ADVERTISEMENT

Beginning of a New Era - or not.

rikki-tikka-tava

All-American
Jul 17, 2002
7,813
6,350
113
Season starts today and expectations are...varied. Roster is solid if a bit young but with much improved depth, no injuries or lingering conditions, some fresh coaching blood, couple of five stars along with the New Jersey HS POY, bounty of guards, orange no longer in vogue and the National Tournament is scheduled to take place in the backyard. Sounds good. No exhibitions to pressure test the Team, identify and work on issues against anyone other than Teammates or compare pros and cons of different rotations, first true tests come in road environments and the pandemic (which has already hit over 10% of DI Teams) has yet to reach its third and highest plateau (to date). Not so good.

Until they play a few Games there are really only questions. That won't stop/inhibit many from making sweeping statements, dire prognostications and generally damning the Program before the Season has even really begun, or conversely proclaiming that this year's IU Team is bound for the FF, but it's all gas until there's an actual body of work to judge against real competition. So, what are those questions? For my part:

1) What's the offensive and defensive effect of replacing Justin, Devonte and De'Ron? Justin was great on D, want to believe that Race, Jerome and Jordan are up to the task, De'Ron hardly played enough in relief of Brunk to make a huge difference, and seems that with the backcourt reinforcements and an extra year for IU's veterans, defense should eventually surpass where it left off at the end of last Season which was pretty good. Offensively, expect that TJD takes a solid step forward in production, same for Jerome and Race, and that the backcourt produces much better than last year both in terms of driving and from deep. Not enough to just make up the 20+ pts./game represented by departing Players, this Team needs to score more and more efficiently than last Season.

Miller was talking about limiting TOs as the most important thing for this Team - that in itself could translate into an extra 10-20+ pts. a game.

2) How much off-season improvement is there in individual efficiency? Does anybody make a significant jump (a la VO) from the previous year? Potential is there for almost all the vets, expect it to be something of a given for TJD, but keen to see about Rob, Armaan, Jerome and Reverend Durham.

3) How good are the freshmen out of the gate? By all accounts this is a really solid and maybe even special class. Most of the buzz is about Lander but am intrigued by the others and especially Geronimo. Along with assassin point guards am partial to wings that can slash to the rack and give other Teams fits on defense. Justin mostly only filled half the role despite his hops, should be interesting to see how Jordan (and Jerome & Race) fill the vacancy.

4) Assuming the backcourt rotation is six deep (per Coach Miller), does IU run a lot of three-guard rotation, and more importantly, can they effect the kind of offensive production that was so wanting most of last year? Don't think Franklin and Phinisee are the Players they were last year as both appear much bigger and stronger, Miller says their shooting from range (and Durham's) is improved, and the freshmen all seem to have some proficiency from deep. If true and they can pair that with enough ball movement and penetration (without the TOs) to disrupt defenses could be a lot of fun to watch.

5) Now that he has the personnel, does Archie's Team rise to meet expectations? Unless for some reason(s) the wheels come off by mid-Season and it all ends up in the ditch, think it's absurd to draw any conclusion or pass judgment before the Conference Tourney. In retrospect, have tended to be overly optimistic before Play begins - have reached a point where potential alone is no longer sufficient cause for excitement and any anticipation is of a rather sober variety. Just show me damnit. Want to see a brand of play in line with the best tradition of IU Basketball. If Coach Miller is 'all that', should become apparent this Season given the strength and depth of Roster. See him as a huge upgrade over the last guy, like his grounded in the Game no-nonsense straight-shooter approach, emphasis on defense, general intensity/demeanor and the simple fact that he doesn't sound like a used-car salesman trying to sell something he doesn't fully understand. But it's time. At a minimum want and expect IU to finish the Season ranked Top 20 nationally with some serious momentum. Likely won't be among those calling for his head if that doesn't happen, but any belief that he is 'the one' will migrate from positivity to skepticism.

So can we get to Tip-off already? Go IU!
 
I am counting the hours.

I will say, it's fairly unlikely that reducing TO's would create an additional 10-20 points per game. A TO is worth 1, maybe 1.5 points. IU Might cut 2 a game. It's worth 3-4 points.

That helps...but not 10-20 ppg.
 
I am counting the hours.

I will say, it's fairly unlikely that reducing TO's would create an additional 10-20 points per game. A TO is worth 1, maybe 1.5 points. IU Might cut 2 a game. It's worth 3-4 points.

That helps...but not 10-20 ppg.

Yeah, I started with 10, but then I remembered all the times with high double digit TOs and all the fast break points on the other end, and well, between the lost offense and opponents' scoring it seemed conservative. Didn't mean to say that IU can score an extra 20 but rather that's the potential cumulative damage from points lost + points made by the other side. If all the better they do is reducing TOs by 2/game I'd call that a disappointment given the proclivity demonstrated last year for giving the ball away. But yeah, 20 is likely excessive, but 10 not so much given that many of those TOs represent 3-5 pt. swings.

Like games where IU keeps the TOs in single digits, can't say as I recall many like that last year and remember a few where they couldn't even manage it for a single half. Just a killer on confidence, momentum and defense that while hard to sum statistically, exists all the same. Bet there where half a dozen games last Season where IU turned the ball over 3-4 times in the first five minutes. That has to change.
 
Yeah, I started with 10, but then I remembered all the times with high double digit TOs and all the fast break points on the other end, and well, between the lost offense and opponents' scoring it seemed conservative. Didn't mean to say that IU can score an extra 20 but rather that's the potential cumulative damage from points lost + points made by the other side. If all the better they do is reducing TOs by 2/game I'd call that a disappointment given the proclivity demonstrated last year for giving the ball away. But yeah, 20 is likely excessive, but 10 not so much given that many of those TOs represent 3-5 pt. swings.

Like games where IU keeps the TOs in single digits, can't say as I recall many like that last year and remember a few where they couldn't even manage it for a single half. Just a killer on confidence, momentum and defense that while hard to sum statistically, exists all the same. Bet there where half a dozen games last Season where IU turned the ball over 3-4 times in the first five minutes. That has to change.
A turnover costs us a shot attempt, which is worth around 1 point.

It doesn't give them points. It does give them a possession, which isn't worth anything, on its own. Live ball turnovers do lead to higher quality shots, but not all turnovers are live ball turnovers.

The increase in efficiency the other team gets from a live ball turnover is worth something. I'd guess it's worth about half a point, when you consider that not all turnovers are live ball turnovers, and adding half a point per possession to any team's efficiency would likely make them the best offense in the country. To be honest, half a point is still probably too high.

We lose a point, they gain half a point. Indiana averaged 12.6 turnovers per game last year (12.2 in conference). Getting it down below 10 per game may be a challenge. The best high major team last year was Notre Dame at 9.84 tpg. They went 20-12. Wisconsin was the only other high major team under 10 per game, and they play sloooooow. We probably wont play slow enough to get that low.

3 points per game matters....and turnovers matter...we should get them down...but they wont cause a 10 point swing.
 
A turnover costs us a shot attempt, which is worth around 1 point.

It doesn't give them points. It does give them a possession, which isn't worth anything, on its own. Live ball turnovers do lead to higher quality shots, but not all turnovers are live ball turnovers.

The increase in efficiency the other team gets from a live ball turnover is worth something. I'd guess it's worth about half a point, when you consider that not all turnovers are live ball turnovers, and adding half a point per possession to any team's efficiency would likely make them the best offense in the country. To be honest, half a point is still probably too high.

We lose a point, they gain half a point. Indiana averaged 12.6 turnovers per game last year (12.2 in conference). Getting it down below 10 per game may be a challenge. The best high major team last year was Notre Dame at 9.84 tpg. They went 20-12. Wisconsin was the only other high major team under 10 per game, and they play sloooooow. We probably wont play slow enough to get that low.

3 points per game matters....and turnovers matter...we should get them down...but they wont cause a 10 point swing.

Is there much of a discrepancy b/t home and away? If so, would having no fans in the stands narrow that gap?

Last year (especially early) it was very difficult to win conference road games. Some of that has to be the officiating (and the crowd’s influence on it). If there are no fans, that could really change things.
 
Last edited:
A turnover costs us a shot attempt, which is worth around 1 point.

It doesn't give them points. It does give them a possession, which isn't worth anything, on its own. Live ball turnovers do lead to higher quality shots, but not all turnovers are live ball turnovers.

The increase in efficiency the other team gets from a live ball turnover is worth something. I'd guess it's worth about half a point, when you consider that not all turnovers are live ball turnovers, and adding half a point per possession to any team's efficiency would likely make them the best offense in the country. To be honest, half a point is still probably too high.

We lose a point, they gain half a point. Indiana averaged 12.6 turnovers per game last year (12.2 in conference). Getting it down below 10 per game may be a challenge. The best high major team last year was Notre Dame at 9.84 tpg. They went 20-12. Wisconsin was the only other high major team under 10 per game, and they play sloooooow. We probably wont play slow enough to get that low.

3 points per game matters....and turnovers matter...we should get them down...but they wont cause a 10 point swing.

On average no, though in an isolated instance they absolutely could. Possibility notwithstanding, freely concede the point in finding your qualified response superior to my idle speculation. Much obliged.

9.48 eh? Sounds like a target. Always viewed single-digit TOs as an accomplishment but didn't realize that the gold standard is essentially ten per game.
 
On average no, though in an isolated instance they absolutely could. Possibility notwithstanding, freely concede the point in finding your qualified response superior to my idle speculation. Much obliged.

9.48 eh? Sounds like a target. Always viewed single-digit TOs as an accomplishment but didn't realize that the gold standard is essentially ten per game.
Thanks. It's nice to talk about basketball instead of watching certain posters crank it to the sound of their ever-growing post count.

Turnovers per game isn't always a useful stat. Turnover %, which accounts for pace of play, is better.

Wisconsin, for example, is usually near the lowest in TO per game, but that doesn't matter when you also are near the lowest in possessions per game.
 
Is there much of a discrepancy b/t home and away? If so, would having no fans in the stands narrow that gap?

Last year (especially early) it was very difficult to win conference road games. Some of that has to be the officiating (and the crowd’s influence on it). If there are no fans, that could really change things.
Not sure. But I think it's safe to assume that games will be called differently with no fans, and home court will be harder to defend as a result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: .Gerdis
On average no, though in an isolated instance they absolutely could. Possibility notwithstanding, freely concede the point in finding your qualified response superior to my idle speculation. Much obliged.

9.48 eh? Sounds like a target. Always viewed single-digit TOs as an accomplishment but didn't realize that the gold standard is essentially ten per game.
So, for reference, IU was 12th in the BIG and 130th in D1 in turnover percentage. That is not great, although that includes the non con schedule. We were better in conference play on a per game basis.

So...yes...needs improvement. Notre Dame lead the high majors at 13.9%. We were at 17.9% If we cut it by 4%, we score about 4 more points per 100 possessions...which is about 3 points per game from our side and maybe 1.5 from theirs. That's the difference between a winning big record and a losing big record for us last year.

EDIT...on the other hand, turnover improvement would not have put us in upper echelon of the conference, on its own. And Michigan State was almost as bad as we were last year on turnover percentage, and they tied for the league champ last year.

Seattle U., who lead all of D1 in turnover percentage, went 7-7 in the WAC, mainly because they were terrible at shooting 2's, fouling, rebounding, and defense.

No one wants us to hire Jim Hayford, I hope.

RE-EDIT...Hayford was the coach of Eastern Washington in 2014 when they beat us in Assembly. Yogi's Jr. year. I think we snuck into the tournament and lost to Greg Marshall at WSU in the first round, and then they beat CAM and Dayton in Rd. 2....IIRC.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. It's nice to talk about basketball instead of watching certain posters crank it to the sound of their ever-growing post count.

Turnovers per game isn't always a useful stat. Turnover %, which accounts for pace of play, is better.

Wisconsin, for example, is usually near the lowest in TO per game, but that doesn't matter when you also are near the lowest in possessions per game.

Speakingof pace of play, Nebraska likes to really run and kick. They will not be any easier to beat this year.
 
Speakingof pace of play, Nebraska likes to really run and kick. They will not be any easier to beat this year.
We will see. I know they had wholesale defections at the end of the year. We will have see if their new players are any better than the old ones.
 
Not sure. But I think it's safe to assume that games will be called differently with no fans, and home court will be harder to defend as a result.
This seems logical to me. However, the stats at the end of the season will help with the answer.
Are their conferences that are allowing fans?
 
Speakingof pace of play, Nebraska likes to really run and kick. They will not be any easier to beat this year.
They have a completely different team this year. 10 new players, only one starter returning
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT