Archie

[dbmhoosier]

4 minutes ago, Hoosier82 said:

Ok? If your opinion is that the defense is somehow better but the results are the same or worse whats the point in playing better defense?

Yet we're playing a tougher schedule, have a much inferior roster, and will still likely win more games than last season. 

[Hoosier82]

38 minutes ago, dbmhoosier said:

Yet we're playing a tougher schedule, have a much inferior roster, and will still likely win more games than last season. 

We have a significantly weaker schedule and we lost the two worst defensive players on our team and OG only played half the season last year anyway.  Is this your attempt at satire?

[dbmhoosier]

We're going to play 4 games against top 5 teams...PU, MSU twice, and Duke.  We also don't have as many Crean cupcakes this season.  Also had tough games at SH, at Louisville, and ND.  I don't care what the numbers say our schedule is not weaker.  And yeah losing our 2 best players is no big deal.

[bstall76]

21 minutes ago, Hoosier82 said:

We have a significantly weaker schedule and we lost the two worst defensive players on our team and OG only played half the season last year anyway.  Is this your attempt at satire?

Our Noncon sos last year 310 this year 260 

Strength of Schedule Metrics per Kenpom

Adjusted Efficiency 29, Opponents Offense 21, Opponents Defense 37   for 2018

                                   36                                      41                                     34   for 2017

So yes we have played a harder schedule this year than we did last, and we still have MSU and OSU to play at home as well as 3 away games.

[IU Scott]

17 minutes ago, dbmhoosier said:

We're going to play 4 games against top 5 teams...PU, MSU twice, and Duke.  We also don't have as many Crean cupcakes this season.  Also had tough games at SH, at Louisville, and ND.  I don't care what the numbers say our schedule is not weaker.  And yeah losing our 2 best players is no big deal.

Some people just rely on what the stats tells them instead of actually thinking for themselves,  To me there is no doubt the defense looks better this year.  We have won a couple of games scoring less than 70 points and how many times did we do that under Crean.  we held NW to 46 points and can't remember the last time we held a big ten opponent to 46 points.  I guess I am to old school because I am not big into the new metrics that we have in sports today. 

[FW_Hoosier]

As far as the defensive stats go, I agree with everyone else that you pretty much have to throw out non-conference games.  But I think stats in conference games are valid.  I don’t know where to find per possession stats for the conference up to this point, but here’s where we rank in some basic defensive stat categories in conference:

Opponent FG%: .451 (9th)

Opponent 2PFG%: .500 (8th)

Opponent 3PFG%: .369 (11th)

Opponent FTA per game: 16.4 (4th)

Opponent TOs per game: 14 (3rd)

Opponent PPG: 69.3 (7th)

IU SPG: 6.5 (2nd)

IU BPG: 3.4 (9th)

Kind of a mixed bag.  We’ve done a good job of forcing turnovers and keeping teams off the line in conference play at least.  Opponents’ shooting percentages and points per game not great.

[btownqb]

1 hour ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Fouls was having some fun, hence the riddle. That said, this is an overly simplistic way of looking at things. Our zone D is clearly better, if you have an argument to the contrary, I'd love to hear it. The 'pack line' D has been a thing in transition, as CAM changes our D and the players learn to run a new system. Looking at season percentages and points scored ignores that, among other things. Most here have been saying all season that our perimeter D has been bad -- it has -- because the team has been adjusting to learning how to run a different defense built on pack line. Yes, so the other guys score more points from the perimeter. No, that doesn't mean CAM isn't installing a better defensive system. This entire year is largely a transition year.

I don't remember any zone D that we've played?

[cohete15]

2 hours ago, Leathernecks said:

No we don't.  In pretty much every metric you can go by we are an average to below average team defensively.

107th in KenPom.

190th team defensive efficiency

155th in points allowed while playing at a pretty slow pace (257th in possessions per game) 

I don't need fancy statistics to tell me about our defense. I didn't need those stats to tell me we probably aren't very good defensively on paper. My eyes tell me we play a pretty good defense that has gotten a lot better since the beginning of the year. My eyes also tell me that we have no one bigger than 6'7 on the court. I don't, and haven't expected big stats on the defensive end, but I have seen us put a lot of pressure on the ball. I have seen us challenge a lot more shots. I don't think teams particularly enjoy playing against us. I do think we have a long way to go, but we aren't likely to get good defensive numbers with no one to challenge shots in the lane and no length whatsoever on the perimeter. We give up a lot of size all over the court, but we give up sooo much on the interior. And it's not just size, we give up aggressiveness because Juwan can't foul. 

So you're right, statistically, we aren't good. Stats essentially determine the outcome of games, I get it. But they don't tell the story behind the statement I made.

[cohete15]

18 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

 

Kind of a mixed bag.  We’ve done a good job of forcing turnovers and keeping teams off the line in conference play at least.  Opponents’ shooting percentages and points per game not great.

Without looking at stats, I think we get killed in the paint and that carries the opp FG%. And that's not surprising, considering our center is the size of an NBA shooting guard and has to play a pretty conservative style.

[KoB2011]

36 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

As far as the defensive stats go, I agree with everyone else that you pretty much have to throw out non-conference games.  But I think stats in conference games are valid.  I don’t know where to find per possession stats for the conference up to this point, but here’s where we rank in some basic defensive stat categories in conference:

Opponent FG%: .451 (9th)

Opponent 2PFG%: .500 (8th)

Opponent 3PFG%: .369 (11th)

Opponent FTA per game: 16.4 (4th)

Opponent TOs per game: 14 (3rd)

Opponent PPG: 69.3 (7th)

IU SPG: 6.5 (2nd)

IU BPG: 3.4 (9th)

Kind of a mixed bag.  We’ve done a good job of forcing turnovers and keeping teams off the line in conference play at least.  Opponents’ shooting percentages and points per game not great.

So fair to say overall in conference play our numbers are very average? Also fair to say that all things considered, between opponents, time between games and venues, we've had probably as difficult a schedule as anyone in conference? And I know you will agree with me on this because you've said it, but we aren't getting any help from the refs which would have a negative impact on our numbers, right?

I'd say that all of those add up to the fact that we actually are quite improved defensively, but that's just me. 

[btownqb]

We are better defensively. 

[bstall76]

Good article on roster makeup and how IU got where it is.

 

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/indiana/2018/02/01/insider-what-iu-basketball-missing-and-how-got-here/1088642001/

 

[Hoosier82]

1 hour ago, btownqb said:

I don't remember any zone D that we've played?

I don’t either and I’ve only missed one game...anyone know when we actually played zone D?

[cohete15]

14 minutes ago, bstall76 said:

Good article on roster makeup and how IU got where it is.

 

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/indiana/2018/02/01/insider-what-iu-basketball-missing-and-how-got-here/1088642001/

 

Jeremiah April, No. 410 overall, No. 44 center
Tim Priller, No. 436 overall, No. 107 power forward

LOL, not one, but two 400+ ranked recruits. Truly unacceptable.

[INDenizen]

I've enjoyed all the comments. Good discussion. I just think if we could get the ball to drop in the bucket more frequently a lot of our ills wouldn't look so bad. Shooting across the board and it all types (layups, 3s, FTs, even dunks at times) has been atrocious. Nobody is shooting to expectation. You just can't beat good teams with how things are going in this department. We have little room for error to stay in games with any team we play. My $.02.

[BGleas]

There is no question we’re a better defensive team this year, and it isn’t even really close. I don’t care what the numbers say, they don’t tell the entire story. As others have said, the year long numbers don’t take into account the progression of improvement, which should be clear to anyone being objective. 

Second, just use your eyes. We put way more pressure on the perimeter, our rotations are so much better and down with inifinitely more purpose. We don’t have guys constantly looking like they’re lost. Our help/recovery is way better. It’s really not even close. 

[Leathernecks]

 

1 hour ago, cohete15 said:

I don't need fancy statistics to tell me about our defense. I didn't need those stats to tell me we probably aren't very good defensively on paper. My eyes tell me we play a pretty good defense that has gotten a lot better since the beginning of the year. My eyes also tell me that we have no one bigger than 6'7 on the court. I don't, and haven't expected big stats on the defensive end, but I have seen us put a lot of pressure on the ball. I have seen us challenge a lot more shots. I don't think teams particularly enjoy playing against us. I do think we have a long way to go, but we aren't likely to get good defensive numbers with no one to challenge shots in the lane and no length whatsoever on the perimeter. We give up a lot of size all over the court, but we give up sooo much on the interior. And it's not just size, we give up aggressiveness because Juwan can't foul. 

So you're right, statistically, we aren't good. Stats essentially determine the outcome of games, I get it. But they don't tell the story behind the statement I made.

My God.  Nobody can say anything around here that even remotely suggests we aren't doing something amazing.  I literally said nothing about the guys we have on the team or the coach.  You literally just said "statistically, we aren't good" and gave reasons for why we won't be very good with these players.  All I replied to was you saying we're "pretty darn good."  Didn't say we haven't improved, didn't say we suck, didn't even have an opinion behind anything.

Last time I ever put in any time to a post.

[jblaz13]

Every aspect of the game is fluid within the context of history, games, seasons, tenures. 

You can slice it anyway you wish, but too many factors change on a near constant basis to establish a clear standard for playing the credit/blame game from one tenure to the next. 

Other than the sake of discussion, it's really pointless to debate much in the first year of a tenure without clear dramatic results for better or worse.

if IU went 2-20 or 20-2 the Crean/Miller credit/blame debate would be the same.

This team shows just enough similarities to Crean's tenure, and just enough differences to make it muddy at best..  

I see debating tenures as a macrocosm debating of a season, and seasons as a macrocosm of debating games.

If one game is too inconclusive to debate a season , then one season is too inconclusive to debate a coaching tenure.

There are too many ties to the prior tenure and not enough body of work with the current tenure in a first year. 

Anyone can feel free to agree or disagree, but it doesn't change reality that it can't come into proper focus without the system having been established first. 

Someone is always going to come along and either credit, or blame the new coach or the last coach in year one. 

The people commenting here who basically implied the same thing appear the most objective.

Nothing else to for me to really be sold on other than very specific aspects of the game.

This roster has changed too much from last year to this year, and too much from day 1 to now. 

Debating is just leads to a quagmire of varying opinions. 

That said it is a very interesting topic for the sake of discussion, and it's yielded some really good perspectives from several posters.

What I do not debate is players are being held more accountable, and that was my biggest issue with Crean.

THAT has certainly improved, and it typically pays positive dividends, even when the record doesn't reflect the changes just yet. This team cares more, and therefore most of us care more than before.

I bet if IU earns the right to host an NIT game, Glass won't be terrified enough of the negative publicity to move the game to Atlanta.Lol  He would still likely decline the CBI. We would all be thrilled if this team willed it's way to the dance, but as of now that's not going to happen.

Can we agree on that part? 

Time will tell what it leads to.

FYI, I'm going on no sleep, and multiple beers, so I don't know whether to credit or blame the sleep or the beer for this reply.

.

[FKIM01]

50 minutes ago, Hoosier82 said:

I don’t either and I’ve only missed one game...anyone know when we actually played zone D?

I'm pretty sure I remember switching to zone at least two times this season.  I can't remember which game(s) but I'm pretty sure it happened.  I don't think they stayed in it long...just showed a wrinkle a couple of times.  I think it looked pretty good too.

[FW_Hoosier]

1 hour ago, KoB2011 said:

So fair to say overall in conference play our numbers are very average? Also fair to say that all things considered, between opponents, time between games and venues, we've had probably as difficult a schedule as anyone in conference? And I know you will agree with me on this because you've said it, but we aren't getting any help from the refs which would have a negative impact on our numbers, right?

I'd say that all of those add up to the fact that we actually are quite improved defensively, but that's just me. 

Yeah, I’d say it’s pretty average, and definitely better than last year when we were bottom of the barrel pretty much across the board.  I’d also say that having an average defense in conference play is a decent accomplishment for Archie considering that we are really undersized in the paint with Morgan, McSwain, and Smith.  I think we can expect the defense to consistently be pretty tough going forward.

[Hoosierhoopster]

3 hours ago, btownqb said:

I don't remember any zone D that we've played?

No I was talking about playing against the zone, the way CAM uses Morgan and Hartman to break it. My bad for the bad wording

[btownqb]

15 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

No I was talking about playing against the zone, the way CAM uses Morgan and Hartman to break it. My bad for the bad wording

Oh yes. That's certainly been better. Especially since we aren't a good shooting team. 

[NotIThatLives]

3 hours ago, FKIM01 said:

I'm pretty sure I remember switching to zone at least two times this season.  I can't remember which game(s) but I'm pretty sure it happened.  I don't think they stayed in it long...just showed a wrinkle a couple of times.  I think it looked pretty good too.

Yeah but did we start a possession in man and then switch to zone or vise versa in the middle of the play?  That is a true sign of a good defense.  

[Leathernecks]

8 hours ago, NotIThatLives said:

Yeah but did we start a possession in man and then switch to zone or vise versa in the middle of the play?  That is a true sign of a good defense.  

I forget what team I was watching earlier in the year, but they did that a few times and it worked well.  It was one of the top tier coaches too like a Coach K, Izzo, etc.  Can't remember which one.  The announcers even commented on how effective it could be.

Our problem was that when we would switch we would have 1 guy playing zone, 1 guy playing man, and 3 guys not playing anything.

[Zuckerkorn]

13 hours ago, cohete15 said:

Jeremiah April, No. 410 overall, No. 44 center
Tim Priller, No. 436 overall, No. 107 power forward

LOL, not one, but two 400+ ranked recruits. Truly unacceptable.

Yes.  It showed two clear issues:

1. No anticipation of future developments or changes to the roster - this is why we have had years with no shooters and/or post players.  In other words poor roster management.

2. Far too many players that were not division 1 caliber (or borderline at best) as you mention.  I understand having an occasional project player that has high reward potential, but those have to be infrequent and part of an otherwise solid roster.

(3) Sure a lot of defections.  I'm suspicious of having so many players that aren't locks for the lottery or even first round deciding to flee.  I have to wonder if they see that in the former regime they weren't going to gain any benefit (improvement/development) by staying.