WHY Crean is not going to make IU "Elite" again

[Tasmanian Devil]

We’ve gone back and forth on here several times this past year – really, since the Syracuse loss 3 years ago – on whether Tom Crean is the right coach for Indiana.


Some of you think he’s doing a great job. Others, while hoping for better results, were pretty satisfied with this past season.


Me? Most of you know by now my feelings on Tom Crean. It’s not that I want to feel this way; in fact, I was thrilled when he was hired in 2008 (thought he should have been in 2006 instead of Sampson).


But after the past 8 years – especially the last three – I’ve had to face a sobering reality: what we’ve seen from Tom Crean-led teams up to this point (and throughout his head coaching career) is what we’re gonna get. It just is. I’ve been privileged to get to know a lot of coaches both in HS and AAU in the past decade, and they’ve helped open my eyes to WHY Tom Crean teams fair as they do.

As I’ve said before many times, Crean wants to play a fast-paced style (like UNC or UK) but his teams don’t do the things necessary to have success on an elite level consistently. That is the key here – consistently.


Take a look at some stats with me. I shared some of the following in another thread, but want to go more into detail here. This link looks at how teams statistically perform each year – it goes all the way back to the 1997-98 season. You can look up almost every conceivable stat, but the ones that are the strongest indicators of how successful a team is/isn’t are offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, turnovers and rebounds. (You can choose which stat link you wish at the top).


Why these stats? Obviously, scoring more points than the other team is the objective. But just HOW do you do that? Just by simply shooting the ball well? That helps, obviously - but what happens when you run into a really good defensive team in a tournament format (either BTT or NCAA)? You have to (and I’ve had numerous coaches tell me this over the past 10 years) maximize possessions. You can shoot at a lower percentage than your opponent IF you get more attempts. And to do that, you have to do the other things besides shooting the ball well.


Let’s take a look at this past season. I’ve said on here numerous times this year that the 2015-16 Hoosiers were overly reliant on offense for their success, and that Crean wants to play like North Carolina and Kentucky. Let’s see a statistical comparison between those three teams, starting with offense:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Off. Eff    1.169 (1)      1.153 (4)      1.127 (11)

IU led the nation in offensive efficiency – ahead of both the Tar Heels and Wildcats. In 17 years as a Head Basketball Coach, his teams have been Top 10 5 times, Top 5 four times and led the nation twice (2016,2003). Conversely, Roy Williams has had 7 season with Top 5 offenses since 1997-98 (the link provided only goes back to that season) and John Calipari has had 2 top 10 offensive teams (he did, however, have 11th rated teams in both 2015 and 2016). So, no doubt, Crean is capable of coaching offense with either of these two guys.


But what is the old adage? “Defense wins championships”. Let’s take a look at how each team fared defensively in 2015-16:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Def. Eff    .989 (106)    .976 (82)      .965 (51)

On the surface, that doesn’t look too bad, does it? Crean appears to be close to both Williams and Calipari in producing an adequate defense.


But over 17 years as a coach, the past season was Crean’s 6th best defensive team. Since 1998, Williams has had FIFTEEN teams that were better defensively (6 in top 25, one of those as high as 3rd), while Calipari since 2000-01 (16 seasons) has had ELEVEN better teams than the #51 team of this past year – six of which were top 10 defenses with two #1’s and two #2’s.


Let’s take a look at a real problem this past year for IU – Turnovers. Check out these 2015-16 numbers:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

TO / gm    13.4 (258)    10.8 (29)      11.2 (49)

IU averaged almost 3 turnovers more per game than UNC, a little over 2 more than UK. Again (as I was told by a certain coach) you can’t give possessions away and hope to achieve at a high level. This has killed some of Crean’s better teams (they averaged 13.0 a game in 2013; not surprisingly, his best team (2003) averaged 12.5 on the way to the Final Four. Calipari teams at Memphis and UK have averaged 12.7/yr since 2001, while the 10.8 was an all-time low for Williams (and look at what the result was – national runner-up). Williams teams since 1998 have averaged 14.2 turnovers, slightly higher Crean (although his numbers are trending better the last 7-8 years than he did in the early 2000’s).


Now comes the real separation between Crean and the other two – rebounding:


2015-16

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Reb / gm    36.8 (119)    40.6 (15)      38.8 (50)

IU lost out on nearly 4 more possessions per game this past season than UNC, exactly two more per game than UK.


And Calipari and Williams didn’t even have some of their better rebounding teams this year. Since 1998 (19 seasons), Roy Williams has had 15 of his teams finish in the top 10 in the nation in rebounding; 12 of those teams were top 5, with 4 #1’s, 2 #2’s and 2 #3’s. That’s right, EIGHT teams in the top 3!! He has produced 11 teams that averaged 40 or more rebounds. Calipari has had 6 top 10 rebounding teams (2 top 5) and produced 6 teams that averaged 40 or more.


Tom Crean? In 17 years as a head coach, Crean has not had a SINGLE TEAM either in the top 10 OR a team to average 40 rebounds.


Wanna know what is the worst? Take a look at the Strength of Schedules – both overall and Non-Conference:

Year    IU / Crean        UNC/RW        UK/Cal   

        SOS   NC-SOS   SOS  NC-SOS    SOS   NC-SOS

2016    64    265      6    106       39    62

2015    65    322      1    15        31    100

2014    58    335      19   126       3     62

2013    17    293      19   183       71    138

2012    16    273      35   85        28    177

2011    27    323      8    39        15    52

2010    61    321      10   170       53    223

2009    3     76       15   126       70    56

2008    39    286      3    109       67    59

2007    53    268      7    88        109   86

2006    18    205      22   173       85    31

2005    102   235      1    73        91    147

2004    108   265      1    68        63    112

2003    46    178      2    54        86    105

2002    90    251      10   26        101   206

Tom Crean-led teams – as demonstrated in the stats above – have consistently performed worse than the teams/coaches whose style of play he wants to emulate, all while playing a MUCH WORSE schedule than either of them.


Again, I don’t want to say this. But when you take a look at how his team performs, and take into account whom they’ve been playing, how can you say Tom Crean is the right coach and say in the same breath your goal is to be elite (as Fred Glass did at the end of last season)? There is a direct correlation between how these team perform statistically and how they fare(d) in the NCAA Tournament.


Numbers don't lie. Tom Crean isn’t going to get us there, folks. The eye test in games like Duke, Michigan St, Syracuse in 2013, etc . . .gives an indication of that. The stats confirm it.

 

[ORG]

We’ve gone back and forth on here several times this past year – really, since the Syracuse loss 3 years ago – on whether Tom Crean is the right coach for Indiana.


Some of you think he’s doing a great job. Others, while hoping for better results, were pretty satisfied with this past season.


Me? Most of you know by now my feelings on Tom Crean. It’s not that I want to feel this way; in fact, I was thrilled when he was hired in 2008 (thought he should have been in 2006 instead of Sampson).


But after the past 8 years – especially the last three – I’ve had to face a sobering reality: what we’ve seen from Tom Crean-led teams up to this point (and throughout his head coaching career) is what we’re gonna get. It just is. I’ve been privileged to get to know a lot of coaches both in HS and AAU in the past decade, and they’ve helped open my eyes to WHY Tom Crean teams fair as they do.

As I’ve said before many times, Crean wants to play a fast-paced style (like UNC or UK) but his teams don’t do the things necessary to have success on an elite level consistently. That is the key here – consistently.


Take a look at some stats with me. I shared some of the following in another thread, but want to go more into detail here. This link looks at how teams statistically perform each year – it goes all the way back to the 1997-98 season. You can look up almost every conceivable stat, but the ones that are the strongest indicators of how successful a team is/isn’t are offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, turnovers and rebounds. (You can choose which stat link you wish at the top).


Why these stats? Obviously, scoring more points than the other team is the objective. But just HOW do you do that? Just by simply shooting the ball well? That helps, obviously - but what happens when you run into a really good defensive team in a tournament format (either BTT or NCAA)? You have to (and I’ve had numerous coaches tell me this over the past 10 years) maximize possessions. You can shoot at a lower percentage than your opponent IF you get more attempts. And to do that, you have to do the other things besides shooting the ball well.


Let’s take a look at this past season. I’ve said on here numerous times this year that the 2015-16 Hoosiers were overly reliant on offense for their success, and that Crean wants to play like North Carolina and Kentucky. Let’s see a statistical comparison between those three teams, starting with offense:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Off. Eff    1.169 (1)      1.153 (4)      1.127 (11)

IU led the nation in offensive efficiency – ahead of both the Tar Heels and Wildcats. In 17 years as a Head Basketball Coach, his teams have been Top 10 5 times, Top 5 four times and led the nation twice (2016,2003). Conversely, Roy Williams has had 7 season with Top 5 offenses since 1997-98 (the link provided only goes back to that season) and John Calipari has had 2 top 10 offensive teams (he did, however, have 11th rated teams in both 2015 and 2016). So, no doubt, Crean is capable of coaching offense with either of these two guys.


But what is the old adage? “Defense wins championships”. Let’s take a look at how each team fared defensively in 2015-16:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Def. Eff    .989 (106)    .976 (82)      .965 (51)

On the surface, that doesn’t look too bad, does it? Crean appears to be close to both Williams and Calipari in producing an adequate defense.


But over 17 years as a coach, the past season was Crean’s 6th best defensive team. Since 1998, Williams has had FIFTEEN teams that were better defensively (6 in top 25, one of those as high as 3rd), while Calipari since 2000-01 (16 seasons) has had ELEVEN better teams than the #51 team of this past year – six of which were top 10 defenses with two #1’s and two #2’s.


Let’s take a look at a real problem this past year for IU – Turnovers. Check out these 2015-16 numbers:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

TO / gm    13.4 (258)    10.8 (29)      11.2 (49)

IU averaged almost 3 turnovers more per game than UNC, a little over 2 more than UK. Again (as I was told by a certain coach) you can’t give possessions away and hope to achieve at a high level. This has killed some of Crean’s better teams (they averaged 13.0 a game in 2013; not surprisingly, his best team (2003) averaged 12.5 on the way to the Final Four. Calipari teams at Memphis and UK have averaged 12.7/yr since 2001, while the 10.8 was an all-time low for Williams (and look at what the result was – national runner-up). Williams teams since 1998 have averaged 14.2 turnovers, slightly higher Crean (although his numbers are trending better the last 7-8 years than he did in the early 2000’s).


Now comes the real separation between Crean and the other two – rebounding:


2015-16

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Reb / gm    36.8 (119)    40.6 (15)      38.8 (50)

IU lost out on nearly 4 more possessions per game this past season than UNC, exactly two more per game than UK.


And Calipari and Williams didn’t even have some of their better rebounding teams this year. Since 1998 (19 seasons), Roy Williams has had 15 of his teams finish in the top 10 in the nation in rebounding; 12 of those teams were top 5, with 4 #1’s, 2 #2’s and 2 #3’s. That’s right, EIGHT teams in the top 3!! He has produced 11 teams that averaged 40 or more rebounds. Calipari has had 6 top 10 rebounding teams (2 top 5) and produced 6 teams that averaged 40 or more.


Tom Crean? In 17 years as a head coach, Crean has not had a SINGLE TEAM either in the top 10 OR a team to average 40 rebounds.


Wanna know what is the worst? Take a look at the Strength of Schedules – both overall and Non-Conference:

Year    IU / Crean        UNC/RW        UK/Cal 

        SOS   NC-SOS   SOS  NC-SOS    SOS   NC-SOS

2016    64    265      6    106       39    62

2015    65    322      1    15        31    100

2014    58    335      19   126       3     62

2013    17    293      19   183       71    138

2012    16    273      35   85        28    177

2011    27    323      8    39        15    52

2010    61    321      10   170       53    223

2009    3     76       15   126       70    56

2008    39    286      3    109       67    59

2007    53    268      7    88        109   86

2006    18    205      22   173       85    31

2005    102   235      1    73        91    147

2004    108   265      1    68        63    112

2003    46    178      2    54        86    105

2002    90    251      10   26        101   206

Tom Crean-led teams – as demonstrated in the stats above – have consistently performed worse than the teams/coaches whose style of play he wants to emulate, all while playing a MUCH WORSE schedule than either of them.


Again, I don’t want to say this. But when you take a look at how his team performs, and take into account whom they’ve been playing, how can you say Tom Crean is the right coach and say in the same breath your goal is to be elite (as Fred Glass did at the end of last season)? There is a direct correlation between how these team perform statistically and how they fare(d) in the NCAA Tournament.


Numbers don't lie. Tom Crean isn’t going to get us there, folks. The eye test in games like Duke, Michigan St, Syracuse in 2013, etc . . .gives an indication of that. The stats confirm it.

While you spent a lot of time with a lot of stats . . . and they are interesting.

But you never really told me what your qualifications are to be an "elite" team.

And, I feel CTC s improving in all facets of coaching. So, although CTC may not performing to the levels of UNC & UK in some areas, I am not in agreement that CTC can not or will not do better.

 

[Davehack]

We’ve gone back and forth on here several times this past year – really, since the Syracuse loss 3 years ago – on whether Tom Crean is the right coach for Indiana.


Some of you think he’s doing a great job. Others, while hoping for better results, were pretty satisfied with this past season.


Me? Most of you know by now my feelings on Tom Crean. It’s not that I want to feel this way; in fact, I was thrilled when he was hired in 2008 (thought he should have been in 2006 instead of Sampson).


But after the past 8 years – especially the last three – I’ve had to face a sobering reality: what we’ve seen from Tom Crean-led teams up to this point (and throughout his head coaching career) is what we’re gonna get. It just is. I’ve been privileged to get to know a lot of coaches both in HS and AAU in the past decade, and they’ve helped open my eyes to WHY Tom Crean teams fair as they do.

As I’ve said before many times, Crean wants to play a fast-paced style (like UNC or UK) but his teams don’t do the things necessary to have success on an elite level consistently. That is the key here – consistently.


Take a look at some stats with me. I shared some of the following in another thread, but want to go more into detail here. This link looks at how teams statistically perform each year – it goes all the way back to the 1997-98 season. You can look up almost every conceivable stat, but the ones that are the strongest indicators of how successful a team is/isn’t are offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, turnovers and rebounds. (You can choose which stat link you wish at the top).


Why these stats? Obviously, scoring more points than the other team is the objective. But just HOW do you do that? Just by simply shooting the ball well? That helps, obviously - but what happens when you run into a really good defensive team in a tournament format (either BTT or NCAA)? You have to (and I’ve had numerous coaches tell me this over the past 10 years) maximize possessions. You can shoot at a lower percentage than your opponent IF you get more attempts. And to do that, you have to do the other things besides shooting the ball well.


Let’s take a look at this past season. I’ve said on here numerous times this year that the 2015-16 Hoosiers were overly reliant on offense for their success, and that Crean wants to play like North Carolina and Kentucky. Let’s see a statistical comparison between those three teams, starting with offense:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Off. Eff    1.169 (1)      1.153 (4)      1.127 (11)

IU led the nation in offensive efficiency – ahead of both the Tar Heels and Wildcats. In 17 years as a Head Basketball Coach, his teams have been Top 10 5 times, Top 5 four times and led the nation twice (2016,2003). Conversely, Roy Williams has had 7 season with Top 5 offenses since 1997-98 (the link provided only goes back to that season) and John Calipari has had 2 top 10 offensive teams (he did, however, have 11th rated teams in both 2015 and 2016). So, no doubt, Crean is capable of coaching offense with either of these two guys.


But what is the old adage? “Defense wins championships”. Let’s take a look at how each team fared defensively in 2015-16:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Def. Eff    .989 (106)    .976 (82)      .965 (51)

On the surface, that doesn’t look too bad, does it? Crean appears to be close to both Williams and Calipari in producing an adequate defense.


But over 17 years as a coach, the past season was Crean’s 6th best defensive team. Since 1998, Williams has had FIFTEEN teams that were better defensively (6 in top 25, one of those as high as 3rd), while Calipari since 2000-01 (16 seasons) has had ELEVEN better teams than the #51 team of this past year – six of which were top 10 defenses with two #1’s and two #2’s.


Let’s take a look at a real problem this past year for IU – Turnovers. Check out these 2015-16 numbers:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

TO / gm    13.4 (258)    10.8 (29)      11.2 (49)

IU averaged almost 3 turnovers more per game than UNC, a little over 2 more than UK. Again (as I was told by a certain coach) you can’t give possessions away and hope to achieve at a high level. This has killed some of Crean’s better teams (they averaged 13.0 a game in 2013; not surprisingly, his best team (2003) averaged 12.5 on the way to the Final Four. Calipari teams at Memphis and UK have averaged 12.7/yr since 2001, while the 10.8 was an all-time low for Williams (and look at what the result was – national runner-up). Williams teams since 1998 have averaged 14.2 turnovers, slightly higher Crean (although his numbers are trending better the last 7-8 years than he did in the early 2000’s).


Now comes the real separation between Crean and the other two – rebounding:


2015-16

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Reb / gm    36.8 (119)    40.6 (15)      38.8 (50)

IU lost out on nearly 4 more possessions per game this past season than UNC, exactly two more per game than UK.


And Calipari and Williams didn’t even have some of their better rebounding teams this year. Since 1998 (19 seasons), Roy Williams has had 15 of his teams finish in the top 10 in the nation in rebounding; 12 of those teams were top 5, with 4 #1’s, 2 #2’s and 2 #3’s. That’s right, EIGHT teams in the top 3!! He has produced 11 teams that averaged 40 or more rebounds. Calipari has had 6 top 10 rebounding teams (2 top 5) and produced 6 teams that averaged 40 or more.


Tom Crean? In 17 years as a head coach, Crean has not had a SINGLE TEAM either in the top 10 OR a team to average 40 rebounds.


Wanna know what is the worst? Take a look at the Strength of Schedules – both overall and Non-Conference:

Year    IU / Crean        UNC/RW        UK/Cal  

        SOS   NC-SOS   SOS  NC-SOS    SOS   NC-SOS

2016    64    265      6    106       39    62

2015    65    322      1    15        31    100

2014    58    335      19   126       3     62

2013    17    293      19   183       71    138

2012    16    273      35   85        28    177

2011    27    323      8    39        15    52

2010    61    321      10   170       53    223

2009    3     76       15   126       70    56

2008    39    286      3    109       67    59

2007    53    268      7    88        109   86

2006    18    205      22   173       85    31

2005    102   235      1    73        91    147

2004    108   265      1    68        63    112

2003    46    178      2    54        86    105

2002    90    251      10   26        101   206

Tom Crean-led teams – as demonstrated in the stats above – have consistently performed worse than the teams/coaches whose style of play he wants to emulate, all while playing a MUCH WORSE schedule than either of them.


Again, I don’t want to say this. But when you take a look at how his team performs, and take into account whom they’ve been playing, how can you say Tom Crean is the right coach and say in the same breath your goal is to be elite (as Fred Glass did at the end of last season)? There is a direct correlation between how these team perform statistically and how they fare(d) in the NCAA Tournament.


Numbers don't lie. Tom Crean isn’t going to get us there, folks. The eye test in games like Duke, Michigan St, Syracuse in 2013, etc . . .gives an indication of that. The stats confirm it.

We will put you down as a "maybe" on Crean.

 

[Kylehornsbyrules]

Way too many words.

Here's my explanation; eye test failure.

 

[Coach Monte]

You sold me. Let's fire Crean and go get either Williams or Calipari.

 

[fireforeffect]

nice job aggregating those stats... not often we get to see them all in one place... this is why CTC's seat is still a little warm... he earned himself the opportunity to finish out his current contract... imagine if he took a 10 point drop in offense efficiency but also raised his defensive efficiency by 20 points... and put IU in the top 75 strength of schedule... we just might get to see that team this coming year... I certainly hope so... good post....

 

[82hoosier]

And EVERY year in the tournament they lost to a team that scored more points that the Hoosiers! I looked it up. It's true!

 

[neigo]

Tasmanian Devil a lot of work to put this together for that i commend you. But Im going to challenge your thinking a little. I work with people everyday on very personal level. For the most part your posts are usually negative. All your stats left out one thing. That people can improve and do. CTC did this year. There are fans on the Villanova site that were continually bashing Jay Wright and said he will never get to a final four again but he did. You know what a few are saying now. I will not believe he is a good coach until he wins another one.With that being said I enjoyed your post. At least you had reasons why you feel the way you do

 

[RBB89]

We’ve gone back and forth on here several times this past year – really, since the Syracuse loss 3 years ago – on whether Tom Crean is the right coach for Indiana.


Some of you think he’s doing a great job. Others, while hoping for better results, were pretty satisfied with this past season.


Me? Most of you know by now my feelings on Tom Crean. It’s not that I want to feel this way; in fact, I was thrilled when he was hired in 2008 (thought he should have been in 2006 instead of Sampson).


But after the past 8 years – especially the last three – I’ve had to face a sobering reality: what we’ve seen from Tom Crean-led teams up to this point (and throughout his head coaching career) is what we’re gonna get. It just is. I’ve been privileged to get to know a lot of coaches both in HS and AAU in the past decade, and they’ve helped open my eyes to WHY Tom Crean teams fair as they do.

As I’ve said before many times, Crean wants to play a fast-paced style (like UNC or UK) but his teams don’t do the things necessary to have success on an elite level consistently. That is the key here – consistently.


Take a look at some stats with me. I shared some of the following in another thread, but want to go more into detail here. This link looks at how teams statistically perform each year – it goes all the way back to the 1997-98 season. You can look up almost every conceivable stat, but the ones that are the strongest indicators of how successful a team is/isn’t are offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, turnovers and rebounds. (You can choose which stat link you wish at the top).


Why these stats? Obviously, scoring more points than the other team is the objective. But just HOW do you do that? Just by simply shooting the ball well? That helps, obviously - but what happens when you run into a really good defensive team in a tournament format (either BTT or NCAA)? You have to (and I’ve had numerous coaches tell me this over the past 10 years) maximize possessions. You can shoot at a lower percentage than your opponent IF you get more attempts. And to do that, you have to do the other things besides shooting the ball well.


Let’s take a look at this past season. I’ve said on here numerous times this year that the 2015-16 Hoosiers were overly reliant on offense for their success, and that Crean wants to play like North Carolina and Kentucky. Let’s see a statistical comparison between those three teams, starting with offense:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Off. Eff    1.169 (1)      1.153 (4)      1.127 (11)

IU led the nation in offensive efficiency – ahead of both the Tar Heels and Wildcats. In 17 years as a Head Basketball Coach, his teams have been Top 10 5 times, Top 5 four times and led the nation twice (2016,2003). Conversely, Roy Williams has had 7 season with Top 5 offenses since 1997-98 (the link provided only goes back to that season) and John Calipari has had 2 top 10 offensive teams (he did, however, have 11th rated teams in both 2015 and 2016). So, no doubt, Crean is capable of coaching offense with either of these two guys.


But what is the old adage? “Defense wins championships”. Let’s take a look at how each team fared defensively in 2015-16:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Def. Eff    .989 (106)    .976 (82)      .965 (51)

On the surface, that doesn’t look too bad, does it? Crean appears to be close to both Williams and Calipari in producing an adequate defense.


But over 17 years as a coach, the past season was Crean’s 6th best defensive team. Since 1998, Williams has had FIFTEEN teams that were better defensively (6 in top 25, one of those as high as 3rd), while Calipari since 2000-01 (16 seasons) has had ELEVEN better teams than the #51 team of this past year – six of which were top 10 defenses with two #1’s and two #2’s.


Let’s take a look at a real problem this past year for IU – Turnovers. Check out these 2015-16 numbers:

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

TO / gm    13.4 (258)    10.8 (29)      11.2 (49)

IU averaged almost 3 turnovers more per game than UNC, a little over 2 more than UK. Again (as I was told by a certain coach) you can’t give possessions away and hope to achieve at a high level. This has killed some of Crean’s better teams (they averaged 13.0 a game in 2013; not surprisingly, his best team (2003) averaged 12.5 on the way to the Final Four. Calipari teams at Memphis and UK have averaged 12.7/yr since 2001, while the 10.8 was an all-time low for Williams (and look at what the result was – national runner-up). Williams teams since 1998 have averaged 14.2 turnovers, slightly higher Crean (although his numbers are trending better the last 7-8 years than he did in the early 2000’s).


Now comes the real separation between Crean and the other two – rebounding:


2015-16

2016        Tom Crean      Roy Williams  John Calipari

Reb / gm    36.8 (119)    40.6 (15)      38.8 (50)

IU lost out on nearly 4 more possessions per game this past season than UNC, exactly two more per game than UK.


And Calipari and Williams didn’t even have some of their better rebounding teams this year. Since 1998 (19 seasons), Roy Williams has had 15 of his teams finish in the top 10 in the nation in rebounding; 12 of those teams were top 5, with 4 #1’s, 2 #2’s and 2 #3’s. That’s right, EIGHT teams in the top 3!! He has produced 11 teams that averaged 40 or more rebounds. Calipari has had 6 top 10 rebounding teams (2 top 5) and produced 6 teams that averaged 40 or more.


Tom Crean? In 17 years as a head coach, Crean has not had a SINGLE TEAM either in the top 10 OR a team to average 40 rebounds.


Wanna know what is the worst? Take a look at the Strength of Schedules – both overall and Non-Conference:

Year    IU / Crean        UNC/RW        UK/Cal  

        SOS   NC-SOS   SOS  NC-SOS    SOS   NC-SOS

2016    64    265      6    106       39    62

2015    65    322      1    15        31    100

2014    58    335      19   126       3     62

2013    17    293      19   183       71    138

2012    16    273      35   85        28    177

2011    27    323      8    39        15    52

2010    61    321      10   170       53    223

2009    3     76       15   126       70    56

2008    39    286      3    109       67    59

2007    53    268      7    88        109   86

2006    18    205      22   173       85    31

2005    102   235      1    73        91    147

2004    108   265      1    68        63    112

2003    46    178      2    54        86    105

2002    90    251      10   26        101   206

Tom Crean-led teams – as demonstrated in the stats above – have consistently performed worse than the teams/coaches whose style of play he wants to emulate, all while playing a MUCH WORSE schedule than either of them.


Again, I don’t want to say this. But when you take a look at how his team performs, and take into account whom they’ve been playing, how can you say Tom Crean is the right coach and say in the same breath your goal is to be elite (as Fred Glass did at the end of last season)? There is a direct correlation between how these team perform statistically and how they fare(d) in the NCAA Tournament.


Numbers don't lie. Tom Crean isn’t going to get us there, folks. The eye test in games like Duke, Michigan St, Syracuse in 2013, etc . . .gives an indication of that. The stats confirm it.

If you want to have the same discussion for the 9 millionth time, go for it, but Crean isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[travlinhoosier]

This is a well-researched post and it's perfectly legitimate to put it up. And I suspect you're right. But Crean has earned the right to coach for another year, probably two barring a disaster. We've been would-be-elite for several years now and we'll risk being it a little longer.

 

[87 Rides a Surfboard]

TL;DR

Crean isn't going anywhere. Stop obsessing over it.

 

[frikkenfrakken]

Thanks for posting an interesting, substantive read.

Quibbles: Use rebounding percentages, not rebounds per game--so you can factor out pace. Same for turnovers. I have no clue if it will affect the analysis, but relying on per game stats doesn't convince me of anything.

Using per game stats is especially problematic for rebounds when you analyze outlier teams: Teams at the edges of the spectrum. IU's offense was so good this year, they didn't generate as many offensive rebound opportunities as other teams did, and that would artificially deflate their rebounding per game numbers. Again, may not matter...but the stats you cited aren't reliable enough to support the conclusion you base them on. You may find, when digging deeper, that you have an even better argument there...I dunno.

Kenpom's numbers factor strength of schedule in to their efficiency ratings, although it doesn't matter for the sake of your points, because they yield similar results. Over the past 5 years, IU has been consistently elite....on offense. On defense? No. And generally the teams that win he NC are good at both.

There are, of course, some other factors to consider. Might Crean change, or hire an assistant who can teach more effective defense? Also, the NCAA has shown some consistency recently regarding rules changes...and they are all designed to increase scoring. These changes tend to help Crean more than a coach like Tony Bennett, for example, and I think it played a part in IU's success this year. So, while Crean has not been a top 5 coach in terms of results over the last 5 years, might he be one in the next 5? If we go out and hire a defense-oriented coach like Bennett, might we be buying high on a coach whose strengths are going to be negated by rule changes?

Loyalty is also an interesting issue in matters like this. Some people point out that Crean took this job when not a lot of people would've (and Bennett didn't). Others point out that he was paid well to do it, and we don't owe him anything more than that. Of course, when people compare Crean's worst post-recovery season to Coach Knight's worst season, those same people retort that Knight had already won 2 or 3 NC's at that point. So, winning a NC or two will certainly engender loyalty, in a way that taking over a proud program in shambles doesn't, at least for some. That's a matter of individual preference, I suppose.

Next season will be interesting, in terms of the offense/defense issue you've highlighted--because IU is set to possibly have it's best defensive team of Crean's career, with Bryant, Davis, Morgan, Anunoby, and Johnson all returning, but also Blackmon and possibly Williams. If he can't make that squad into an elite defensive unit this year or next, well, might be time to put out some feelers.

We certainly can't do that this off-season, coming off a coach of the year season. Who would come here if winning conference coach of the year isn't enough to keep your job? After next season, depends on the result.

 

[hondo314]

While you spent a lot of time with a lot of stats . . . and they are interesting.

But you never really told me what your qualifications are to be an "elite" team.

And, I feel CTC s improving in all facets of coaching. So, although CTC may not performing to the levels of UNC & UK in some areas, I am not in agreement that CTC can not or will not do better.

8th highest paid coach has been doing this for 17 years and we're hoping he improves?

oh geez

 

[Shirtsandskins]

Thanks for posting an interesting, substantive read.

Quibbles: Use rebounding percentages, not rebounds per game--so you can factor out pace. Same for turnovers. I have no clue if it will affect the analysis, but relying on per game stats doesn't convince me of anything.

Using per game stats is especially problematic for rebounds when you analyze outlier teams: Teams at the edges of the spectrum. IU's offense was so good this year, they didn't generate as many offensive rebound opportunities as other teams did, and that would artificially deflate their rebounding per game numbers. Again, may not matter...but the stats you cited aren't reliable enough to support the conclusion you base them on. You may find, when digging deeper, that you have an even better argument there...I dunno.

Kenpom's numbers factor strength of schedule in to their efficiency ratings, although it doesn't matter for the sake of your points, because they yield similar results. Over the past 5 years, IU has been consistently elite....on offense. On defense? No. And generally the teams that win he NC are good at both.

There are, of course, some other factors to consider. Might Crean change, or hire an assistant who can teach more effective defense? Also, the NCAA has shown some consistency recently regarding rules changes...and they are all designed to increase scoring. These changes tend to help Crean more than a coach like Tony Bennett, for example, and I think it played a part in IU's success this year. So, while Crean has not been a top 5 coach in terms of results over the last 5 years, might he be one in the next 5? If we go out and hire a defense-oriented coach like Bennett, might we be buying high on a coach whose strengths are going to be negated by rule changes?

Loyalty is also an interesting issue in matters like this. Some people point out that Crean took this job when not a lot of people would've (and Bennett didn't). Others point out that he was paid well to do it, and we don't owe him anything more than that. Of course, when people compare Crean's worst post-recovery season to Coach Knight's worst season, those same people retort that Knight had already won 2 or 3 NC's at that point. So, winning a NC or two will certainly engender loyalty, in a way that taking over a proud program in shambles doesn't, at least for some. That's a matter of individual preference, I suppose.

Next season will be interesting, in terms of the offense/defense issue you've highlighted--because IU is set to possibly have it's best defensive team of Crean's career, with Bryant, Davis, Morgan, Anunoby, and Johnson all returning, but also Blackmon and possibly Williams. If he can't make that squad into an elite defensive unit this year or next, well, might be time to put out some feelers.

We certainly can't do that this off-season, coming off a coach of the year season. Who would come here if winning conference coach of the year isn't enough to keep your job? After next season, depends on the result.

I agree with most of what you said but I do question a couple of things, first ....loyalty

Many on this board are all in on shipping Priller out if we can bring someone better, and many people had no issue with pushing Roth out(he too came here when no one wanted to) some more want to pull the scholarship from Gelon and others want to tell Durham we changed our mind....my question is, why are we expected to be more loyal the guy who gets paid millions to be here and not to the players?

The no coach will come here if we mistreat a coach has been proven wrong time and again...see UK/UCLA for proof

 

[Shirtsandskins]

Tasmanian Devil a lot of work to put this together for that i commend you. But Im going to challenge your thinking a little. I work with people everyday on very personal level. For the most part your posts are usually negative. All your stats left out one thing. That people can improve and do. CTC did this year. There are fans on the Villanova site that were continually bashing Jay Wright and said he will never get to a final four again but he did. You know what a few are saying now. I will not believe he is a good coach until he wins another one.With that being said I enjoyed your post. At least you had reasons why you feel the way you do

Can you link me to any Nova fans that are saying he has to win one more before they believe in him....me thinks that might be an embellishment

 

[choptalk]

nice job aggregating those stats... not often we get to see them all in one place... this is why CTC's seat is still a little warm... he earned himself the opportunity to finish out his current contract... imagine if he took a 10 point drop in offense efficiency but also raised his defensive efficiency by 20 points... and put IU in the top 75 strength of schedule... we just might get to see that team this coming year... I certainly hope so... good post....

I really don't think Crean's seat is warm at all. He won the BIG. He's not going anywhere. Happy or sad about it, he's your man!

 

[Shirtsandskins]

I really don't think Crean's seat is warm at all. He won the BIG. He's not going anywhere. Happy or sad about it, he's your man!

I mostly agree but if we have another 3-4 players get in trouble, all bets are off

His seat isn't shaky but it ain't solid either

 

[YOTHN]

I've been a Crean supporter but have provided fair judgement. I expect big things out of IU this year. I think the biggest issue here with most fans is IU had what most thought was a great team in 2013 and only made the Sweet 16. That in and of itself stung but I think if IU at least made the tournament the next year, most would've laid off. That's not to say TC isn't allowed to have a no tourney year because those can happen but the expectation is that would happen after we won a national title and had a mass exodus. Not went to the Sweet 16 and had a massive roster overhaul. Then, rightfully or wrongfully, people will look back and say it wasn't up to IU standards. So I get that frustration and I was right alongside everyone else yelling at the screen. But I refuse to be so near sighted.

Crean has locked in his seat for next year (obviously) and may have staved off the seat for longer but he does still have to prove himself. If next years team doesn't go to the tourney, there's no way he makes it to April as the coach. If the team is a bubble team and finishes 5-7th in the B1G, does nothing in the B1G tourney then I will likely be right there with everyone that the roster talent is substantial and the results at some point need to come. I would assume a longer than sweet 16 tourney run would be absolutely necessary at that point to retain him. The IU name has improved since TC's been coach and although it might not be at the speed some on here would like to see, it has been happening. There's something to be said about growing up with the coach as he learns. It will be that much better when we make it to the peak. But his clock hasn't stopped ticking.....

 

[Shirtsandskins]

I've been a Crean supporter but have provided fair judgement. I expect big things out of IU this year. I think the biggest issue here with most fans is IU had what most thought was a great team in 2013 and only made the Sweet 16. That in and of itself stung but I think if IU at least made the tournament the next year, most would've laid off. That's not to say TC isn't allowed to have a no tourney year because those can happen but the expectation is that would happen after we won a national title and had a mass exodus. Not went to the Sweet 16 and had a massive roster overhaul. Then, rightfully or wrongfully, people will look back and say it wasn't up to IU standards. So I get that frustration and I was right alongside everyone else yelling at the screen. But I refuse to be so near sighted.

Crean has locked in his seat for next year (obviously) and may have staved off the seat for longer but he does still have to prove himself. If next years team doesn't go to the tourney, there's no way he makes it to April as the coach. If the team is a bubble team and finishes 5-7th in hte big, does nothing in the B1G tourney then I will likely be right there with everyone that the roster talent is substantial and the results at some point need to come. I would assume a longer than sweet 16 tourney run would be absolutely necessary at that point to retain him. The IU name has improved since TC's been coach and although it might not be at the speed some on here would like to see, it has been happening. There's something to be said about growing up with the coach as he learns. It will be that much better when we make it to the peak. But his clock hasn't stopped ticking.....

Everyone thinks they have provided fair judgment...it depends on if you agree whether you believe them or not

 

[82hoosier]

Here are the championships won over the past 25 years - which is an arbitrary cut-off that is longer than any of the NCAA players have been alive. How many of these programs are "elite"?

Duke - 5
Connecticut - 4
North Carolina - 3
Kentucky - 2
Florida - 2
Villanova - 1
Arkansas - 1
Louisville - 1
Michigan State - 1
Syracuse - 1
Kansas - 1
Maryland - 1
Arizona - 1
UCLA - 1

 

[hondo314]

Here are the championships won over the past 25 years - which is an arbitrary cut-off that is longer than any of the NCAA players have been alive. How many of these programs are "elite"?

Duke - 5
Connecticut - 4
North Carolina - 3
Kentucky - 2
Florida - 2
Villanova - 1
Arkansas - 1
Louisville - 1
Michigan State - 1
Syracuse - 1
Kansas - 1
Maryland - 1
Arizona - 1
UCLA - 1

9ish of 14

 

[hondo314]

All you Crean haters.... get the hell out of here and quit watching IU basketball. The players, coaches, and all of us die hard IU fans do not need you and your negativity!! You guys are a disgrace to this forum and University!! Enough is enough!

It could be argued the other way too, bro. lol. wish the crean defenders would quit enabling this concept of new IU, where sweet 16s are enough. You are ruining a once proud program. see how that works?

 

[carriu]

All you Crean haters.... get the hell out of here and quit watching IU basketball. The players, coaches, and all of us die hard IU fans do not need you and your negativity!! You guys are a disgrace to this forum and University!! Enough is enough!

There is always don't read their stuff. I am a Crean supporter

 

[hondo314]

Coach Knight was a big part of ruining this program if its ruined. Something many on this board dont want to admit. Name me another coach right now that is better than CTC that would come here.There are none. He is not going anywhere nor should he.

this hurt my eyes.

and no one better would come here? love this narrative of the pro-crean faction. it's necessary to justify our coach and his salary no other coahc would touch our large sums of money, passionate fans, and fertile recruiting grounds with a ten foot pole. we're poison. it's over. lolololol

 

[hondo314]

It's not defending Crean... It liking IU basketball and enjoying the success right now. You haters have nothing else to write about except bashing Crean or it's not good enough what we are doing. If you can't see from year one to year 8, that IU is moving in the right direction, no need to respond to you. Everyone wants FF's and Championships...takes a lot of luck and a lot of talent. I believe the talent is close and now we need some luck! Aka NCAA selection committee.... Write positive chats. The players and coaches don't need to read this shit all the time. Not to mention. The recruits!!

hahaha. back to the luck narrative for the pro-creaners. the similarly paid coaches who do more regularly are all lucky. got it. hahahahha. love it.

funny how in life those who can't do more call it luck and those who can do more say they created their own luck by being prepared when those lucky breaks came. funny how that works.

 

[ORG]

8th highest paid coach has been doing this for 17 years and we're hoping he improves?

oh geez

smiles . . . yes I am.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

hahaha. back to the luck narrative for the pro-creaners. the similarly paid coaches who do more regularly are all lucky. got it. hahahahha. love it.

funny how in life those who can't do more call it luck and those who can do more say they created their own luck by being prepared when those lucky breaks came. funny how that works.

Danny Manning - in the post-game press conference of Kansas' 83-79 NCAA Championship win over Oklahoma - was asked how much luck played into the Jayhawks winning the title.

"Some people may say we were lucky, but what is luck?", Manning asked. " It's preparing to meet opportunity"

That's something everyone has to understand here. Good teams aren't good consistently without reason - it doesn't just randomly happen.

If you do the things that successful teams have done consistently, you'll likely have similar results. Does it guarantee it will happen? No - but, like Manning said you'll be prepared for it when the opportunity arises. That's all you can ask for.

And if you look at the body of work from Tom Crean's career as a head coach, you just don't see that. Hate to say it, but it's the truth.

P.S. - does anyone on here know how I can post a link to an Excel file out on the Internet? I really hate to paste all the tables on all the research I did because 1) it is a lot to read in a single post and 2) quite frankly, it's a pain in the butt. When you see the info all at once, though, you get more of an appreciation of what I'm talking about.

 

[IUINSB]

neigo said: ↑
"Coach Knight was a big part of ruining this program if its ruined. Something many on this board dont want to admit."


Thank you, I never knew that RMK was making all those phone calls for Sampson.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

TL;DR

Crean isn't going anywhere. Stop obsessing over it.

Considering it has been 30 years since IU won a title and this isn't changing until IU gets an elite coach, I'd say it is ok to talk about it on the friggin' freebie board. What else is there to talk about that comes close to being as important?

There are posters that literally post nothing except raining on other's parade and sound pretty happy to be stuck with mediocrity. Pretty sorry people.

 

[ORG]

It could be argued the other way too, bro. lol. wish the crean defenders would quit enabling this concept of new IU, where sweet 16s are enough. You are ruining a once proud program. see how that works?

Or one can counter your argument by saying the program CTC inherited no longer was the "once proud U program" of years past, it hadn't been since shortly after RMK left , it was already ruined when CTC inherited it and that he is making progress to get the program back to that level.

 

[ORG]

Considering it has been 30 years since IU won a title and this isn't changing until IU gets an elite coach, I'd say it is ok to talk about it on the friggin' freebie board. What else is there to talk about that comes close to being as important?

There are posters that literally post nothing except raining on other's parade and sound pretty happy to be stuck with mediocrity. Pretty sorry people.

Please convince me that 2 outright Big Ten titles and 3 sweet 16s = mediocrity? I agree that IU can do better and think it will happen. But it is not mediocrity.

 

[IU Scott]

Please convince me that 2 outright Big Ten titles and 3 sweet 16s = mediocrity? I agree that IU can do better and think it will happen. But it is not mediocrity.

I guess he does not really understand the meaning of medicore. Medicore is average or right in the middle so if we finished 6th to 8th every year in the conference that would be mediocre or below average.

 

[neigo]

Name one hondo. I think it hurts your pride more than it hurts your eyes.

 

[IU Scott]

This may be the saddest attempt at cherry picking/splitting hairs that I have ever seen.

We are talking about the college in the basketball state, correct? It is mediocre. Crean doesn't even have a winning record in the Big Ten. Goodness, you guys are a sorry bunch.

So being the top team in one of the power conferences and finishing in the top 16 out of 347 teams is not the definition of mediocre. Is it where we want to be , no but to say that season is mediocre is just wrong.

 

[hondo314]

Or one can counter your argument by saying the program CTC inherited no longer was the "once proud U program" of years past, it hadn't been since shortly after RMK left , it was already ruined when CTC inherited it and that he is making progress to get the program back to that level.

ruined? this is college basketball, for god's sake. IU isn't Rome. lol. plug in the right coach and go.

 

[IU Scott]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mediocre
Definition of mediocre

 

[neigo]

Didnt say Coach Knight was the whole problem obviously there were others. But if you want to see mediocrodity look at his last 5 years.

 

[hondo314]

So being the top team in one of the power conferences and finishing in the top 16 out of 347 teams is not the definition of mediocre. Is it where we want to be , no but to say that season is mediocre is just wrong.

it is in the context of his whole tenure here. he's not doing what the top coaches in our league have done. he's well-paid to be in that 2nd tier. mediocre for our league, for sure.

 

[hondo314]

Didnt say Coach Knight was the whole problem obviously there were others. But if you want to see mediocrodity look at his last 5 years.

what in all of creation do BK's last, tired years have to do with our current expectations?

it's like being a shareholder and being told you have to be okay with flat ROI because it's a little better than the ROI you got the last 5 years with the best CEO you've ever had.

BK's last 5 years are a rallying cry to the pro-creaners for some reason. if you have to do that, you are having to do too much to cover your guy. sad.

it's bizarro world in here with some of you guys. at least i respect the posts that say he's learning. please don't try to sell that he's succeeding compared to IU's vast potential.

 

[IU Scott]

it is in the context of his whole tenure here. he's not doing what the top coaches in our league have done. he's well-paid to be in that 2nd tier. mediocre for our league, for sure.

I would say that he is getting better and winning two outright championships is far from being second tier. Again nobody is saying that we are happy if this is he ceiling but I think we are going in the right direction.