ones. DJ White was the only thing going for IU in the early minutes.  Of course, that's just par for the course for him, but he was still doing Good Things. Jamarcus Ellis, of the 24% 3-point shooting for the season, hit a couple of big 3's early, and they were a key to the comeback run. Plus, he threw that silly alley-oop pass to DJ. Ellis's 157.6 O rating is high for anyone, but it's huge for him. Kyle Taber ... I know I've talked about him a lot, but he is  a walk on. And he was excellent for the Hoosiers again. He hit his only free throws, grabbed a couple of rebounds, made a huge steal, and helped pick up the leadership with DJ injured. The Hoosier D played its best while Taber was out there, too, holding the Spartans to 0.75 points per possession while he was in the game.  Only one other player can match that, and only one player's team efficiency margin was better than Taber's. (Speaking of DJ's injury, I saw the season flash before my eyes as DJ writhed in pain on the floor. Let's hope he's OK, because I fear that all is lost without him.) Jordan Crawford, despite a propensity to toss up poor shots -- a propensity I fear he will never get rid of -- was marvelous.  He hit most of those shots and dished 5 assists as well.  Lots of good stuff there.

I will only repeat one set of Lawton's kudos, and those go to DeAndre Thomas. I think Thomas is a guy who will eventually be a weapon for IU. He has good feet and a nice touch, and he's a big guy (although I think he needs to be less big to be a weapon). In a game where DJ was out due to injury, Thomas played 16 and a half minutes and played them well.  He also looked as tired as any player I think I've ever seen on a basketball court, and he gutted it out. The one player who matched Taber's team D efficiency and bested his team efficiency margin?  DeAndre Thomas.  'Nuff said.

But I didn't really want to talk about the numbers or the overall game that much. The Girl and I got the game about an hour before tip off (I like to watch the shoot-around), and we quickly noticed Erin Andrews's terrible green sweater. I don't know how it looked to you, but it looked somewhat teal when I later saw it on TV.  But it looked awfully damned green in person.  Grrrr! Still, the students love her, and they chanted her name every time she was doing a report, as well as a few times when she wasn't.

Speaking of love, I have never been in a louder Assembly Hall. The Girl has, but perhaps only because she was there when Kirk Haston hit a buzzer-beating 3 to beat then-#1 ranked Michigan State. She rushed the floor that night, so she has extra happy memories of that game.  She was also at Rupp Arena for the 2002 Sweet Sixteen game when the Hoosiers improbably beat Duke. Nonetheless, she agreed that the atmosphere for the game was electric, and it was without question the loudest of the 10 or so games I've been to there. The fans seemed to want to show their support for the team, despite any negative feelings they may have about the coach. And those feelings aren't so crystal clear. When Sampson was introduced, it was to a good number of boos, along with some vain attempts to chant his name, attempts which were repeated 2 or three times during the course of the game, failing every time. Every time but the last that is. As the game came down the stretch, Armon Bassett made a huge play, and the whole place was thrilled, loud, raucous even. Sampson, showing more emotion than a coach can really afford to show in a normal situation, emphatically pumped his fist and met Bassett for a hug on his way to the bench. As the players hugged their coach, the Kelvin Sampson chant went up again, and this time it had some real throat to it.  This time, no boos were audible.  While I couldn't join in the chant, I did drink in the power of the moment. It was one to remember. I looked at the Girl (who was also not chanting), shaking my head, and she said, "I know.  But the thing is, I do like him."

And I think that's really the crux of it. Sampson, someone who can clearly coach 'em up, comes across as a likeable, affable, pleasant guy. He just happens to struggle to follow the rules. In some ways it's the same as the situation was with Bobby Knight. He's someone who can coach a team to play basketball. He just couldn't follow the rules. True, they were different rules, but they were rules, nonetheless. The difference is that Knight wasn't particularly likeable (at least not to me), even though one could get behind him as a basketball coach. Ultimately, the situation is the same: as much as I wish it weren't so, as much as I wish for a program to achieve some tranquility, the coach has to go.

But I'm with the fans at the Hall the other night. I like this team and these players, and I'm rooting for them like crazy.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Michigan State vs. Indiana (2/16/08)

 

The Good

Eric Gordon - He was on fire and you got the sense early that he could hit from anywhere on the floor.  From distance, off the dribble, catch and shoot (loved that underneath curl off the screen for three), pull-up jumpers, and taking it to the hoop with force... he was not to be denied.  As the HD box score shows, he was 2 points under half the scoring (28/60) while on the court.  In a way, D.J. White's knee injury allowed Gordon to be more selfish with scoring... a good thing on that night, as he was in the zone.

DeAndre Thomas - He was a huge catalyst, immediately posting up and dominating on the interior.  It's odd to see Michigan State dominated on the inside.  I've come to expect that Michigan State will always win that battle... in fact, I was uncomfortable most of the night because it was so off-putting.  Anyway, Thomas' third foul was called just because he was big.  It was unfortunate, because although he wouldn't pick up another foul, it took him out of the game to prevent further foul trouble and effectively silenced his night.

Playing Zone - I'm not a big fan of zone defenses, but I do think there are times where it is strategically important to play them.  Sampson, may be a liar and a cheater, but he does have good coaching chops.  His decision to go to the 2-3 zone paid off in spades.  It saved our interior from foul trouble and the Spartans struggled against it.  What do you think Dre Thomas' fouls per minute would have been if they'd stayed in man?

Drew Neitzel - I was thinking that he didn't play particularly well.  Then, I realized he'd had 21 points well into the second half (he wouldn't score again).  I've always thought good players score without you really being aware of it.  True, he only had 1 assist against 2 turnovers but it was apparent that Neitzel had little to no help this night.

 

The Bad

D.J. White's Knee - I feel culpable.  I stupidly put the jinx on and now D.J. goes down to injury.  I haven't seen the results of the MRI (or more so the articles about the results of the MRI), but early signs looked promising.  We need him against Purdue, but it looks he won't play in that game.

Dick Vitale - I have the rare gene that allows me to tolerate Dickie V.  His unabashed love for Duke is obnoxious, but I love it when a team catches fire and goes on a run and his emotions take over.  When a steal is followed by a big dunk, or a long three forces a timeout, his "OOooooooooohh  Ooooohhhhhhhhhhh... they're rolling... you better get a T.O., baby!" is hard to beat.  Sadly, those moments -- the really genuine ones, not the shtick -- are few and far between. 

I appreciate the strong stance on Sampson's infractions, and he agrees with me about Greenspan needing to go, but I can't stand when he talks about the Hoosiers because he always injects Bob Knight into the discussion.  Should the building be named after Bobby?  Probably, but this isn't the time, Dick.  While he's quick to praise RMK for his zero violations in 29 years, he does so in the context of discussing a coach who has made some regrettable decisions.  Yet, wasn't Knight fired for a series of regrettable decisions?  On the scale of fireable infractions, I think choking a player and getting tough with a student trump making impermissable phone calls and lying about it.  I'm a Knight supporter, but only the Dr. Jekyll side and not so much the Mr. Hyde.  Hoosier fans are still fractured following Knight's ouster, and I hate all things not productive to getting the program back pointing in the right direction.  There will be a time to honor Bobby for his contributions to Indiana basketball, but we aren't there yet.

Erin Andrews - Abs texted me:  "Erin Andrews is wearing green.  Boo!"  Security made a student remove his T-shirt calling for Knight's return at an earlier game... they should have required Erin to remove her offending green sweater.

 

The Ugly

Turnovers - Michigan State had a bunch of them.  They were sloppy with the ball and it allowed the Hoosiers to go from 11 down to double digit leads for the balance of the game.

Surrender? - I kept waiting for the Spartans to mount a push and claw their way back into the game.  Izzo was quite animated early, but with 15 minutes to play he was planted on the bench and seemed resigned to the loss.   There was no push, or at least they couldn't stop the Hoosiers long enough to make one.  Maybe he knew something that was lost on the audience -- he's an exceptionally good coach -- but it sure looked like an early concession.  This was the bizarro Spartans.

The Bizarro Game

So last night's matchup between Indiana and Wisconsin (HD box here, albeit with some possession counting oddity) wasn't really a bizarro game. Not everything was opposite.  However, overall, it was opposite of what happened in Madison (thoughts, HD box). In that game, the defenses were absolutely dominant, with both teams registering efficiencies under a point per possession, and Wisonsin's D holding IU to 0.778 PPP. In last night's rematch, the D was an afterthought, and an ineffective one at that.  The offenses did pretty much what they wanted, to the tune of 1.14 PPP for IU and 1.12 for Wisconsin. That's against two of the best defenses in the Big Ten, both of which are in the top 25 in the country!

The thing that is sticking in my craw, overcookin' my grits, really chapping my ass, is one call down the stretch. I know it's petty and futile to talk about the refs, and I believe John Gasaway suggested that it should never be done. However, I have to admit that I was furious with a non-call last night. Looking at the play-by-play, it isn't completely clear which sequence it was, but I believe it was right around 44 seconds left in the game. Trevon Hughes dribbled up from the baseline and was engulfed by the Hoosier D. He picked up his dribble and fell to the floor, and the officials called a held ball, possession arrow Wisconsin. I was hollering at the TV that it was a travel. I'm pretty sure he pivot came up after he fell down. After looking at the replay, it may not have been a travel, but yadambetcha it was a double dribble. Hughes touched the ball with both hands before he fell, but he failed to catch it. The ball then bounced on the floor, and he caught it, before going to the floor. The Badgers ended up scoring on the possession, and those two points equaled their margin of victory. I know that IU had later chances to stop them, but that one stuck with me because I thought it was an obvious call, and it's not like it happened in a dim corner of the court away from the ball. OK, let's move on.  I just had to vent.

That said, this game was a toss-up. Given that neither team could get a stop (even when the other team seemed to double dribble -- sorry, I'll let it go), I thought the team with the last realistic possession would win. Thus, when Hughes fouled Eric Gordon with 17 seconds lost, I told the Girl that it might be good for the Badgers to foul that early (about the same time that analyst Shon Morris said the same thing on TV). Even though the Hoosiers played very good D on that last play, Butch banked in a 3 for the lead. The Hoosiers walked around dazed and eventually got the ball in to Jamarcus Ellis, who did a good job trying to get a winning shot off. The dazed movements after the bank reminded me of Syracuse after Keith Smart hit The Shot in the '87 championship game. Luckily, they've changed the rule since then so the clock doesn't run after the shot goes in. A timeout would have been very handy there, as they could have maybe gotten someone other than shoots-23-percent-on-his-threes Ellis to take the final heave.

Still, while neither team got a lot of stops, the two keys might have been Jason Bohannon, who scored 18 points, all on his 6 of 11 3-point shooting, and the second half shut down of DJ White. The Badgers did an excellent job keeping the ball out of DJ's hands in the second half. DJ ended the game with a stratospheric 147.6 O rating, but he was only able to use 20% of the team's possessions, and that's low for him. DJ's first half offensive numbers were even more wow-ish: O rating of 205.8 on 23% of possessions. Eric Gordon picked up the slack in a big way, using 44% of possessions for the game and still posting a quite good 111.9 O rating. That means that Gordon used an incredible 64% of possessions in the second half, while posting a 108.0 O rating. Those are two workhorse guys on the offensive end. Still, as evidence that Wisconsin severely limited DJ in the second half, he had a 70.1 O rating on 17% of possessions in that period. That's an impressive half time adjustment.

I thought that the Badgers were very smart, both in how they shot Indiana out of that 2-3 zone, and in how they recognized and attacked. Any time Stemler was stuck on Butch in the post, that's where the ball went.  Score. Any time Taber was on Landry at the top of the key, Landry drove. Score. Taber's valuable to the team, but he's not tall enough or big enough to guard Landry one on one.

This is turning into some serious diarrhea of the keyboard, but the Hoosiers were just one play short of a big win last night. Maybe one just has to look at it as karma. The Hoosiers took two tough road games last week, including a double-OT game in which Gordon banked in a three to keep them in it. If they can win the next two against the Spartans and Boilermakers, they'll be in very good shape. If you had offered them 4 out of 5 wins before this brutal stretch, I think they would have taken it.

One last note on the Kelvin Sampson issue. Pat Forde has an interesting article up on the subject, and I think IU might do well to do just what Forde suggests at the end: suspend Sampson until everything is finalized with the NCAA. If the allegations turn out to be incorrect, reinstate him. If they're correct, fire him.  In the interim, let Dan Dakich lead the team. I suggested to the Girl that Dakich might do an OK job last night. I don't know how good at a head coach he is, but there's no indication that he's a cheater or a liar. It might hurt the team's chances for the rest of the season, but it doesn't really punish these players too much for what the coach might have done, and it gives them the chance to do what they can on the court. It also precludes an possible tainting of any success they might have in the postseason.

Bah. Have a good Hallmark Day, everyone.

Looking Forward

I've been a tad busy with some things that have kept me from putting up my thoughts on the win in Columbus on Sunday.  Sadly, I'm not going to do much more than pay lip service here. But don't think that means I don't love that win. I absolutely do. DJ White was once again a beast.  The Hoosiers once again failed to score without him on the court, but that was because he never left it. Jordan Crawford was nothing short of excellent, and I was happy to see Bassett hit some shots. And there was more good work from Kyle Taber. Once again, the team's efficiency margin while he was on the floor was higher than anyone else's on the team.  Good times. In general, I think it's a huge win, that the Hoosiers played very well, and that they looked pleasantly active and disorienting in the 2-3 they played for the whole game.

Unfortunately, I have a bad taste in my mouth about the coaching staff, given all the new information coming out about the NCAA alleging five major violations against Kelvin Sampson's staff. I don't want to think about it, much less write about it.  Grant Wahl has some good thoughts on the subject. If you want to get in a really crappy mood about it, read this typically but appropriate acerbic post. The only reason I even mention it is that I worry about how the news will affect the team tonight.

That's right, Wisconsin comes to town tonight, stinging from a home loss to Purdue. Couple that with the Charlie Foxtrot in Bloomington, and the Badgers seem to have the edge in intangibles. As far as on the court stuff goes, not much has changed since I previewed the matchup just a couple of weeks ago. So check that out for details. The upshot is that Wisconsin is good at stopping what the Hoosiers are good at doing. To come out with a win, I think the Hoosiers will need big games from the likes of Gordon, Bassett, and Crawford, given that they shot horrendously in Madison. Maybe a win tonight will clean some of the bad mojo off of the program.  Well, probably not, but it might clean some of it off of me.  Maybe not that, either. Sigh.

Tweet! Ugh

I had the pleasure of getting my hoop watch on in person last night, as I went with a couple of friends to the Villanova-Georgetown game at the Phone Booth last night in DC (HD box here). I definitely like to watch games at home, especially when they're in HD, but it's good to see them in person, too, especially with friends. It's cool to be able to focus on whatever I want, rather than just what's on camera (I watch the coaches and benches a lot), and every now and then something interesting happens during a timeout.  However, the view is often not as good or as close, as was the case with our upper deck seats last night (I was with Villanova alums).

All of that said it was an interesting game. I thought a handful of things over the course of the game, which I will now share with you.

• The Hoyas didn't seem to get Roy Hibbert enough touches. It seemed like they were thinking about it early, starting with big Roy's first possession dunk, and they seemed to focus on it at times, but there were long stretches where the Nova fan next to me and I kept wondering why he wasn't getting the ball. That said, perception was definitely in contrast to reality (or at least the numbers), as Roy used 31% of the team's offensive possessions while he was on the floor, and he was atypically inefficient with them, posting an O rating of 80.1.  I think you can give credit to the Wildcat D there.
• Villanova didn't seem to have much offense outside of Scottie Reynolds. This one is not so askance with the numbers. Reynolds scored a tidy 45% of the team's points for the entire game (they scored only 2 in the 1:47 he was on the bench). So that's why it seemed that the rest of the team didn't score all that much: they didn't. That is despite the fact that some of them jacked it up quite a bit. Corey Fisher struggled to score, putting up just four points on 16 shots from the field. He had a woefully inefficient game, posting a 35.7 O rating while using 35% of the team's possessions.  Ouch. Ultimately, Villanova had the worst eFG% I've seen in a while: 27.2.  It's really amazing that Villanova was able to do enough other things to stay in the game. Those other things included rebounding a full 34% of their missed shots and forcing Georgetown to turn it over on one quarter their possessions. Shooting a lot of free throws helped, too.  Hitting 82% of them helped even more.
• I wondered if Jessie Sapp was sick or hurt. Sapp, who is often a very efficient offensive player, played just over 24 minutes, and I thought the Hoyas missed him on O during the second half. In fact, according to kenpom's stats, Sapp plays the most minutes of all the Hoyas this season. So was he hurt or sick? Or was JT3 just going with a more defense-oriented package in the second half, as it seemed to me (indicated by long stretches for Ewing, Rivers, and, to a lesser extent, Macklin).
• Jonathan Wallace may have found his shot again. Wallace had been so broken on 3's in recent weeks that it caused the BHK to postulate a Wallace injury.  He hit a quality 3 of 8 from out there last night, and he seemed to hit them late in the game.
• There were a lot of fouls called that aren't often called.  There was a stretch in the first half were Villanova was whistled for 2 or 3 moving screens in a row.  Now, I generally think the refs can call a foul on almost every screen that's set, but it seemed like a lot.  Interestingly, all of those whistles came from a ref who was standing right in front of JT3.

Those were the things I thought mostly, but the story of the game was really the whistle at the end. With the score tied, Georgetown defended Scottie Reynolds's drive quite well (although there was definitely some contact as he went baseline -- not much, but some), and forced a turnover. Wallace came out with it and started dribbling up the sideline, as pretty much everyone thought we were headed to OT. Not so, though, as Corey Stokes was called for bumping Wallace along the sidelines. The Nova fans around me erupted with disgust. I wasn't sure. From our very far away vantage point, it looked like there was some contact, albeit not, as the fans near me were unanimously claiming, necessarily more than when Reynolds drove baseline just seconds before. I just wasn't sure one way or the other. I don't like to advocate that refs swallow whistles at the end of games. I think they should continue to call the game correctly, and, more importantly, consistently. However, I will admit that I think refs should err on the side of not making a call if they're not sure.

I watched the end of the game again when I got home.  The Girl had recorded it for me, and the recording gave me a much closer view of the play (in HD, too!). That wasn't a foul. The ref's anxious whistle robbed all of us of an overtime, Wallace hit both free throws with 0.1 seconds on the clock to seal the victory. I'm not sure what would have happened in OT, as both teams were in serious foul trouble (there were 48 total fouls called, Villanova had already fouled out 3 guys and Georgetown 1), but I would have liked to have seen the players decide that one.

Tweet! Ugh.

Preview: Indiana vs. Ohio State

The Hoosiers take their 4-1 Big Ten road record to Ohio State today, looking to keep pace and pull back with a half game of conference leaders Purdue. Amazingly (at least to me), Purdue managed to win at Wisconsin last night to run their record to 10-1.  But that's not the point right now. The point is to look at today's game between Indiana and Ohio State.

When the Buckeyes Have the Ball

The Ohio State offense is ranked pretty highly, 57th overall, and that's based on being jacks of all offensive trades, masters of none. Their biggest strength lies in hitting two point shots, while their biggest weaknesses are in hitting threes and getting to the free throw line.

That sets up a clash with the strength of the Hoosier D, which is quite adept at defending 2's (29th in the country). Also, the Hoosiers defend the three pretty well, and don't send their opponents to the foul line much.

When the Hoosiers Have the Ball

Indiana finds itself once again facing an excellent defense, as the Ohio State D is ranked 13th overall.  What the Buckeyes excel at is keeping the ball from going through the hoop. They rank 16th in the country in 3 point percentage D, and 20th in the country at 2 point percentage D. One could argue (much like I have for Indiana) that their defensive efficiency is a bit propped up because their opponents only hit 64% of their free throws (good for 8th nationally), which is nearly as good as Indiana's free throw defense. However, I'm not sure that's not the result of good choices when it comes to fouls. It may not matter what the cause is, though, because no team in the land does a better job at keeping their opponents off the line than the Buckeyes.  That's right, Ohio State's D is first in the nation in defensive free throw rate.  Weakness-wise, OSU doesn't force many turnovers (which may feed the fact that their opponents don't make many shots), and they don't block out very well on D, ranking 240th in the country in defensive rebounding.

What does that mean for Indiana? It means that two the main drivers of Indiana's O are in for a tough day. Those drivers are their 2 point offense and getting to the free throw line.  If the Buckeyes are their normal stingy selves on D, Indiana could possibly counter some of that by doing good work on the offensive glass. A lot of O rebounds for DJ White, Jamarcus Ellis, and -- dare I say -- Kyle Taber could be the key to this game for the Hoosiers O. 

Overall

The kenpom ratings suggest that Ohio State will win 66-64 in 67 possessions, giving the Hoosiers a 42% chance of pulling out a victory. Those things sound about right to me.  I would be pretty surprised if the Hoosiers managed to win this game after the emotional double OT game on Thursday night. If they can do it, though, they'll look pretty good heading into a tough 3-game home stand against the other three conference leaders.

Thoughts on Indiana - Illinois 2-7-08

I didn't have time yesterday to write about the boofest in Champaign, so I just put up the HD box score. Don said in his comments to that post that it was appropriate not to comment.  While that's kind of amusing, I'm finally getting around to it now. 

All in all, I'd say that was a good game. Both teams played hard and reasonably well. I mean, how often does your team play in, much less win, a double OT contest.  Mine doesn't do it very often. As far as the Illini vs. Eric Gordon subplot went, there were few surprises there.  The atmosphere and fan animosity clearly (at least to me) affected Gordon. Granted, he's had poor shooting nights before, and he's prone to turnovers, but he seemed like he wanted to shut them up or show them through most of the first half.  Still, the amazing thing about Gordon is that he can have a bad shooting night and still get you 19 points. I thought he played pretty well in the second half and the overtimes, especially, since the Hoosiers ran pretty much one play on O for the last 20 minutes of the game, and it always started with Gordon having the ball up top near half court.  Granted, that 10 second call he got was both egregious and expected.  The Girl and I were yelling at him to hurry up and get over half court for several possessions before that call.  I'll take it, though. 

I kept thinking during the closing stretches that lots of people were coming up big for the Hoosiers. I tossed out several goodonyas to White and Gordon, to Bassett and Ellis and Crawford. That's the whole starting five. I also tossed out a large huzzah for Kyle Taber when he got that offensive stick-back. He gave the team some solid minutes off the bench again. DJ White and Eric Gordon were significantly less efficient than normal, but still very valuable, of course.  Interestingly, both DJ and EJ had inefficient offensive games, with Eric putting up a quite low for him 82.8 rating while using an enormous 37% of Hoosier possessions.  DJ was also quite low, posting a 91.9 rating on 23% of the team's possessions.  What that tells me is that those guys were -- appropriately -- the focus of the Illini D, and that D was quite good.  However, the rest of the team picked up the slack. Ellis didn't have an incredibly efficient offensive game, but he had 3 steals and 10 defensive boards. And that's just his defense that actually shows up in the box score. His +/- of +10 points to how much he helped the team. Also high on the +/- list was Jordan Crawford at +9. He hit some huge shots, going 4-6 from beyond the arc, and posted an impressive 124.6 offensive rating while using a go-to guy-like 26% of the team's possessions while he was on the floor.  When he shoots with his feet under him and doesn't dribble into his shot, he's deadly.  [Aside: In the category of scoring odd plays, with 1:52 left in the first overtime, when Gordon dribbled off his foot, the ball rolled over to Crawford, who picked it up and calmly canned a 3, the Girl and I immediately started wondering if Gordon got an assist for that play. For the record, he did.] Lance Stemler did his normal solid job of using only half a player's share of possessions, but being quite efficient with those he does use, hitting another big 3 in a pressure situation, among other things. And then there was Armon Bassett, who hit a couple of big 3's and 8 of 8 free throws down the stretch. I might be crazy, but I sometimes view him as the most important player on this team. Another thing I rarely see is this: DJ White, Gordon, Bassett, and Ellis all played more than 40 minutes.  That's more than an entire game for each of them, DJ sat out less than 2 minutes. I'm sure they all slept well. 

So that's a lot of positives for Indiana.  I don't have a ton to say about Illinois' specifics, but I would think they are thrilled with the possible portent of Detetri McCamey's stellar play. McCamey went 7 for 13 from deep, which is hugely impressive. Of course, that means that the rest of the team went 4 for 17, but it was overall a good shooting night for them from beyond the arc.

The only partial negative I'm going to offer is about Chester Frazier. ESPN showed over and over again Frazier giving Eric Gordon a little bump/shove during the pregame introductions, and the print media talked about it a lot the next day.  I thought it was unnecessary or uncalled for or unusual or un-something, but I didn't think it was that big of a deal. The Girl, on the other hand, didn't like it one bit. Later, when Frazier freakishly landed on his own foot and twisted his ankle, she said in a sing-songy kind of voice, "Kaaaaarrrrrrrrmmmmmmmaaaaaaa." Interesting point. Earl Hickey might have had some observations to make on the situation.

The reason I'm dealing in positives here is that this is a big win for Indiana. Despite their poor record, Illinois is a good team, and a road win in an incredibly hostile environment can't be anything but good for this team. I don't know that I predicted it correctly, but it all came down to free throws. Yes, Indiana did a good job of hitting theirs (save twice missing both ends of two-shot trips in the first overtime), but the real story was Illinois not hitting theirs. They hit only 2 of 6 in OT, and I genuinely felt bad for Shaun Pruitt, who had an atrocious night from the line. I can't remember feeling much worse for a player than I did for him the other night.  He had three chances to give his team a one-point victory (a one-and-one with 4 seconds left in regulation and two shots with 2 seconds left in the first OT) and summarily clanged all of them. It was almost like the basketball gods giving him the finger when he finally hit the second of two in the second OT, with Illinois trailing by 3. 

If the Hoosiers can get another one on the road at Ohio State, that would be huge. But it's nice to have won the first when you know you need to get one of two.

Gordon Finally to Illinois...

... But as a Hoosier.

Eric Gordon and Kelvin Sampson (along with the rest of the Indiana Hoosiers) are playing in Champaign tonight, and Illinois' Orange Krush student section is ready for them. Indeed, they seem quite eager for a good night of taunting, probably interspersed with some lusty booing. And that's probably their due. I have felt the ire of the jilted fan before, and I wanted the jilters to feel the fans' collective wrath, specifically when Luke Recker came back to Bloomington as an Iowa Hawkeye (after a brief interlude as an Arizona Wildcat) during the 2002 season and when Sean May came to town as a Tarheel in the 2005 season.

The question is how much difference will the Illini crowd's animosity make to Eric Gordon or to the Hoosiers? One IU Hoops blogger isn't too concerned, but I think it might be an issue. The reason I think that is that the Hoosier faithful seemed like they might have had some sort of effect on both of those players. In Recker's boo-fest at Assembly Hall (Bloomington), he went 3 of 10 from the floor en route to 8 points. When May came to town, he was also limited to eight points while shooting 2 for 7 from the floor in only 19 minutes. In May's case, the officials might have had something to do with it, as he was saddled with foul trouble for most of the game. I vaguely recall thinking he did commit those fouls, but we shouldn't talk about my vague memories of things that were likely colored by my bias at the time. Either way, neither player who was vilified by the Hoosier faithful had much of a game in his first trip to the hostile atmosphere in Bloomington. For the record, the Hoosiers beat Recker's Hawkeyes 79-51 in their national runner-up season, but they lost to May's eventual national champion Tarheels in the '04-'05 season.

That anecdotal evidence, which I fully admit is not necessarily indicative of anything that will happen tonight, makes me think it might be a tough game for Gordon. Either way, this will be a tough game for the Hoosiers. The Illini are very stout on D, especially -- as seems to be the case a lot lately -- at limiting their opponents' eFG%. It's just very hard to put the ball in the basket against Illinois. As Ken Pomeroy pointed out, "no Big Ten team should take the Illini lightly," despite their less-than-stellar record this year.

If the Hoosiers could just play D like they did against Wisconsin, but play O like they did against Northwestern, they'd be in fine shape. However, Illinois' tough D will pose a problem with that plan. I think the key in this game might be for the Hoosiers to get to the free throw line (and hit their free throws), given that Illini opponents get to the free throw line an awful lot (Illinois is ranked 218th in the country in defensive free throw rate). I suspect they'll win if they do. Otherwise, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see IU come away with a close road loss.

A Tale of Two Games

It was the best of O, it was the worst of O. It was the best of D, it was the worst of D. But not necessarily in that order. This Dickensian performance was put together by the Hoosiers in the last two games.

Wisconsin
This game was the best of D and the worst of O for the Hoosiers. The Badgers helped the Hoosiers get up close and personal with how the number 3 rated defense in the country looks, and it was a rough night for IU (HD box here). The Hoosiers did better than most on the offensive boards against the Hoosiers, but the Badgers held true to form in absolutely avoiding sending the Hoosiers to the free throw line and holding the Hoosiers to a pitiful 36% effective field goal percentage. IU just had trouble putting the ball in the basket, and shot a woeful 14% from three. It seemed that IU was rattled much of the game, as it looked to my eyes that they were rushing even their open looks a bit. The upshot of all of that is that IU scored a minuscule .778 points per possession, far and away their worst offensive outing of the year. Even the lately en fuego Armon Basset was spectacularly cold, going 0-5 from beyond the arc.

On the flip side, the Hoosiers D wasn't too bad, holding Wisconsin to .969 points per possession, which is well below their season average. Unfortunately for the Hoosiers that was more than enough for the win.

As Don pointed out in his comments to the game preview, the Badgers shoot more free throws than their opponents, and that was a significant difference in this game, judging from the 19-10 edge in made free throws for Wisconsin. All in all, it was a pretty bad night for IU, leaving me still hoping that they will manage to beat a good team or two before this season is over (especially since I'll be attending their home tilt against Michigan State next weekend).

Still, the Hoosiers had a chance to go home and get well, thanks to a game against

Northwestern
The Wildcats didn't want to hear about anyone getting well, given that Northwestern has not won a conference game this year. In that vein, Northwestern shot absurdly well in the first half, cutting and slashing every which way to get open layups and three-pointers, and draining almost all of them, going 7-9 from 3 and 14-22 overall for a silly 79.5 eFG%. Luckily for the Hoosiers, they forced some turnovers and were impressively efficient on O themselves, and managed to keep a lead at the half. Still, this game was the converse of the Wisonconsin game, being the best of O and the worst of D.

The second half went much the same non-defending way for the first 8 minutes, until IU switched to a 2-3 zone. I didn't exactly understand it, because I always thought the 2-3 was best for limiting the threat of talented big men, which Northwestern had zero of, while perhaps giving up some outside looks, which the Wildcats were hitting with alarming frequency. However, this new strategy worked like an actual defense, and the Wildcats cooled down on O. I suspect that the real difference was that the 2-3 kept some guys at home to shut of cutting and driving lanes to the basket, and the lack of that constant layup threat allowed the guys on the outside to pressure the shooters more effectively. Or maybe it just let the Hoosier defenders avoid having to fight through screens. Either way, it worked.

Meanwhile, the Hoosiers, or at least EJ and DJ, continued to score like ... a team that scores well or something. The Hoosiers ended up scoring an impressive 1.339 points per possession, their best offensive outing against a Big Ten team, and their best in the whole season against a team not named Longwood or Western Carolina. I mentioned that Eric Gordon and DJ White were doing some scoring, and it's true. They put up an impressive 73.3% of the team's points. Perhaps even more interestingly, the HD box score shows that IU didn't score without DJ on the floor. It was nice to see Eric find his stroke from deep, as he set up nicely on most of his outside shots and hit 6 out of 10. Throw in the fact that no Wildcat even pretended to bother DJ when he even thought about getting a rebound, and DJ pulled down 13 boards, including a full 23% of his own team's missed shots. Stellar performances out of Gordon and White.

This was a win the Hoosiers had to have, and they got it. Alas, Northwestern is not that good team I'm looking for a win over. On the downside, Bassett continued a descent to normalcy by hitting just 1 of 8 3's he hoisted. He did drop 6 dimes vs. only 1 turnover, but I like him making shots. Also worrisome was the nasty ankle sprain Jordan Crawford suffered in the first half, making it less than 3 good ankles between the Hoosiers' 2 starting point guards. That's something that bears watching with a tough trip to Champaign coming up Thursday.

Wanting to end on a positive note here, let's all laud the play of first time starter Kyle Taber. Coach Sampson said that he wanted to reward Taber for working hard in practice since the team wasn't getting much production out of that position anyway, and Taber performed admirably. In his 23+ minutes on the floor, Kyle only attempted one shot (which he missed), and he turned the ball over once, but he grabbed 2 offensive and 2 defensive rebounds, set screens, and worked hard on D. All in all, I think he was a big help to the team, as evidenced by his tied-for-highest-on-the-team +12 in the +/- column. If one wanted to play with the numbers a little more (and you know I do), one could calculate the team's offensive and defensive efficiencies while each player was on the floor. Then, one could subtract those to get the team's efficiency margin while each player was on the floor. That would tell us, while this player was on the floor, how much did we beat them by on a per-possession basis. I tell you all of this because the team had its best efficiency margin while non other than Kyle Taber was on the floor. Goodonya, Kyle!

Preview: Indiana vs. Wisconsin

This is what we've been waiting for: a matchup between two Big Ten heavyweights. Indiana and Wisconsin face off tonight in Madison with both teams coming off of tough losses this past weekend. This game should tell us a lot, as both teams seem to be lacking much data in the quality win category, although the Badgers' win at Texas was quite impressive.

I said this was a matchup of heavyweights, and it certainly is, as the game features two of the conference's top 3 offenses and defenses. Indiana has gotten a lot of national pub because of super-frosh Eric Gordon (who hurt his non-shooting wrist in practice this week), but Wisonsin has been a bit under the radar, despite being #13 in both polls. As Ken Pomeroy pointed out, given the Badgers' stellar defense, they might be undervalued and under-rated.

But let's not be too abstract. Let's talk about how these teams stack up against each other.

When Wisconsin has the Ball
The Badger O is no slouch (and now I have Caddyshack quotes in my head) on its own merits, being the 3rd most efficient O in the conference. They are a team that seems to be pretty good, but not excellent, in almost every statistical category offensively. The one place where they do excel is in getting offensive rebounds. That big front line of theirs hits the glass hard on missed baskets, and they come up with a lot of them. Ultimately, they make most of their hay inside the arc, as they attempt very few 3-pointers.

Those qualities collide with Indiana's strengths on defense, which are defending 2-pointers and keeping teams off of the offensive glass.

So the battle of the boards could prove critical to Wisconsin's offense, given that Indiana is likely to force a good number of missed Wisconsin shots. It seems like the fact that Indiana's opponents make only 62% of their free throws feeds their defensive efficiency, which might give Wisconsin a slight edge, given that the Badgers don't go to the line a whole lot.

When Indiana has the Ball
Indiana comes in with a slightly more efficient offense than Wisconsin's. The Hoosiers are good at making shots from all over, but they excel inside the arc. They also get a ton of their offense from the free throw line, getting there more than all but 12 teams in the country. Indiana is also pretty adept at grabbing their own misses.

Unfortunately for the Hoosiers, the Badgers's D is even more stingy than their own, ranking 3rd in the country overall. Even worse news for IU is that Wisconsin's players play that good D by contesting lots of shots, keeping their opponents off the glass, and not sending their opponents to the line.

So, much like in the UConn-Indiana game, Wisconsin's defensive strengths stand directly opposed to Indiana's offensive strengths, espeically when it somes to defending 2-pointers and not fouling, ranking 12th and 9th nationally in those categories, respectively.

What it all Means
I think it means that Indiana will be hard-pressed to win this game. That's not a surprise, as it's pretty hard to win road games all over the country (just ask Kansas). The Hoosiers might be looking to "right a lot of wrongs tonight," and the need to make up for a tough home loss to UConn might help them, but I don't think it will be enough.

On a Roll

I suggested in my post-UConn post that perhaps Indiana fans shouldn't be too distraught about the loss to the Huskies, given the quality of their 2-point defense and how it matches up against IU's preferred offense. I even went so far as to suggest that Connecticut didn't miss suspended players Jerome Dyson and Doug Wiggins very much. One blogger I read took it a step further, suggesting that UConn is actually better off without Dyson in the starting lineup. I'm not sure about that, but he makes some interesting points.

Last night, the Huskies traveled to Louisville, their roster still "depleted" or "short-handed," as they were without the two still-suspended players. Once again, UConn came away with a very good victory, winning 69-67. I wondered ahead of time if the missing back court players might be more significant in the face of the Rick Pitino press, thinking fatigue might make the difference down the stretch. It seemed that the UConn players were indeed gassed toward the end, but they managed to gut it out. Louisville also seemed to go with the strategy I advocate for Indiana, launching 33 3-pointers (out of 60 total shots) in the game. Unfortunately for the Cardinals, they only hit 11 of those trifectas, although those shots still provided a better effective field goal percentage than their shots inside the arc. Just a tiny bit better shooting from the bonusphere means a victory for Louisville.

Regardless of their opponents disparate strategeries, UConn is on an excellent 4-game, beating Marquette and Louisville at home, with road victories at Cincinnati and Indiana in between. Three out of those four teams are currently in the top 20 in the Pomeroy ratings. I don't believe there are many, if any, better stretches in the country this season. If the Huskies keep playing excellent defense, I'm thinking they may figure more in the national picture by the end of the season.

Thoughts on UConn - IU 1-26-08

This game didn't work out very well for the Hoosiers or their fans, with the Huskies becoming the first non-Hoosier team to win in Bloomington in the last 30 games, pulling out a 68-63 victory. A look at the HD box score shows a few things. First it shows me that the defenses once again were the story, but the Connecticut D was particularly parsimonious, holding the Hoosiers to 0.955 points per possession. Since the Connecticut D is what ruled the day, and since it seems that the Husky guards are not the drivers of that excellent defense, I submit that they didn't miss the suspended Dyson and Wiggins very much.

Despite the good advice given in our preview, the Hoosiers decided to test their strength (shooting inside the arc) against the Huskies' strength (defending inside the arc). Predictably, the UConn D, ranked number 2 in the nation in that category, proved to be the more resistable force (or the less movable object, if you prefer). While the Husky big men only blocked 3 shots on the day, they altered numerous others, causing the Indiana shooters to offer up several off-balance and double-clutched layups and floaters. Perhaps most illustrative is that DJ White, who, though he is having an excellent and very efficient season, posted a PPWS of 0.87. Or, if you prefer the offensive rating metric, his was 87.9 for this game, while using a near average 22% of the team's possessions. What it all added up to was Indiana hitting just 28.6% of their two point shots, bringing their effective field goal percentage down to 45.9% despite hitting a very nice 11 of 20 3-pointers.

Since we're talking about trifectas, I can't help but wonder where Eric Gordon's shot has gone. He has been struggling from behind the arc of late, and this game was no different, with him making just 1 of 5 threes, helping him to an offensive rating of 80.1 for this game. When you couple that with him using a hefty 35% of IU's possessions, you can see that as a rather large chunk of Indiana's offensive struggles. In fact, it seems that the lone bright spots (yes, I said "lone" along with a plural "spots" -- you can handle it) for Indiana offensively were Jordan Crawford and Armon Bassett. Crawford might be learning to pick his spots, as he used only 18% of the offensive possessions while he was on the floor, but he was blery efficient with them, posting an O rating of 141.3. That efficiency might also be the result of him playing less with the ball in his hand and more as a catch and shoot guy, but it's goodness either way. If he is learning to pick his spots, he might well be under the tutelage of Bassett, who continued his torrid shooting and quality play against UConn, hitting 6 of 8 3's (although even he couldn't hit 2's against the Huskies, going 0 for 2 on those shots), and posting an impressive O rating of 184 while using a typical 13% of the team's possessions. With numbers like that, Mr. Bassett might need to start taking a more active role in the offense.

This game didn't quite turn into the foul shooting contest I thought it might, but Connecticut did still get to the free throw line quite a bit, shooting 26 freebies, hitting on 69% of them. While the game wasn't a foul shooting contest, one could certainly argue that it played a big part in UConn's offense, and that's typical for them. No one person had an especially good offensive game for the Huskies, save perhaps Hasheem Thabeet, who posted an O rating of 155.2, although that was using only 11.4% of their possessions. That lack of stellar Husky offensive play suggests once again that it was the UConn D that ruled this game.

All in all, I think this game will serve as one of those "lesson games" for the Hoosiers, and, luckily for them, it's a lesson that doesn't affect their standing in the conference race. In a way, I don't think it's worth getting too worked up about, since there are precious few defenses in the country that play as well as UConn's, and there are even fewer who are so well-equipped to thwart the way the Hoosiers like to play on O. There just aren't many 7-footers in the country, much less those of the athletic, shot-blocking variety, and even that is to say nothing of him being bookended by two additional quality shot-swatters.