Pace: 65 possessions. The last two games have brought Indiana's average possessions per game down to 68.8 after resting comfortably in the 70 to 75 range before the Hoosiers took on Illinois. If the Hoosiers upped their pace back to that level, it could pay off for them in the long run.
Efficiency (points per 100 possessions):
Indiana -- 116.2
Maryland -- 120.9
If someone were to look at the box score of this game, without looking at the score, they would probably assume the Hoosiers won the game. Indiana protected the ball better, shot better from 2-point range, and shot better from deep. That's why this game is probably a frustrating one for Hoosier fans. Indiana did everything they needed to do, except protect the offensive glass. They allowed Maryland to get 45 percent of their offensive rebound opportunities. That's inexcusable.
Bruno Fernando is a dominant force on the offensive glass, but at some point, you have to adjust to take him out of those areas where he can dominate. Indiana was not aggressive enough when they boxed him out, and he simply reached over their heads to get boards. Had the Hoosiers put their weight into him and boxed out with intensity and aggression, it could have forced some over-the-back foul calls and gotten Fernando into foul trouble.
On offense, there wasn't a whole lot Indiana did wrong. Devonte Green wasn't very effective, but he wasn't bad enough to drag the offense down. They didn't turn the ball over much and they shot the ball well. There is one area Indiana could improve in general, and that's allowing Juwan Morgan to facilitate more from the post. There are several ways to do this, but there's one in particular that could help Indiana's shooters: hammer screens.
The hammer screen is frequently used in the NBA because it opens up players for corner threes, which are shorter in the NBA than other 3-point shots. The basic setup would allow Morgan to work as a passer in the post while eliminating spacing issues that might exist because Justin Smith isn't a good shooter. The hammer screen is set up with a big on each low block, or one on the low block and the other in the "dunker" spot, a spot just below the block, but closer to the baseline, and a a guard on each wing, with the ball handler at the top of the key.
For this example, and for clarity, we'll say Justin Smith is in the dunker spot, with Morgan on the block, Romeo Langford on the wing nearest Morgan, Al Durham on the opposite wing, and Rob Phinisee as the ball handler. The play begins with Phinisee passing to Langford on the wing. once Langford gets the ball, Smith sets the hammer screen, coming up to Durham on the wing from below the rim. Smith sets a back screen on Durham's man that allows Durham to freely cut off the screen to the corner on the same side of the floor.
Langford would then make an entry pass to Morgan in the post. As Durham is coming off the screen, Morgan would have the ball, and this is where his passing comes into play. If the screen frees Durham in the corner, Morgan can make the pass from the opposite post, giving Durham an open 3-point shot. If Durham's man overplays and doesn't allow that opening, Durham has an opening to cut toward the hoop where Smith previously was. Once again, Morgan is more than capable of making this pass for an easy bucket.
This play may already be in Archie Miller's playbook, but it's not something they went to against Maryland. The Terrapins are a team that it could've exposed because they feature two bigs, including one in Fernando who isn't quick laterally. Hammer screens are a great way to generate passing lanes for Morgan to see from the post. There's also a variation that involves Langford and Morgan running a pick and roll on their side of the floor, allowing Langford to make the pass to Durham off a drive. With an offense that relies on two primary options, surrounded by shooters and cutters, this is a great way to generate offense.
Indiana Identity Stats:
1) Defensive Effective Field Goal Percentage (Normal FG%, but gives 50 percent more credit for made threes) -- 47.6 percent.
This is a little higher than Indiana's season average, but it's nothing egregious. Indiana didn't lose because Maryland shot the ball well.
2) Turnover rate (turnovers/possessions) -- 10.8 percent.
Another great performance when it comes to turnovers for Indiana. They're improving as the season goes along, and it seems like this is more of a trend than an outlier.
3) Offensive Rebounding Rate Allowed (how well you protected the defensive glass): 45 percent.
This is why Indiana lost. Archie Miller even said so. Maryland crashed the offensive glass all game and got second chance opportunities time and time again.
Summary/Looking Ahead:
At the end of the season, this will probably be a game the Hoosiers wish they had back. They played a good Maryland team and had a win within their grasp. There are still positives to take away, because outside of the offensive rebounding rate they allowed, they played very well. Indiana is improving with its turnovers, which was the biggest issue they faced in non-conference play. That's a major story moving forward.
The Hoosiers won't have much time to dwell on this loss, with a game on Monday against a Nebraska team that is hungry for more Big Ten wins. The Cornhuskers are 2-3 in the conference and coming off a much needed victory over Penn State on Thursday. They're a very good team that also lost to Maryland by one possession on the road. Monday will be a battle, just as most of Big Ten play will be. As I've said on our podcast previewing this month's games, going 4-4 in the month should be considered a win for Indiana. A win against Nebraska will put them back on track for that.
Efficiency (points per 100 possessions):
Indiana -- 116.2
Maryland -- 120.9
If someone were to look at the box score of this game, without looking at the score, they would probably assume the Hoosiers won the game. Indiana protected the ball better, shot better from 2-point range, and shot better from deep. That's why this game is probably a frustrating one for Hoosier fans. Indiana did everything they needed to do, except protect the offensive glass. They allowed Maryland to get 45 percent of their offensive rebound opportunities. That's inexcusable.
Bruno Fernando is a dominant force on the offensive glass, but at some point, you have to adjust to take him out of those areas where he can dominate. Indiana was not aggressive enough when they boxed him out, and he simply reached over their heads to get boards. Had the Hoosiers put their weight into him and boxed out with intensity and aggression, it could have forced some over-the-back foul calls and gotten Fernando into foul trouble.
On offense, there wasn't a whole lot Indiana did wrong. Devonte Green wasn't very effective, but he wasn't bad enough to drag the offense down. They didn't turn the ball over much and they shot the ball well. There is one area Indiana could improve in general, and that's allowing Juwan Morgan to facilitate more from the post. There are several ways to do this, but there's one in particular that could help Indiana's shooters: hammer screens.
The hammer screen is frequently used in the NBA because it opens up players for corner threes, which are shorter in the NBA than other 3-point shots. The basic setup would allow Morgan to work as a passer in the post while eliminating spacing issues that might exist because Justin Smith isn't a good shooter. The hammer screen is set up with a big on each low block, or one on the low block and the other in the "dunker" spot, a spot just below the block, but closer to the baseline, and a a guard on each wing, with the ball handler at the top of the key.
For this example, and for clarity, we'll say Justin Smith is in the dunker spot, with Morgan on the block, Romeo Langford on the wing nearest Morgan, Al Durham on the opposite wing, and Rob Phinisee as the ball handler. The play begins with Phinisee passing to Langford on the wing. once Langford gets the ball, Smith sets the hammer screen, coming up to Durham on the wing from below the rim. Smith sets a back screen on Durham's man that allows Durham to freely cut off the screen to the corner on the same side of the floor.
Langford would then make an entry pass to Morgan in the post. As Durham is coming off the screen, Morgan would have the ball, and this is where his passing comes into play. If the screen frees Durham in the corner, Morgan can make the pass from the opposite post, giving Durham an open 3-point shot. If Durham's man overplays and doesn't allow that opening, Durham has an opening to cut toward the hoop where Smith previously was. Once again, Morgan is more than capable of making this pass for an easy bucket.
This play may already be in Archie Miller's playbook, but it's not something they went to against Maryland. The Terrapins are a team that it could've exposed because they feature two bigs, including one in Fernando who isn't quick laterally. Hammer screens are a great way to generate passing lanes for Morgan to see from the post. There's also a variation that involves Langford and Morgan running a pick and roll on their side of the floor, allowing Langford to make the pass to Durham off a drive. With an offense that relies on two primary options, surrounded by shooters and cutters, this is a great way to generate offense.
Indiana Identity Stats:
1) Defensive Effective Field Goal Percentage (Normal FG%, but gives 50 percent more credit for made threes) -- 47.6 percent.
This is a little higher than Indiana's season average, but it's nothing egregious. Indiana didn't lose because Maryland shot the ball well.
2) Turnover rate (turnovers/possessions) -- 10.8 percent.
Another great performance when it comes to turnovers for Indiana. They're improving as the season goes along, and it seems like this is more of a trend than an outlier.
3) Offensive Rebounding Rate Allowed (how well you protected the defensive glass): 45 percent.
This is why Indiana lost. Archie Miller even said so. Maryland crashed the offensive glass all game and got second chance opportunities time and time again.
Summary/Looking Ahead:
At the end of the season, this will probably be a game the Hoosiers wish they had back. They played a good Maryland team and had a win within their grasp. There are still positives to take away, because outside of the offensive rebounding rate they allowed, they played very well. Indiana is improving with its turnovers, which was the biggest issue they faced in non-conference play. That's a major story moving forward.
The Hoosiers won't have much time to dwell on this loss, with a game on Monday against a Nebraska team that is hungry for more Big Ten wins. The Cornhuskers are 2-3 in the conference and coming off a much needed victory over Penn State on Thursday. They're a very good team that also lost to Maryland by one possession on the road. Monday will be a battle, just as most of Big Ten play will be. As I've said on our podcast previewing this month's games, going 4-4 in the month should be considered a win for Indiana. A win against Nebraska will put them back on track for that.
