Welcome to “That’s A Wrap,” our attempt to um, wrap up the 2009-10 season. Sit back. Relax. Grab some popcorn. Get your read on.

I’m not sure how many of y’all are familiar with John Hollinger’s player efficiency rating (PER) for the NBA. So let’s go to a quick explanation of the metric from the man himself before we get started:

The player efficiency rating (PER) is a rating of a player’s per-minute productivity.

To generate PER, I created formulas — outlined in tortuous detail in my book “Pro Basketball Forecast” — that return a value for each of a player’s accomplishments. That includes positive accomplishments such as field goals, free throws, 3-pointers, assists, rebounds, blocks and steals, and negative ones such as missed shots, turnovers and personal fouls.

Two important things to remember about PER are that it’s per-minute and is pace-adjusted.

Because it’s a per-minute measure, it allows us to compare, say, Jordan Farmar and Derek Fisher, even though there is a disparity in their minutes played.

I also adjust each player’s rating for his team’s pace, so that players on a slow-paced team like Detroit aren’t penalized just because their team has fewer possessions than a fast-paced team such as Golden State.

Make sense?

Well, Hollinger, for the first time, has busted out PER for the college ranks — something he released last week. They revealed some interesting things. For instance, DeMarcus Cousins’ PER of 35.45 — league average PER is 15.00 in the NBA, and I’d assume that would follow for the NCAA — ranks No. 1 in the country. Teammate John Wall, the surefire No. 1 pick in this summer’s NBA Draft?

He didn’t crack the Top 100.

(more…)

Welcome to “That’s A Wrap,” our attempt to um, wrap up the 2009-10 season. Sit back. Relax. Grab some popcorn. Get your read on. All stats on this post come from the indispensable Kenpom.com.

The Hoosiers lost 11 straight Big Ten games this season. That’s enough to make a grown man cry, or at least throw his remote at the TV. But amidst all the turnovers and scoring drought, the missed layups and defensive lapses, there’s one thing to keep in mind: this team improved in pretty much every significant statistical category. Follow along on the magical journey.

(Oh, and for a point of reference: there were 344 Division I teams in 2008-09, and 347 this past season.)

+ Adj. Offensive Efficiency 2008-2009: 97.7 (228th in the country)
+ Adj. Offensive Efficiency 2009-2010: 100.2 (187th in the country)

Let’s be honest: 2.5 points more per 100 possessions — adjusted, that is — is far from a vast improvement. But it’s an improvement nonetheless. With IU’s turnover and opponent block rate still sky high this season — not to mention lower-percentage shots and scoring droughts running rampant — IU just wasn’t able to take a huge step up in this category.

With Mo Creek back, everyone else a year older and hopefully a better handle of the ball going forward, IU should be primed to take a larger leap next year.

+ Adj. Defensive Efficiency 2008-2009: 101.8 (178th in the country)
+ Adj. Defensive Efficiency 2009-2010: 100.7 (159th in the country)

Again. Not much improvement here. The Hoosiers only allowed one less point per 100 possessions from Tom Crean’s first year to his second. Size, athleticism, communication and inexperience were all culprits this season.

+ Adj. Tempo 2008-09: 66.5 possessions per game (164th in the country)
+ Adj. Tempo 2009-10: 68.8 possessions per game (96th in the country)

This is often times inconsequential: Wisconsin’s adj. tempo this season was 60.2 possessions per game, ranking them 340th in the country. But the Badgers get it done. Bo Ryan’s style of play is pass, pass, pass until the shot clock winds down and you find the best shot. As such, they don’t have time to gobble up more possessions per game; they use every one like it’s their last.

A noble concept.

(more…)

Many of you have your gripes about IU’s defense, and it’s justifiable. Many of you have gripes about IU’s offense. That, too, is justifiable. For the purposes of this post, I’m going to dig into some specifics on both sides of the ball (though, now that I look through this thing, it’s really just the offense), and seek to find a clearer understanding on why this team has lost eight straight Big Ten games.

Ready, set, go.

Start here.

Thanks to the Big Ten Geeks, here’s a scatter plot of offensive and defensive efficiency in the Big Ten as of yesterday:

Yes, not only is IU worst in the Big Ten offensively, as its only scoring about .93-.94 points per possession, but its second to last in defensive efficiency, allowing about 1.11 points per possession. If you want to know why IU has lost eight straight Big Ten games, you don’t have to look any further than these two numbers. When you aren’t scoring as much as your opponents, and you aren’t defending them well either, it’s sort of hard to get over the hump, ya dig?

When will they crack 60?

Let’s get visual, visual again. Via Statsheet, here’s IU scoring numbers:

IU has failed to eclipse the 60-point mark in its last four games, and barely did it in its fifth to last game — hitting 61 — in a loss to Northwestern. And pace really has nothing to do with the low amount of points IU is scoring: according to Ken Pomeroy, the Hoosiers’ adjusted pace of 68.6 possessions per game is a touch higher than the national average. They aren’t playing a slow game.

(more…)

On Monday, Matt touched on where we are mentally with this team right now. It’s summed up quite nicely with this sentence: “Despite the influx of talent, IU basketball might not live up to the hopes some optimists placed on them before the season.” (For another great take on where the Hoosiers are right now, I recommend Jeff Goodman’s piece from Puerto Rico.)

Anyway, I’m looking mostly to stay away from expectations and results and take a peek at on-court numbers. With a nod to stats lord Ken Pomeroy, here’s where the Hoosiers stack up through five games, as opposed to their entire body of work last season.

Adjusted Offensive Efficiency:

• 2008-09: 97.7 (228th in the country last year)
• 2009-10: 92.7 (currently ranks IU 248th in the country)

Adjusted Defensive Efficiency:

• 2008-09: 101.8 (178th in the country last year)
• 2009-10: 97.6 (currently ranks IU 150th in the country)

A quick refresher on how Pomery defines adjusted offensive/defensive efficiency:

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.

So what we’ve seen so far from IU  is that it’s holding the opposition to less points per 100 possessions, but the offensive is currently outputting five less points per 100 possessions, which is a somewhat sizable difference. Of course, the sample size of data is pretty small, as the Hoosiers have only  had 366 possessions this year, according to StatSheet.

The Hoosiers’ defense has been a bit poor this season — especially against George Mason — but it’s interesting to see it’s not as woeful as we might think, as 150th out of 347 DI teams puts IU into the top 43 percent of the country. Not great. But not horrible either.

(more…)

Peering at Ken Pomeroy’s ratings, you will see very high numbers next to Indiana’s stats. This is because they rank near the bottom of Division I basketball in a lot of categories. Here’s a quick run through as of yesterday, keeping in mind there are 344 Division-I basketball teams.

Some select offensive stats:

• Effective FG percentage: 46.9 percent (240th in the nation)
• Turnover percentage: 28.2 percent (341st in the nation)
• Offensive rebounding percentage: 32.9 percent (191st in the nation)
• Adjusted offensive efficiency: 91.6 points per 100 possessions (290th in the nation)

And onwards to defense:

• Effective field goal percentage: 51.6 percent (263rd in the nation)
• Turnover percentage: 24.5 percent (33rd in the nation)
• Offensive rebounding percentage: 35.0 percent (228th in the nation)

Notice anything that sticks out? (Hint: It’s in the title of this post and I’ve bolded it.) Yes, that’s right, you get the gold star: IU opponents are turning the ball over on 24.5 percent of their possessions, good for 33rd best in the nation. Out of all the Hoosiers’ stats, this is their outlier. (If you are unsure of what some of these stats are and would like them explained, peep this and this.)

(more…)