There’s been plenty of conversation in the days following Indiana’s loss to Syracuse on just what went wrong. Some blamed the coaching. Poor preparation against the zone, they said. Others blamed the players. After all, the coaching staff wasn’t out there missing all those shots and turning the ball over. The Hoosiers were bested by a lengthy, athletic team playing a terrific zone they’d never seen before. They admitted to overthinking things on the court — which only compounded the problem.

Yet, a closer inspection of Indiana’s numbers reveal this: Its offense, the most efficient in the nation heading into the tournament, was nothing more than average, if that, in the month of March.

A look:

Striking JMU from consideration — a contest the Hoosiers scored 1.35 points per possession against a team with a talent level more on par with a November opponent than a March one — Indiana scored less than a point per possession in its other seven games. And its shooting absolutely fell off the table. The Hoosiers shot over 40 percent from 3-point range in November, December, January and February. But in March — whether we include the JMU game or not — Indiana shot around only 30 percent from distance.

Continue reading this post »

The Big Ten season starts in less than a month. Every men’s basketball team has played at least six games; seven have played either seven or eight games. That puts more than half the conference at or near the quarter turn of the regular season.

With this in mind, a look at where Indiana is stacking up in a host of statistical categories vs. its Big Ten foes through Sunday’s games. It’s a little early to draw any grand conclusions just yet from all this, but from available non-conference data at present, here’s a look:

Despite a 5-3 record, Wisconsin sports the 10th best offense in the country and the 23rd best defense (see below). The Kohl Center is never an easy place to play — although one of the Badgers’ losses does come at home already this season (Virginia) — so it’ll be interesting to see what the team is able to do come conference time. And if you needed any further proof that the Big Ten is good, look no further than it having five of the top 13 offenses in the country.

Michigan State’s defense — which finished third nationally last season — is back, just behind Indiana’s and good for sixth in the country. With a 13th ranked offense and 19th ranked defense, Minnesota is looking like it could make some noise once Big Ten season hits. Michigan is getting a lot of deserved buzz of late for their strong start after some thought they were ranked a bit too high to start the year. While their offense has been crazy efficient (third in the nation), a 30th ranked defense has room to improve. Penn State and Nebraska? Well, neither team is very good.

Continue reading this post »

Twelve non-conference games in the books. And twelve victories for Indiana.

With an assist from KenPom, here’s a look at where the Hoosiers’ strong start stacks up with their conference foes as the Big Ten season kicks off this evening:

OFFENSE

No team in the conference boasts a more efficient offense than the Hoosiers heading into Big Ten play. KenPom currently ranks them as the No. 7 offensive in the nation in terms of adjusted offensive efficiency (115.8), though Ohio State (11th, 114.3) and Wisconsin’s slow-tempo-look-for-the-best-shot offense (12th, 114.0) aren’t far behind. (Adjusted offensive efficiency is the number of points a team scores per 100 possessions, which KenPom adjusts for level of competition.) From there, Northwestern (20th), Michigan (30th), Michigan State (33rd), Minnesota (38th) and Purdue (40th) round out the top 40. Though Illinois has played somewhat well and has spent time in the Top 25, the Illini’s offense (108th) has held them back.

Indiana sports the second-highest eFG% (57.7, 6th in the nation) in the conference behind Michigan (58.2, fourth in the nation) and its 3-point percentage (45.9 percent) is tops in the conference and good for second in the nation. The Hoosiers’ free throw rate (FTA/FGA) of 50.5 also tops the conference.

As we’ve seen, the offense has been a multi-pronged attack: easy buckets in transition, efficient scoring from Cody Zeller down low, slashing and mid-range work from Victor Oladipo and Will Sheehey, lots of free throws and deadly 3-point accuracy no matter what the situation. Add in an offensive rebounding percentage of 36.7 percent (57th in the nation) and Indiana is getting second-chance opportunities as well.

But conference play will test all this, as several Big Ten teams sport some of the best defenses in the country.

Continue reading this post »

Welcome to “That’s A Wrap,” our attempt to make some sense of the 2010-11 season. Sit back. Relax. Grab some popcorn. Get your read on. Today: Indiana’s Team Defense.

Final Stats: 68.2 ppg, 43.3 FG %, 36.4 3PT %, 49.6 eFG %, 19.9% turnover percentage

Two bigs problems for Indiana’s defense this season.

You may know them already.

Its opponents’ free-throw rate of 50.2 percent ranked 333rd in the nation. Not one major conference program fared worse. This team fouled and fouled and fouled, and then fouled some more. Tom Pritchard (6.5 fouls per 40 minutes) Derek Elston (5.7) and Bobby Capobianco (10.7) were Indiana’s biggest culprits. But freshmen Will Sheehey (5.5)  and Victor Oladipo (4.8) contributed to the problem, as did Daniel Moore (5.0) in a limited role.

Most games the opponent held the advantage at the line. Twenty-plus attempts from the opposition was common. When your margin for error against quality Big Ten opponents is already small, giving away so many freebies can sink your ship fast. To put this in perspective, Indiana finished dead last during the conference season by allowing 473 free-throw attempts. Northwestern, which finished a spot ahead in 10th, allowed over 100 less at 358.

Indiana’s other defensive issue — one not in the box score or measured by advanced statistics — was a communication and assignment breakdown. Often, Indiana failed to execute in its half-court defense, leaving opposing players wide open for 3-pointers, something Film Session covered early and late. And a lack of strong communication between the five players on the court sometimes left Indiana scrambling to pick up the pieces as the opponent got a clean look at the basket.

Between the open looks and free throws, Indiana finished the season allowing 1.14 points per possession, which tied them for last in the Big Ten with Northwestern. And their adjusted defensive efficiency in-conference regressed year-over-year, too (111.8 in 2009-10 to 113.7 in 2010-11).

Continue reading this post »

A little over a month ago, I took a look at Indiana’s efficiency numbers just four games into the Big Ten season.

Things were not pretty on the defensive end.

Have things changed with a larger sample size?

Read on:

DEFENSE:

Last time around, Indiana ranked last in the Big Ten, as it was giving up 1.26 points per possession to its opponents. Though not a spectacular defensive squad now, the Hoosiers have improved. They now sit at 1.11 points per possession, ahead of only basement-dwelling Northwestern (1.15), tied with Michigan and just behind both Iowa (1.1) and Michigan State (1.1). So if Indiana flashes some solid D the rest of the way out, it’s possible it could leapfrog the Hawkeyes and Spartans and finish seventh or better in the conference in terms of defensive efficiency, provided Michigan and Northwestern don’t jump ahead of them.

Better communication, more resolve and less lapses have allowed the Hoosiers to defend the 3-point line better. After being up at 51.4 percent (eleventh) through four games, the team has now allowed Big Ten opponents to shoot 39.2 percent (ninth), ahead of Michigan State (42 percent) and Northwestern (39.5 percent). This has helped drop their opponents’ effective field-goal percentage from 59.9 percent (tenth in conference) to 51.9 (seventh).

Indiana has also done a better job of fouling less frequently, as their opponents’ free-throw rate has dropped from 69.5 (eleventh) to 53.6 percent. Mind you, this is still dead last in the league by a long shot, as Northwestern is tenth at 43 percent.

Again, not stellar, but it’s an improvement. This team is better defensively than their wayward start showed.

Continue reading this post »

Four games is only representative of 22.2 percent of Indiana’s 18-game slog through the Big Ten schedule.

There are a lot of games left on the docket — which, may further downward spiral your funk about this team, or give you hope that not all is lost, depending on your current mental state in regards to these Hoosiers.

But in the interest of casting a wider net on what’s wrong with this team in the present, here’s a look at the numbers angle.

Onward:

DEFENSE

Let’s just get this out of the way first: Indiana’s defense has been terrible through four Big Ten games. They’re allowing the competition to score 1.26 points per possession, ranking them last in the league. They’re also 10th in the league in opponent effective field-goal percentage, allowing a mark of 59.9 percent. All those open threes aren’t helping matter here, as the Hoosiers are also dead last in opponent 3-point percentage at 51.4 percent.

The Hoosiers also struggle on the defensive glass, as their defensive rebounding percentage mark of 62.4 percent ranks 10th in the league. (Though, I suppose it bears a mention that Minnesota, an opponent of Indiana in these first four contests, is the top offensive rebounding team in the conference so far.)

And don’t forget the constant fouls, perhaps IU’s most egregious defensive weakness. Indiana’s opponent  free-throw rate is 69.5 percent, ranking the Hoosiers last in the conference in that department. They’ve allowed 130 foul-shot attempts. The next closest is Northwestern with 88.

Indiana isn’t so middling in terms of  block percentage (7.5 percent, seventh) steal percentage (eight percent, sixth), and opponent turnover percentage (fifth, 18.8 percent), but these defensive facets aren’t enough to overcome its shooting defense and rebounding shortcomings.

Allowing uncontested looks, second-chance attempts and a high rate of free throws is simply not a recipe for defensive success.

Continue reading this post »