Pace: 64 possessions. Indiana continues to play in slow-paced games where they don't get many possessions. Picking up the pace should be a priority for the Hoosiers in the rest of Big Ten play, especially because of their lack of size and scoring ability.
Efficiency (points per 100 possessions):
Indiana -- 79.2
Nebraska -- 102.4
What a contrast this game is compared to the Maryland game. Against Maryland, it looked like Indiana won every facet of the game, except offensive rebounding, which caused the loss. This game, however, was a mess for Indiana for most of the 40 minutes. The Hoosiers were terrible on offense, struggling to hit open shots, and failing to generate real momentum at Assembly Hall.
There are a myriad of directions you could go if you want to dissect why Indiana lost. For the sake of time, let's narrow it down to two key reasons. Unsurprisingly, they're both offensive issues: forcing passes and stagnant offense. These issues are tied together, because stagnation can force players to force passes.
First, let's look at the Hoosiers' habit of forcing passes. There is one main type of pass that Indiana seems to force. They struggle with telegraphing post-entry passes from the wing more than any other type of pass. The wings on this Indiana team struggle to get the ball to players posting up with simple bounce passes.
They stare down the player posting up, with two hands on the ball, holding it outstretched to their left or right. The biggest issue comes next, when they hold the ball. If they make a quick decision, then the pass can succeed, but because they hold it, defenses see the pass coming from a mile away. Another issue complicates this, and that is the wing usually picks up their dribble, and nobody else on offense is moving, which leads us to the next issue, stagnation.
Indiana's offensive struggles early in games has been one of the few issues that has been present in almost every game. The Hoosiers get down the floor and get into their half-court offense, which turns into a ball handler standing at the wing in a triple-threat position, and nobody moving otherwise. Indiana has to get more action happening off the ball to succeed on offense. The hammer set I suggested last week would be a good example of this, or the Bazemore cuts I previously suggested in earlier efficiency breakdowns.
Right now, Romeo Langford and Juwan Morgan are the only two players who can create their own offense with the ball. That means every other Hoosier needs some assistance in getting space to score. The only way to create that space is with movement. Whether it's on the ball with the use of a ball screen, or various actions away from the play, Indiana needs to find a way to create that space to allow players other than its two stars to provide offense.
Indiana Identity Stats:
1) Defensive Effective Field Goal Percentage (Normal FG%, but gives 50 percent more credit for made threes) -- 51.7 percent.
Indiana's strong defense didn't show up against Nebraska. The Cornhuskers were able to find space in Indiana's defense, getting to the rim with ease and finishing efficiently.
2) Turnover rate (turnovers/possessions) -- 20.2 percent.
After two games of holding onto the ball and not making mistakes, the Hoosiers regressed in a big way against Nebraska. Indiana struggled to maintain possession and they fell to a turnover rate that would be near the bottom of the country.
3) Offensive Rebounding Rate Allowed (how well you protected the defensive glass): 33.3 percent.
This is an improvement over Maryland's domination on the offensive glass, but this still isn't good. Indiana needs to get defensive rebounds and prevent second chance points.
Summary/Looking Ahead:
After two tough losses on the road, this game was supposed to be a reprieve for the Hoosiers. Instead, it turned into a nightmare and Indiana's first home loss of the season in a game that was close for a limited amount of time. IU didn't play well, and it showed in the result. The Hoosiers' lack of a third scorer is starting to show as they move deeper into conference play, and I don't see that issue subsiding any time soon.
Looking ahead, Saturday is going to be a big matchup. Indiana travels to West Lafayette for their first matchup of the year with Purdue. On paper IU should win the game, however, because it's a rivalry game, anything can happen, especially since it will be played in Mackey Arena. If the Hoosiers can come out of this week 1-1 with a victory on Saturday, they'll still be on track to finish the month at 4-4, a record I said they should consider a win before Big Ten play resumed. It remains to be seen if Indiana can bounce back from this three-game skid and make that happen.
Efficiency (points per 100 possessions):
Indiana -- 79.2
Nebraska -- 102.4
What a contrast this game is compared to the Maryland game. Against Maryland, it looked like Indiana won every facet of the game, except offensive rebounding, which caused the loss. This game, however, was a mess for Indiana for most of the 40 minutes. The Hoosiers were terrible on offense, struggling to hit open shots, and failing to generate real momentum at Assembly Hall.
There are a myriad of directions you could go if you want to dissect why Indiana lost. For the sake of time, let's narrow it down to two key reasons. Unsurprisingly, they're both offensive issues: forcing passes and stagnant offense. These issues are tied together, because stagnation can force players to force passes.
First, let's look at the Hoosiers' habit of forcing passes. There is one main type of pass that Indiana seems to force. They struggle with telegraphing post-entry passes from the wing more than any other type of pass. The wings on this Indiana team struggle to get the ball to players posting up with simple bounce passes.
They stare down the player posting up, with two hands on the ball, holding it outstretched to their left or right. The biggest issue comes next, when they hold the ball. If they make a quick decision, then the pass can succeed, but because they hold it, defenses see the pass coming from a mile away. Another issue complicates this, and that is the wing usually picks up their dribble, and nobody else on offense is moving, which leads us to the next issue, stagnation.
Indiana's offensive struggles early in games has been one of the few issues that has been present in almost every game. The Hoosiers get down the floor and get into their half-court offense, which turns into a ball handler standing at the wing in a triple-threat position, and nobody moving otherwise. Indiana has to get more action happening off the ball to succeed on offense. The hammer set I suggested last week would be a good example of this, or the Bazemore cuts I previously suggested in earlier efficiency breakdowns.
Right now, Romeo Langford and Juwan Morgan are the only two players who can create their own offense with the ball. That means every other Hoosier needs some assistance in getting space to score. The only way to create that space is with movement. Whether it's on the ball with the use of a ball screen, or various actions away from the play, Indiana needs to find a way to create that space to allow players other than its two stars to provide offense.
Indiana Identity Stats:
1) Defensive Effective Field Goal Percentage (Normal FG%, but gives 50 percent more credit for made threes) -- 51.7 percent.
Indiana's strong defense didn't show up against Nebraska. The Cornhuskers were able to find space in Indiana's defense, getting to the rim with ease and finishing efficiently.
2) Turnover rate (turnovers/possessions) -- 20.2 percent.
After two games of holding onto the ball and not making mistakes, the Hoosiers regressed in a big way against Nebraska. Indiana struggled to maintain possession and they fell to a turnover rate that would be near the bottom of the country.
3) Offensive Rebounding Rate Allowed (how well you protected the defensive glass): 33.3 percent.
This is an improvement over Maryland's domination on the offensive glass, but this still isn't good. Indiana needs to get defensive rebounds and prevent second chance points.
Summary/Looking Ahead:
After two tough losses on the road, this game was supposed to be a reprieve for the Hoosiers. Instead, it turned into a nightmare and Indiana's first home loss of the season in a game that was close for a limited amount of time. IU didn't play well, and it showed in the result. The Hoosiers' lack of a third scorer is starting to show as they move deeper into conference play, and I don't see that issue subsiding any time soon.
Looking ahead, Saturday is going to be a big matchup. Indiana travels to West Lafayette for their first matchup of the year with Purdue. On paper IU should win the game, however, because it's a rivalry game, anything can happen, especially since it will be played in Mackey Arena. If the Hoosiers can come out of this week 1-1 with a victory on Saturday, they'll still be on track to finish the month at 4-4, a record I said they should consider a win before Big Ten play resumed. It remains to be seen if Indiana can bounce back from this three-game skid and make that happen.
