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:
Code:
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:
Code:
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:
Code:
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
Code:
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:
Code:
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.
