Hey folks,
Sitting here at home watching a replay of the second half of the IU-Purdue women's game (excitement defined), and I thought it a good time to touch on something pertinent to our many conversations together: In the midst of a seven-game skid, what do we think about these Hoosiers?
For starters, I think all the optimists have been silenced. I myself was in some ways among them, more just wanting to give this team a chance before I wrote them off. Anyway, that question got answered.
Second, can we just assume inexperience is the major reason this team is what this team is? Obviously, it all goes back to these Hoosiers lack of collegiate minutes, but that's just not going to change any way but one, so let's leave it alone in this discussion.
Let's separate any analysis of weaknesses or strengths into two categories, tangibles and intangibles. There is definite crossover, but the two need to be split so they can be distinguished. It also means I get to do fun bold text headers now. Yay. I'll post tangibles now, let us debate for a bit, then I'll send up my intangibles.
Tangibles
Three-point defense We'll start with tangibles first, simply because they're a bit more isolated. This particular tangible has been plain bad for most of the Big Ten season. It goes even as far back as Michigan, when the Wolverines got plenty of decent looks and just couldn't get them to fall.
IU's defensive rotations and help just seem a step slow, something Tom Crean talked about after the Penn State game. They're contesting shots, but as Crean pointed out, getting a hand in a shooter's face as he's releasing isn't the same as having a hand in the same face as it begins its shot.
I'm not entirely sure how you fix this one, because IU also lacks a threatening defensive presence inside. IU threw a little bit of 1-3-1 at Penn State with Tom Pritchard in the middle, something that might prove a remedy. The corner three has been shown to be a statistically poor shot, something Crean himself believes, so playing one with defenders extended out toward the wings but still present to stop potential drives into the lane. Still have to cover the corner drive then, but it's a thought, certainly.
Free-throw shooting This one really only came up big in the Michigan game, to be fair, but IU is still dead last in the conference in their free-throw success rate, shooting just under 66 percent from the line. It's also a tough skill to coach, because free-throw shooting is something that is taught from the earliest stages of basketball development, so there really aren't many new ways to try to paint that house.
Obviously, again it comes back to inexperience, but it also reveals, I think, this team's fragile psyche. It looks many times like this particular statistic, or the failure implied by the low number, is contagious and bad for the Hoosiers' confidence.
If that's not the case, then I don't know what is, and if that is the case, then I don't really know how to fix it.
Rebounding/Second-chance points This one is a howler as well. The Hoosiers have gotten significantly better at rebounding, especially on the offensive end. They look more focused in box outs and in positioning, which have led to a lot fewer second looks for opponents. The Hoosiers are, in fact, fifth in the conference in rebound margin and defense, and third and first respectively in those lists in conference games.
The emerging problem, however, is that for all their offensive rebounds in conference games, the Hoosiers have not been able to capitalize on second chances. In six of their last seven games, including all five Big Ten games, the Hoosiers have tallied more offensive rebounds than second-chance points.
More frustratingly, most of the time, IU players have failed to capitalize on offensive rebounds by being a bit too quick to put the ball back up or simply by missing point-blank layups.
This one can probably be fixed just with some extra emphasis and a little more in-game seasoning. It will be an interesting sub-plot to the overall development of this team, because IU is averaging 12 offensive rebounds per Big Ten game at present.
Offensive execution This one has also gotten better, as the Hoosiers have displayed more sustained periods of offensive execution and confidence in said offense than they did earlier this year. But late in the Penn State game, down single digits with time ticking off, IU players looked like said confidence wavered. Part of that will come back to an intangible, but part of it also stems from a still-obvious lack of confidence in offensive sets in crunch time.
Often, the Hoosiers move the ball around the floor as though it's simply something they're supposed to do, as opposed to passing with specific purposes in mind. There are moments when the latter seems the case rather than the former, but the former really shouldn't be nearly as apparent as it is. Unfortunately, as with many other issues, this just gets resolved through two things, greater understanding of the offense that comes with time and greater confidence in the offense, which comes through success.
