The Assembly Call Blog

Through 17 games, Indiana (13-4) is far more efficient on defense than offense on the first possession after a timeout, but it has room to improve on both ends of the floor.

The Hoosiers are allowing 0.98 points per possession (PPP) on defense, while scoring just 0.79 PPP on offense on the possession immediately following a timeout.

Through the games played on January 16, those efficiency ratings would rank 118th and 353rd nationally, when compared to the season-long adjusted efficiency ratings on kenpom.com.

The national average for adjusted efficiency in college basketball this season is 100.4.

By isolating Indiana’s performance on the first possession after a timeout, we can judge the Hoosiers’ efficiency on set plays, in high-leverage situations, and immediately after they have the opportunity to make substitutions to put their desired five-man lineup on the floor.

Offensive efficiency after a timeout

Here’s Indiana’s offensive efficiency when it has been on offense on the first possession immediately after a timeout. Assist rate is calculated as assists/made field goals.

Indiana’s turnover rate (14.9%) is lower than its season-long average, 19.4 percent, which is 0.1 percent lower than the national average. Its 64.7 percent assist rate — the percent of its made baskets that were assisted — coming out of timeouts is higher than both its overall assist rate this season (49.3%) and the national average (51.7%).

Against the 12 teams IU has played that rank in the top 150 on kenpom.com (with No. 133 Nebraska being the lowest-ranked), IU’s efficiency when it’s on offense on the first possession after a timeout drops to 0.66 points per possession — 35 points on 53 possessions.

Offensive efficiency by player

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Trayce Jackson-Davis, who’s 23rd nationally with an offensive rating of 127.3, is Indiana’s most efficient option on offense when the Hoosiers have the ball on the first possession after a timeout.

He’s scoring a ridiculous 1.86 points per possession on these possessions — by far the highest on the team. The full breakdown is below, listed in descending order of offensive possessions in which a player ended a possession with a made shot, a missed shot rebounded by the defense, a turnover, or a trip to the free throw line.

Note that some of the offensive possessions “ended” after an offensive rebound, which means the set that IU drew up led to a missed shot that IU then rebounded.

Based on the shooting splits and efficiency data we calculated, you can argue the wrong players are often taking the wrong kinds of shots after IU breaks its huddle.

Offensive shot type and efficiency breakdown

Here’s the complete shot selection breakdown on IU’s offensive possessions immediately following a timeout. These numbers include missed shots that led to an offensive rebound for IU.

IU is on pace to have its worst 3-point shooting team in program history with a current 3-point percentage of 29.7 percent, down from 31.2 percent in 2019 and 32.2 percent in 2018, yet it’s taking a three on more than one in every three offensive possessions immediately following a timeout, on average.

Either IU is running plays for players who can’t consistently make threes or its players are taking threes as something of a last resort after the first or second option isn’t available.

Maybe it’s a combination of the two.

Getting a layup or dunk against a set defense is easier said than done, but the Hoosiers are 8-of-13 (61.5%) on shots at the rim following a timeout, led by Jackson-Davis’ 4-of-4 mark.

The good news for IU is that its offensive rebounding coming out of timeouts is at an above-average level.

The Hoosiers have 12 offensive rebounds on possessions in which they were on offense right after a timeout, which is a 30.7 percent offensive rebounding percentage on 39 missed shots.

The national average for offensive rebounding percentage is 28.2 percent.

Fifteen points, or 28 percent, of the 53 points IU has scored on offense in the first possession after a timeout this season have come at the free throw line.

Here are Indiana’s single-game post-timeout offensive efficiency breakdowns by game, listed in descending order of PPP.

Now let’s look at the defense.

Defensive efficiency after a timeout

Here’s Indiana’s defensive efficiency when it has been on defense on the first possession immediately after a timeout.

Indiana’s defensive efficiency on the first possession after a timeout is slightly worse than their season-long efficiency (91.3) but it’s still better than the national average (100.4). Their defensive turnover percentage (15.8%) on these possessions is worse than their season-long average (19.3%) and the national average (19.5%).

Their 51.9 percent defensive assist rate, meaning the number of made field goals they’ve allowed that were assisted, is slightly higher than their season-long percentage (51.3%) and the national average (51.7%).

Against the 12 top-150 opponents it has faced, IU’s efficiency when it’s on defense on the first possession after a timeout is exactly 1.00 point per possession — 60 points allowed in 60 possessions.

Defensive shot type and efficiency breakdown

When IU is on defense on the first possession after a timeout, it’s allowing opponents to shooting better than 40 percent from three. While the Hoosiers are above-average at 3-point defense (31.5% on the season), they’re prone to allowing a high-percentage of 3-point attempts.

Through 17 games, 40.7 percent of IU’s opponents’ field goal attempts have come from behind the arc and the Hoosiers have allowed a similar percent when they’re on defense on the first possession after a timeout.

Here’s the full breakdown by shot type.

IU has allowed 13 offensive rebounds on 40 missed shots on these possessions, which means opponents are rebounding 32.5 percent of their misses when they’re on offense on the first possession after a timeout.

Here are Indiana’s single-game post-timeout defensive efficiency breakdowns by game, listed in descending order of PPP.

Timeout source and intention

In 17 games this season, IU has called 36 timeouts, which is just over two per game. Its opponents have called 45 timeouts, and there have been 68 TV timeouts (not including team timeouts that became TV timeouts due to their proximity to when the next TV timeout would occur).

IU has had 27 offensive possessions that immediately followed an IU timeout, meaning IU wanted the chance to stop momentum, draw up a play, make a substitution, or let its players catch its breath before the next possession. The Hoosiers scored 19 points on those 27 possessions, or 0.70 PPP.

IU has called timeout before a defensive possession nine times this season. The Hoosiers have allowed eight points, or 0.89 PPP.

Meanwhile, IU is scoring 0.86 PPP on offense after the opposing calls a timeout (six points on seven possessions), while allowing 0.95 PPP on defense (36 points allowed in 38 possessions) after its opponent calls a timeout.

*****

---

Methodology

Here is the methodology used to calculate this data.

We analyzed the play-by-play data from every Indiana game this season, taking note of every time there was a timeout, while also noting which team called it or if it was a TV timeout. We only looked at the first possession immediately after timeout, taking note of which team was on offense and which team was on defense.

As soon as the possession changed due to a made shot, defensive rebound or turnover, the analysis of that possession ended.

We did not count timeouts that immediately preceded a free-throw attempt that was taken due to a foul that occurred prior to the timeout. Timeouts in which a team timeout became the TV timeout in accordance with timeout protocol were counted as one timeout, not two, even though the play-by-play data lists them as two different, consecutive timeouts.

In the rare instance that a timeout was called mid-possession, even though there wasn’t a change in possession, both timeouts were counted since there were technically two different scoring opportunities for the coaching staffs to adjust their strategy and personnel during the single possession. Although in instances in which two different timeouts were called in the same possession but no meaningful action (a shot, foul, turnover, etc.) happened in between the two timeouts, only the second timeout was counted.

We added up every possession in which Indiana, and its opponent, was on offense and defense to establish the number of possessions the Hoosiers and their opponents had on either end of the floor after a timeout. Then we added up the number of points each team scored or allowed on those possessions, as well as the number of turnovers committed and forced.

This allowed us to calculate a team’s points per possession after a timeout (points/number of possessions) and turnover percentage (turnovers/number of possessions) for both offense and defense.

Points scored from free throws were included as long as the foul occurred after the timeout and not before.

Offensive rebounds counted as extending a possession rather than starting a new possession. For example, a team that’s on offense after a timeout could miss its first two shots on a possession, rebound both missed shots, then make its third shot attempt, meaning the team on offense scored on its first possession after a timeout, even if the shot clock reset.