Free throw rate: The one factor that jumps out immediately is free throw rate. Indiana made a remarkable leap in this stat compared to the Maryland game (31.4%). The fact that it came in a game away from Assembly Hall is even more impressive. Not only did the Hoosiers get to the line at a much higher rate than Pittsburgh, they shot about nine percent higher than their season average. As Pitt coach Jamie Dixon said afterward, it’s tough to win when you’re outscored by 13 at the foul line.

Turnover percentage: With the exception of the Boston game, this was IU’s best performance of the season for this stat. And they did it against a program that’s known for toughness and playing solid defense. If not for five turnovers in the final six minutes during Pitt’s run, this number would have been even lower. Nonetheless, it was an excellent showing in terms of taking care of the ball.

Effective field goal percentage: This was Pittsburgh’s worse showing to-date for eFG% and for Indiana, it was their best performance against a major-conference opponent. (43.4% against Ole Miss and 37.9% against Maryland.) For the record, IU’s 45.4 eFG% isn’t particularly great and 37.1% from Pitt is dreadful.

Offensive rebounding percentage: This is a stat in which most of us thought Pittsburgh would have the biggest advantage going in, but despite their 19 offensive rebounds, they scored just 14 second chance points.

First, the big picture: It got a little too close for comfort at the end of the game, and it took longer than some IU fans would have liked, but the Hoosiers finally have a signature win under Tom Crean. Yes, Pitt isn’t at full strength. Yes, they are projected to finish in the bottom half of the Big East this year. But this was still a team that came in to the game 7-1, and was favored to win the game on a court they’re far more comfortable with than IU. Congrats are also in order to Tom Crean, who notched his 200th career win with the victory.

The story of this one? IU outworked and out-hustled Pitt the whole night. They deserved to win this game. Their zone was active around the arc; they closed in quick on open shooters. But, the Hoosiers also seemed to have caught Pitt at the right time: they only scored 47 points Friday in a win, and tonight their offensive woes continued. Sure, IU’s D deserves some credit, but Pitt only shot 31.4 percent from the floor tonight. They were sloppy at points, and had 15 turnovers on the evening. It’s clear their halfcourt game is a work in progress right now, and the Hoosiers capitalized on it. They had a plan, and executed it.

Big ups to Verdell Jones. He had 20 points on the night, and hit some key shots. Sometimes Jones get lost in the shuffle when we talk about Maurice Creek and Christian Watford being able to score in bunches, but when Jones in on, when he’s pulling some crafty moves out of his pockets like he did tonight, he’s a joy to watch.

The Hoosiers only had 12 turnovers tonight, and they finally shot well as they hit 24-of-54 shots from the floor for 44.4 percent. (They were only 1-of-7 from three-point land, though.) Good things happen when you shoot a respectable percentage from the field and take care of the ball. They dominated in the paint, too: 40 points for them, while Pitt managed half that at 20. And they were able to dominate the free-throw game as well: the Hoosiers converted on 25 of their 34 attempts, good for 73.5 percent. Pitt had 17 foul shots on the night, and converted 12 of them.

This was the type of display IU fans were hoping to see in Puerto Rico and against Maryland, but didn’t get. If the Hoosiers can build off this win and the confidence they’ve gained from it, they should be able to stay competitive in Big Ten play, and maybe even surprise a bit.

THE BAD AND UGLY: THE END.

On nights like tonight, it’s hard to gripe much about this team, especially where they’re at right now with so many new faces and schemes. But Indiana did have some trouble finishing this game out. They were up 18 points with 2:58 to play, and saw the league shrink to six with 58 seconds to go. In two minutes, a blowout became a game that was too close for comfort. Part of Pitt’s comeback was because they finally started hitting shots. But Indiana had some trouble with Pitt’s pressure, they had some lapses on the defensive end and they didn’t seal up on the boards. The Panthers ended up out-rebounding IU 45-39, including 21 offensive boards. They had some key offensive rebounds late, and it helped keep them within striking distance. If Pitt converts more of their second-chance opportunities, this game may have ended up in the loss column for IU.

But alas: it did not. IU moves to 4-4 on the season with a big win over Pitt.

Bring on the Wildcats.

They left with a surprising and convincing 74-64 victory, the most impressive win to date of the Tom Crean era. It was the 200th career victory for the second year coach.

The Hoosiers (4-4) controlled the paint and the pace and led by as many as 18 before fighting off a late Pitt rally in the Jimmy V Classic.

“From the nine minute mark on, they never, ever wavered when it came to how they were talking to each other in the sense of finishing,” Crean said. “It was all about defense. I could have not talked offense those last nine minutes and I think they still would have been fine because they were so locked in to defending.”

Indiana held Pitt to just 31 percent shooting and outscored the Panthers 40-20 in the paint.

Verdell Jones scored 20 points to lead IU and Christian Watford added 18 points, including 10 of 13 from the foul line. Indiana hit 25 of 34 free throws.

The Hoosiers began to pull away near the midway point of the second half. After Pitt cut the lead to 41-37 on a Brad Wanamaker layup, Indiana answered with seven straight points over a four-minute stretch.

The run was capped by a Devan Dumes three-pointer, which gave IU its first double-digit lead with 11:06 remaining. It was Indiana’s only three-pointer in the game.

“We get some incredible teachable moments out of a win,” Crean said. “They needed something to go right, that they can hang their hat on. We needed this.”

Pittsburgh, which out-rebounded Indiana 45-39, was led by a career-high 25 points from Ashton Gibbs. Wanamaker added 18 points.

Pick to Click winner: Jones

Bob Knight in attendance: The Hall of Fame coach worked the pre-game and post-game for ESPN and watched the Hoosiers in-person for the first time since 2000.

Watford on the crowd in the Garden: “I didn’t see many Pitt fans. When I looked around, I saw our fans, Hoosier nation.”

Jones on holding onto the lead: “Leadership really came into it. Devan (Dumes) did a great job, behind the scenes, of calming us down. It was a big game, nationally televised game, we knew that and we really wanted to win. Our hunger really showed.”

Indiana at Madison Square Garden: Indiana moved to 12-8 all-time at MSG. It was IU’s first win in the venue since 1996, when the Hoosiers beat Duke 85-69 in the Preseason NIT.

Jamie Dixon on IU’s performance: “I think they did a good job of taking us off the dribble. They got some scores inside from the big guys. They got to the free-throw line. They get to the free-throw line a lot but they also foul a lot and put guys on the free-throw line. Our goal was to get to the free-throw line. They outscored us by 13 from the free-throw line and they outscored us by 10. When you look at the stats of their opponents, their opponents are out-shooting them at the free-throw line and we didn’t do that tonight. The zone and how they defended early put us in that situation.”

Based on its final AP ranking — No. 4 — and NCAA Tournament seeding — No. 1 in the East region — you can argue that the 2008-2009 version of the Pittsburgh Panthers failed to reach its own expectations. Jamie Dixon had the horses to reach Detroit, but a brilliant regional final performance by Villanova sent Dixon, DeJuan Blair, Levance Fields and Sam Young back to Pittsburgh a weekend early.

Dixon’s nine tournament wins in the past six seasons are tops for any coach who’s yet to reach a Final Four. His ability to teach defense and rebounding makes him one of the more respected coaches in the country. And until he landed freshman Dante Taylor in the 2009 class, all of his success at Pitt has come without the help of a single McDonald’s All-American.

So it should be no surprise that despite the losses of Blair (2nd round pick by the Spurs), Young (2nd round pick by the Grizzlies), Fields and Tyrell Biggs, Dixon is having early season success with this year’s team. Pitt is 7-1, with its only loss coming to No. 2 Texas back on November 24. Even more impressive is that they’ve done it without the services of senior guard Jermaine Dixon, the team’s lone returning starter who is recovering from a foot injury and Gilbert Brown, who was suspended for the fall semester for academic reasons.

It’s a new cast of characters, but the basic principles remain the same: defend, rebound and most importantly, be tougher than your opponent. It’s the formula that has placed Dixon atop the wish list of many an athletic director the past few off-seasons. But still he remains at Pitt, where he’s won 170 games in 6+ seasons and holds an impressive 70-30 record in Big East games.

Sophomore Ashton Gibbs, a 6-2 guard, has emerged as the go-to-guy offensively through eight games. Gibbs is averaging 16.1 points and is hitting 90 percent of his free throws. Junior guard Brad Wanamaker is arguably Pitt’s best rebounder (6 per game) and their second leading scorer at 12.5 per contest. Both players will likely see their scoring numbers decline upon the returns of Dixon and Brown.

The rest of the cast, with the exception of Taylor (more on him in a minute), is largely composed of role players from last year’s team. Gary McGhee, a 6-10 forward from Anderson (IN), is the leading rebounder after scarce minutes a season ago. Nasir Robinson, a 6-5 forward, has been thrust into a starting role after playing just five minutes per game in 2008-2009. And their point guard is Travon Woodall, a 5-11 redshirt freshman who played in only 10 games last year before suffering a season-ending injury.

Taylor, for all the hype that surrounded his arrival, has yet to scratch the surface of his potential. Dixon has limited him to 16.4 minutes a contest off the bench, but his numbers (5.4 points and 6.1 rebounds), suggest he’ll supplant McGhee from the lineup sooner rather than later. The team Indiana will see Tuesday is likely a shell of the one Dixon hopes he’ll be able to mold into his seventh consecutive tournament team. Once Taylor blossoms and the combination of Dixon and Brown returns, Pitt will be well one it’s way to another 20-win season and a likely NCAA berth.

The below chart shows how the Hoosiers rank nationally in comparison with Tuesday’s opponent, Pittsburgh, in the four factors — effective field goal percentage/effective field goal percentage defense, turnover percentage/opponent turnover percentage, offensive rebounding percentage/defensive rebounding percentage and free throw rate/opponent free throw rate.

The final number, which Ryan used in his piece last week, is adjusted offensive and defensive efficiency, defined by Pomeroy as:

Raw offensive efficiency is points scored per 100 offensive possessions. The adjusted version adjusts for the quality of opposing defenses, the site of each game, and when each game was played (recent games get more weight). Defensive efficiency is points allowed per 100 defensive possessions, adjusted for the same things.

One thing that immediately jumps out is that Pittsburgh is superior in essentially every category and in a few, they’re considerably better.

Factors in Indiana’s favor: The one factor in which Indiana holds a measurable advantage is defensive turnover percentage. IU is forcing a turnover on 25% of opponent possessions. But you could argue that the effect of this stat is negated by the fact that IU is turning it over on 22.4% of its possessions.

Factors in Pittsburgh’s favor: The Hoosiers are a respectable 113th in the country in offensive rebounding percentage, rebounding 35% of their missed shots. However, Pitt ranks sixth in defensive rebounding, corralling 75.8% of their opponents’ missed shots.

Opponent free throw rate (311th/51.4% for IU), which is FTA/FGA, is also troublesome when you consider how good of a job Pittsburgh (39th/48.7%) does in getting to the line.

And finally, the adjusted offensive/defensive efficiency numbers are pretty one-sided. Pitt has been 20 points better than opponents in offensive efficiency (107.5) compared to defensive efficiency (87.0). IU, meanwhile, has both numbers riding side-by-side: 97.3 offensive efficiency versus 97.7 defensive efficiency.

(Thanks to mgoblog for the idea on the chart layout.)

The Indiana University men’s basketball team will face Pittsburgh in the second game of the 2009 Jimmy V Classic scheduled for 9 p.m., Tuesday December 8 in New York’s Madison Square Garden. Butler will face Georgetown in the opening contest at 7 p.m., with both games set to air on ESPN.  This is the 15th Annual Classic, with Indiana making its second appearance in the event (1999).

“My wife and I are contributors to the V Foundation and it is an honor for us to participate in the Jimmy V Classic,” said IU Head Coach Tom Crean.  “This is annually one of the premiere events in college basketball and it is always exciting to take a team to Madison Square Garden.  We have great respect for the Pittsburgh program.”

The two early-season college basketball events showcasing top programs on ESPN and ESPN2 will conclude the third annual Jimmy V Week, a week-long initiative across multiple ESPN platforms and programs featuring special content to help raise funds for cancer research December 2-8.

Maybe I’m a bit optimistic, but I’ve got a good feeling this could be a win for our Hoosiers. The top three players for Pitt, Dejuan Blair, Sam Young and Levance Fields, are gone. And IU will no longer have to rely on Daniel Moore or Michael Santa to run the point. Is it time for Hoosier Hysteria yet? Hey, it was worth a shot.