Commentary

I treated myself to a new college hoops toy for Christmas: an account at Hoop Lens.

After spending some time clicking around and analyzing lineup data on the eight top-60 games Indiana has played in (record: 4-4), it seems there are a few things we’ve kinda/sorta* learned about this year’s Hoosiers.

* – The sample size is still pretty small, so everything in here should be viewed with that context.

1. Trayce Jackson-Davis’ impact on Indiana is massive

No duh, right?

Everyone knows that Trayce has the biggest impact on the Hoosiers’ overall play. But do you realize just how big the impact is?

In the 460 offensive possessions and 554 defensive possessions Trayce has played in, Indiana has outscored its high-major competition by 0.09 points per possession.

In the 112/117 possessions Indiana has played without Trayce, opponents have outscored Indiana by 0.33 points per possession.

That’s a massive swing of 0.42 points per possession. In other words, Trayce is the sun around which everything orbits this season and he needs to play as many minutes as he can reasonably handle.

2. Race and Armaan have been Indiana’s other two most impactful players … also by a lot

Here’s how the individual on/off data looks for all of Indiana’s players:

• Trayce Jackson-Davis: On +0.09 / Off -0.33 | +0.42
• Armaan Franklin: On +0.04 / Off -0.14 | +0.18
• Race Thompson: On +0.05 / Off -0.11 | +0.16
• Trey Galloway: On +0.03 / Off -0.02 | +0.05
• Anthony Leal: On +0.04 / Off +0.01 | +0.03
• Al Durham: On +0.01 / Off +0.1 | Same
• Rob Phinisee: On +0.01 / Off +0.02 | -0.01
• Jerome Hunter: On -0.18 / Off +0.10 | -0.28
• Khristian Lander: On -0.23 / Off +0.06 | -0.29
• Jordan Geronimo: On -0.43 / Off +0.04 | -0.47

A few observations from this data:

• It’s clear who Indiana’s three best players have been this season. The eye test matches the data.
• It’s really tough to win in the Big Ten when your senior and junior guards are providing a negligible impact.
• Lander and Hunter are both being counted on to provide offensive punch on the bench, but it’s not happening. The lack of offensive output makes their defensive struggles untenable. (We knew Lander would struggle defensively. The question is: with more consistent minutes, could he find a better offensive rhythm to offset his defense struggles?)
• Does Anthony Leal warrant a little more run? It’s a small sample size (53 possessions), but lineups with him in the game have at least treaded water, which is better than can be said for Hunter, Lander, and Geronimo.

3. Al and Rob playing together has been suboptimal so far this season

Based on the data above, you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that Indiana’s best four-man combination that has played significant time together has been Trayce, Race, Armaan, and Trey.

In their 122/124 possessions on the court, they are outscoring opponents by 0.25 points per possession. All other lineups are being outscored by 0.05.

But who is the best fifth man to pair with them?

So far, it’s been Rob Phinisee.

Indiana is dominating opponents by 0.52 points per possession with Rob, Armaan, Trey, Race, and Trayce playing together. It’s only 37/40 possessions, but it certainly blows away the alternatives.

In double the amount of possessions that Al has played with that group, Indiana’s offense has really struggled. Overall, the Hoosiers have only outscored opponents by 0.10 points per possession

Neither lineup has a huge sample size, so I wouldn’t read too much into the data, but the difference is pretty stark.

The lineup that Indiana ended last night’s game against Penn State with was Rob, Al, Armaan, Race, and Trayce. Here’s how that group looks in 117/115 possessions:

That group is only +0.07 … but it certainly came through when it mattered most!

The takeaway here, which shouldn’t be surprising given their early-season struggles, is that Indiana hasn’t been nearly as good with Al and Rob on the court together this season.

When Al and Rob play together, it means that one of Armaan or Trey is off the court and you lose something that no one else on the roster has been able to replace. When Armaan leaves, you lose your most consistent backcourt scorer. When Trey leaves, you lose your most consistent halfcourt playmaker. Both are also solid, willing defenders.

This is why Indiana has been better with Armaan and Trey on the court together:

That offense is nothing to get excited about, but they compensate with solid defense.

Perhaps the Penn State game will signal a turnaround for Al and Rob. But until we see more consistent production from the two of them, Indiana seems better off minimizing the impact of their inconsistency by only have one on the court at the same time alongside Armaan and Trey.

4. No, Indiana shouldn’t try to play small.

One idea I’ve seen suggested, and even considered myself, is the possibility of Indiana playing small. This would mean playing just one of Trayce or Race, then surrounding them with four guards/wings.

The thought would be that this would open the offense some. The risk, of course, is that you sacrifice a lot of defense.

The numbers back this up.

Here’s what it looks like when Indiana plays with Trayce but without Race:

And here’s what it looks like when Race plays without Trayce:

Yikes!

The problem with the “play small” theory with this particular team is that Indiana just doesn’t have enough guards/wings who are playing well enough offensively to offset the clear drop in defense. Plus, how would it affect Trayce’s offense without Race on the court to handle the most difficult defensive assignment in the post?

Until Jerome starts playing better, or both Al and Rob start producing consistently on offense, or Khristian Lander finally gets his sea legs, Indiana needs to play Trayce and Race as many minutes as they can handle.

***

What other takeaways do you have from this data? Or what questions do you have that I could dig into the data to answer?

Coming into this season, I said that Al Durham was Indiana’s second-most indispensable player behind Trayce Jackson-Davis.

Not Indiana’s second-best player, but it’s second-most indispensable player — thanks to the Hoosiers’ dearth of reliable perimeter scoring beyond him.

The first nine games of the 2020-21 season have changed that somewhat.

Race Thompson is now Indiana’s clear #2 given how Joey Brunk’s injury, Justin Smith’s departure, and Jerome Hunter’s struggles at the 4 have demolished the frontcourt depth. Indiana simply cannot absorb any injury, ineffectiveness, or foul trouble from its big man combo.

And Armaan Franklin’s emergence as a higher-usage, sharp-shooting scoring threat has been a pleasant and absolutely necessary surprise. Is it here to stay? The 50% shooting from deep surely is not, but the acceptable efficiency on 22% usage probably is, with plenty of room still to grow.

Yet even with Race’s improvement and Armaan’s emergence, Indiana remains just 3-4 against top-100 competition, with an offensive efficiency wallowing in the 50s nationally and 12th in the conference through two frustrating losses.

There are number of reasons for this, but the #1 reason is that Al Durham … just hasn’t been Al Durham.

And if Indiana is going to snap out of this 0-2 conference funk and make good on its still-high computer rankings (#23 in KenPom, #18 in Torvik), the Hoosiers have to get more out of their senior guard.

Why Al is the key to improved offensive production

Now, you may be wondering why I’m singling out Al here instead of Rob Phinisee.

Simple: Indiana needs improvement on offense.

And while improvement from both Rob and Al would nice, asking Rob to be better offensively is asking for something we haven’t actually seen him do.

Yes, Rob can theoretically be better (it’s always theoretical with Rob, isn’t it?), and he surely will be in fits and spurts as the season progresses, but we’ve never seen consistent offensive production from him. So I’ll appreciate the strong defense and enjoy any improved offense if it comes, but I’m not expecting it.

Al, on the other hand, showed us over an extended stretch of play last season how productive he can be offensively.

And just that same level of production that he’s already shown, even without any improvement at all, is the difference between Indiana having an offense that isn’t good enough to win Big Ten games and one that can actually capitalize on the Hoosiers’ improved defense.

The math here is pretty simple.

Al averaged 9.8 points per game in Big Ten play last season. That number jumped to 11.8 points per game over the last eight games of conference play, seven of which were against top-30 teams.

In Indiana’s two most winnable losses this season — at Florida State and home versus Northwestern — the Hoosiers lost by two points and seven points, respectively. In those two losses, Al produced nine and two points. He was an aggressive 3-10 against Florida State and a timid 0-4 against Northwestern.

If Al had simply reproduced his roughly 12-point production from the back half of conference play last season, Indiana wins both games. He had the opportunities, he just didn’t seize them.

Look at Indiana’s most recent game against Illinois. Al did nothing in the first half, but finally got going in the second half. Unfortunately, his overall line was inefficient and not enough: 9 points on 4-12 shooting, including 1-5 from downtown, and no free throws.

Perhaps a better line from Al doesn’t win that game for Indiana, but it gives the Hoosiers a better chance down the stretch … as Al did last year at Illinois when he produced 13 points on 3-6 shooting and 5-5 from the line in a one-point loss.

Inside the numbers: where Al is struggling most this season

Al’s inefficient shooting and lack of free throw production in this year’s Illinois game really is a microcosm of his disappointing offensive struggles as a senior.

As a junior in Big Ten play, Al shot 39.0% from 3-point range. He was also second in the conference in Free Throw Rate (FTA/FGA) at 59.2% while making 82.4% of his free throws. This is a uniquely efficient statistical profile that made Al an excellent wing accoutrement for Trayce Jackson-Davis.

But through the eight games he’s played this season, Al’s shooting and scoring numbers are down in almost every category — and that’s with two games against sub-250 competition included in the mix.

Al is shooting just 25.8% from downtown, with many of the misses being of the left/right variety instead of long/short, a sure sign that a shooter is struggling with his mechanics, his confidence, or both.

Just as concerning is that Al is only getting to the free throw line at a career-low 30.3% clip (FTA/FGA), and he’s only making 60% of his free throws once he gets there.

Al is a 75.4% free throw shooter and a 33.9% 3-point shooter for his career. He has a long track record of acceptable efficiency in these two areas. So it’s clear that something is very, very off right now mechanically or mentally.

Yet it’s not all bad.

Despite what the eye test may lead you to reasonably assume, Al is actually turning in career highs in rebounding percentage, assist rate, and turnover rate. And his 2-point field goal percentage (48.6%) is actually higher than his career rate (47.9%).

The bottom line is that Al’s struggles this season boil down to the fact that his two most reliable offensive abilities — hitting outside shots and making efficient use of the free throw line — are failing him. That’s why his struggles have been so hard to watch. We’ve seen him do the things he’s failing to do this season.

And, fair or not, it’s costing Indiana wins.

It’s also leading to reasonable questions about Al’s role on the team because, simply put, he has to be producing points to be worth playing.

What should Al’s role be moving forward?

We all know that Al is a player with limited abilities. He’s subpar defensively and he’s not going to be the primary creator offense for others very often. That’s why he was the 230th-ranked recruit in his class.

And it’s why the possessions with Al running point have been so maddening. I don’t blame him for this, of course. I just wonder what the coaches are thinking.

Literally any ball-handler we have is a better option than Al for initiating the offense because he’s not adept at it and makes poor decisions. Plus, more to the point, it takes away from what he does best, which is being either a) a spot-up wing who can make shots and attack closeouts, or b) someone who can come off screens, catch, and attack downhill.

My plea to Indiana’s staff would be to let Al play to his limited but important strengths. If you can’t figure out an answer at point guard with your 4-star junior and 5-star freshman, I guarantee you the 3-star scoring guard isn’t the answer.

Al has proven that in the right role he can produce points for himself by hitting 3s and getting to the free throw line, all while helping to spread the floor for Trayce and Race inside. Indiana has one other guy doing that right now in Armaan Franklin. The offense would look a whole lot better with a second guy doing it, which is why Al’s immediate improvement is so important.

And it’s fair to hold out some realistic hope that such improvement will come. We’ve seen reliable sources of perimeter offense struggle as seniors before. In recent seasons, both Robert Johnson and Nick Zeisloft struggled at the start of Big Ten play during their final seasons before getting back to being their old selves.

That’s all Indiana needs from Al Durham now: for him to simply do what he’s already shown he can do. They just need last year’s Al Durham to start showing up for this year’s team.

If that happens, it may just be enough to close the gap between a team that’s good enough to be in games and a team that’s good enough to actually win them.

Okay, a few random thoughts to share on a Wednesday morning.

1. Parker Stewart is here … and this shouldn’t induce any Evan Fitzner PTSD

You’ve surely heard the news by now that grad transfer Parker Stewart has picked IU.

He’ll join the team in January, will have two full seasons to play, and could actually play immediately, though there is no official word on whether he’ll play this season.

It sounds to me like he wants to take the rest of this year to get acclimated to the system and get back into shape and rhythm after taking some time away from the game after his father’s passing.

Obviously, there is a lot to like about Stewart. The guy is a shooter. Read his interviews, look at his stats, and watch him play. He’s a shooter through and through. It’s in his basketball DNA. It’s been a while since we’ve had one of those.

And his shooting at a high-major level isn’t just theoretical. He’s done it.

Stewart played big minutes at Pitt in the ACC as a freshman and made 42.5% of his 3s across 113 attempts in conference play. Those are Jordan Hulls-type numbers for an underclassmen, and Stewart has the mechanics (quick release, great form and follow through) to suggest they were no one-year wonder.

His percentage dropped last season at Tennessee-Martin, but he was in a high-usage, primary-creator role, often taking lower-percentage shots off the dribble. That’s not the role he’ll play at IU. He’ll be more of a catch-and-shoot, secondary playmaker (think a more mature, consistent Devonte Green), which fits his skillset the best.

The reaction to Stewart’s announcement has been mostly positive. But I’ve noticed a few naysayers pointing to Indiana’s recent experience with Evan Fitzner as reason for caution.

My view is that Fitzner is a slightly comparable data point in that he was a grad transfer in the Archie Miller era who was known for shooting, but I really don’t see the two situations as analogous in any other way. Here’s why:

• Fitzner played in the West Coast Conference for three years prior to IU. Stewart has already shown his chops in a big conference.
• Fitzner was a big man who was only ever going to play spot minutes. Stewart can be a 65-75% of minutes type player.
• Fitzner’s shooting mechanics are fine for a big guy, but his release was slow and he couldn’t create his own shot. This was a bigger issue in a better conference against better athletes. Stewart’s mechanics are ideal, and he’s not totally reliant on being wide-open for catch-and-shoot 3s.
• Fitzner offered nothing beyond shooting, so he was either draining 3s or wasting minutes. Stewart is a coach’s son with experience as a playmaker, he can get to the free throw line, and he is a good rebounder for a guard.

Simply put: I wouldn’t waste your time worrying about how Stewart might fit because Fitzner didn’t fit. They are different situations and wildly different players.

Yes, many of us were bullish on the Fitzner addition because that roster needed a shooter. But it was a low bar for impact, and Fitzner couldn’t even reach that bar. Right now, there is a lot more reason to be optimistic about Stewart’s fit before he ever plays a minute for IU than there ever was about Fitzner’s.

2. Indiana’s lack of froncourt depth is going to be a problem

When Justin Smith transferred, I analyzed it thusly:

• It raised the ceiling for this IU team because of the positive impact it could have on Indiana’s chemistry and offensive efficiency.
• It also lowered the floor for this IU team because you lost a solid defender and an important source of experienced, athletic frontcourt depth.

If it had been my choice, I’d have chosen to have things play out as they did. The transfer was best for both parties. But it wasn’t without its risk for IU.

Basically, without Justin would be no margin for error or injury among Indiana’s returning bigs. With Trayce, Race, and Joey around to man the paint, and Jerome theoretically able to swing between the 3 and 4, you’d have a reliable rotation of tall players … but you just couldn’t lose one of them.

And here we are now, with Joey Brunk still having not played a minute and no timetable (or really expectation) for his return. Plus, Jerome’s play has been all over the place early in the season.

Fortunately, Trayce and Race have been rock solid, forming one of the best 4-5 combos in the country. But how will they hold up come Big Ten play?

This is my big fear for this team moving forward, and it’s why I’m not yet ready to buy Indiana as a top-15 defense by season’s end.

Without Justin and without Joey, Indiana is now unprotected from any injury to Trayce or Race, or even any foul trouble in an individual game. They’ve each avoided both so far, but you don’t need me to remind you about Race’s unfortunate health history as a Hoosier. (QUICK: KNOCK ON ALL THE WOOD.)

Granted, Indiana isn’t completely without options. Jerome is one. Jordan Geronimo could theoretically be another in short spurts of action. And there is always the option of going small with four guards/wings around either Race or Trayce — though Indiana needs to prove it has the outside shooting that would be needed to make such a strategy work.

Hopefully this entire paragraph becomes a moot point because Trayce and Race stay healthy, can defend without fouling, and Jerome proves capable of playing big.

But I struggle to foresee a scenario in which Indiana’s lack of frontcourt depth isn’t an issue in at least 3-5 conference games. How the Hoosiers handle those games may well be the difference between finishing 4th and finishing 10th in the conference.

I just know that I sure would be feel more comfortable if we had the security of Joey Brunk’s presence.

Now let’s end with a positive …

3. Indiana is making good use of the free throw line early in the season (seriously!)

Indiana’s poor free throw shooting has become a running joke among IU fans, at least those who appreciate gallows humor.

Archie Miller has yet to field a team that has made at least 68% of its free throws. That should be impossible at the school that once harbored Steve Alford, Jay Edwards, and Jordan Hulls, yet here we are.

But I’m at least seeing some signs of optimism early this season that the free throw line will be a legitimate friend to the Hoosiers.

First, the Hoosiers are getting to the line a ton.

Indiana’s Free Throw Rate (calculated as free throw attempts divided by field goal attempts) is 47.2%. That’s an excellent number. It’s made even more impressive given the fact that it hasn’t been racked up against a bunch of scrubs. Three of Indiana’s opponents have the #3, #12, and #16 defenses in the country, and good defenses usually are good at keeping the opposition off the line.

The second reason for optimism is that the Hoosiers are actually making a higher percentage from the line.

Overall, Indiana is shooting 67.3% from the line. That’s not good, I know. It’s not even as good as last season, when Indiana shot 67.9% from the line — the high point in free throw shooting under Archie Miller!

But dig into the numbers a little bit and there is a glimmer of hope.

The Hoosiers have fared poorly from the line in two low-leverage home games against cupcake competition. Indiana went just 28-53 from the line against Tennessee Tech and North Alabama. That’s 52.8%. Yuck.

But in its other four games, all against top-70 competition in neutral or road environments, Indiana shot 79-106, which is 74.5%. That’s more like it!

What does it mean?

Well, six games is a very small sample size. Maybe time will show us that there is no signal in the noise. But so far this season we’re seeing an IU team that is doing a better job of making its free throws in games when they matter.

If that continues into Big Ten play, then the free throw line can be a huge strength for IU that helps to offset its inconsistent shooting from beyond the arc.

Money can talk in a big way in college sports.

The Big Ten showed this once again by changing their own rules and denying IU a spot in the Big Ten Championship Game.

Based on reported figures from last year, the Big Ten will make an extra $6 million dollars if Ohio State finds its way into the College Football Playoff. To have the best chance of that happening, the Big Ten felt it needed the Buckeyes in the Big Ten Championship Game regardless of the six-game minimum rule that been set before the season. 

It appears the Big Ten was willing to change that rule on a dime for the benefit of maximizing dollars.

What is so mind boggling about this decision is that Ohio State would most likely have gotten into the College Football Playoff either way.

I have heard the argument that since Ohio State beat IU that they deserve the spot, but I don’t buy it. Rules are rules in my mind. I understand first-hand how rules can be changed on a dime in mysterious ways for reasons no one can understand.

In fact, it happened to me in high school with a Youth Group Board Election.

It was agreed upon beforehand that the position I was running for would have two chairs for this particular committee. Everyone running for the position left the room, and when we returned I was told I had come in second … but they decided to change the rules at the last minute. Now, there would only be one chair of this committee.

Needless to say, I was not happy about this sudden rule change. The room got pretty heated, with me getting emotional and trying to talk my way into the position. After much lobbying I was able to get the board to agree. I felt like I was rightfully restored to the co-chair position I had earned.

Now, fast forward about 15 years to 2020, and IU is in the same predicament I was in. The Hoosiers have been put into a tough spot by a last-minute rule change. Unlike with me, however, and with seven-figure money involved, IU was apparently not able to lobby their way back to what was rightfully earned by them.

The fact that I need to even compare the Big Ten to a High School Youth Group Board says all you need to know about the incompetence (or is it naked greed?) of the conference under new commissioner Kevin Warren.

I don’t understand why the Big Ten made this six-game minimum rule if they did not want to enforce it. Did they not foresee that a COVID outbreak could keep a team — even the mighty Buckeyes — out of the playoff if they fell below the six-games? If this happening would post such a problem, then don’t make the rule in the first place. Then you don’t have to worry about anyone getting the short end of the stick or feeling cheated.

Most importantly, though, with IU settling for second place in the Big Ten and a potential (health-willing) showdown with the second-place team from the West (likely Iowa), the Hoosiers cannot mope. Indiana needs “earmuffs and blinders” to make sure they bring their best.

With a win, Indiana will be looking at a spot in a New Year’s Six Bowl or at worst the prestigious Citrus or Outback Bowls. Either way, this would be the best Bowl IU has been placed in since the 1967 Rose Bowl.

This Indiana Football team is having an all-time great season, and they need to make the most of it regardless of whether the Big Ten Conference has turned into amateur hour in the way it is run.

***

For more on this topic, listen to our friends Galen Clavio and Chronic Hoosier on the latest edition of CrimsonCast.

(Image via iuhoosiers.com)

Perusing Indiana’s KenPom profile, here are some early-season efficiency stats that jump out to me.

The question on all of these is: are they a trend we can believe in … or just a mirage?

Trayce Jackson-Davis’ usage

Do you realize that Trayce Jackson-Davis is currently #2 in the KenPom Player of the Year standings?

Interestingly, he’s right behind one current Big Ten big man (Luka Garza, of course) and just ahead of one former Big Ten big man (Eugene Omoruyi, who transferred to Oregon from Rutgers).

Now you may be wondering how Trayce can be so high on this list with an offensive rating (110.3) and effective field goal percentage (50.9%) that are good but still well below his freshman numbers, along with lower rebounding and block rates than he turned in as a freshman.

Well, here’s the most important number you need to know: Trayce is using 34.4% of Indiana’s possessions when he’s on the court.

That’s an incredible number for a big man who rarely takes jump shots or handles the ball on the perimeter. (It also speaks to Indiana’s collective dearth of offense from its guards.)

The KenPom Player of the Year algorithm places a premium on usage rate because, when combined with at least moderate efficiency, it suggests a player who is incredibly important and productive for his team.

It’s interesting to contrast Trayce’s early-season performance with what Trevion Williams is doing at Purdue against a much softer schedule. His usage rate (35.1%) is actually higher than Trayce’s, while his efficiency (ORtg of 88.5 and eFG% of 40.0% … woof) has dipped tremendously.

Most players aren’t able to maintain high efficiency as their usage rates climb. So far Trayce has struggled with it some, but his performance against Stanford suggests he may be adjusting to his new high-usage role.

He may not finish with a usage quite so high, but this is definitely a trend. Indiana is playing through its All America candidate, and will continue to all season long.

Armaan Franklin’s rebounding

Armaan is currently grabbing 18.4% of the available defensive rebounds when he’s on the court. That is the highest rebounding efficiency on Indiana’s team.

Sometimes players can tally anomalous efficiency numbers in small sample sizes of minutes. But Armaan is playing a ton. He’s tied for Trayce for the team lead in minutes, playing 75.6% of Indiana’s minutes so far.

So this number is probably more trend than mirage.

Armaan is stronger and more assertive this season, and he’s playing a lot of minutes that might otherwise be going to Justin Smith. And he’s making good use of them.

Archie mentioned that his guards needed to rebound better, and Armaan has answered the call.

Preferably, Trayce and Race will both surpass Armaan as the season goes along. If they don’t, Indiana profiles to be one of the conference’s worst rebounding teams, which is not ideal. But it’s at least nice to know Indiana has a third reliable rebounder out there.

Race Thompson’s combined block and steal rate

One of Race Thompson’s most underrated skills is disruptiveness as a defender. Race is currently blocking 8.7% of opponent shots when he’s on the court, and he’s getting steals on 2.5% of opponent possessions. That’s 11.2 combined, and that is the hallmark of a disruptive defensive player.

Here are all of the other individual seasons since 2002 by an IU player who played at least 40% of minutes and had a block + steal rate greater than 6.5%, where the Steal Rate was at least 1.5% (to eliminate big guys who just feasted on blocked shots):

• 2019: Juwan Morgan 9.1 (5.8% + 2.3%)
• 2018: Juwan Morgan 7.8 (5.4% + 2.4%)
• 2017: OG Anunoby 8.5 (5.5% + 3.0%) and Thomas Bryant 7.3 (5.7% + 1.6%)
• 2013: Cody Zeller 6.5 (4.4% + 2.1%) and Victor Oladipo 8.3 (2.8% + 4.5%)
• 2012: Cody Zeller 7.1 (4.3% + 2.8%)
• 2007: D.J. White 10.0 (8.3% + 1.7%)
• 2002: Jared Jeffries 6.6 (3.8% + 2.8%) and Jeff Newton 11.6 (8.9% +1.7%)

What is the common thread among all those guys? They all played, or are still playing, in the NBA … other than Jeff Newton, who became the greatest professional player in the history of the Japan!

In other words, only players who are very good athletes and very good basketball players rack up block and steal rates like what Race is doing this season.

And while Race surely won’t finish the season at 11.2, his track record suggests this is a bona fide trend and he’ll still finish on this esteemed list. Across limited usage as a freshman and a sophomore, Race tallied a combined number of 8.4.

With Race and Armaan playing so many of Indiana’s minutes so far this season, no wonder the Hoosiers have vaulted into the top-15 in adjusted defensive efficiency.

Indiana’s team 3-point shooting percentage is 29.3%

If Indiana were to finish the season shooting 29.3% from 3-point range, it would be by far the lowest total under Archie Miller. But there is reason to think that Indiana’s 3-point shooting will tick up as the season progresses.

The reason is because it’s reasonable to expect two things to happen:

1. Young players will adjust to the speed of the game and start shooting better.
2. Shot selection will get more dialed in to the best shooters taking a higher percentage of the outside shots.

Right now, the trio of Rob Phinisee, Al Durham, and Jerome Hunter — universally accepted as Indiana’s three best outside shooters entering the season — are 10-22 from deep. That’s an outstanding 45.4%.

Even if you throw Armaan Franklin’s 2-10 into the mix, Indiana’s returning shooters are at a respectable 12-32 (37.5%) from deep. Every single IU fan, and Archie Miller, would sign up for that percentage right now.

Here’s the issue …

Newcomers Khristian Lander, Trey Galloway, Anthony Leal, and Jordan Geronimo are a combined 4-24 (16.7%) from deep. That’s obviously putrid, and some of these shots never should have been taken.

But if the two points from above hold — if the freshman improve their shooting and if the shots start being distributed in a smarter way — the early-season performance of Indiana’s vets suggests that this team may actually turn into Indiana’s best 3-point shooting under Archie Miller.

Granted, it’s a low bar (last season’s 32.6%), but it you surround Trayce Jackson-Davis with even just moderately credible 34-35% outside shooting, he’ll have the extra half steps of space he needs to dominate.

So I’m buying low on Indiana’s 3-point shooting. The early-season brick parades are frustrating and worrisome, but likely something of a mirage.

Indiana’s offensive and defensive assist rates are outstanding

Through four games, Indiana is assisting on 62.1% of its made field goals. On defense, the Hoosiers are giving up an assist rate of just 42.2%.

Both numbers would be clear bests under Archie Miller, though it’s reasonable to expect each to regress closer to its historical average as more games are played.

Still, it’s worth considering if either number points to an early-season trend.

I’m not ready to say one way or another on offense, though I do like the increased pace and ball movement I’ve seen. Still, this Indiana team needs to prove it can get consistent guard play and make outside shots before I’m ready to have confidence in its ability to generate assists. So my guess is that’s probably more mirage than trend.

But I do think the improved defensive assist rate is here to stay.

A hallmark of good defenses (think Texas Tech and Virginia) is forcing opponents into a lot of isolation possessions — meaning one player trying to score on his own. The more often this occurs, the lower an opponent’s assist rate will be and, usually, the worse their offensive efficiency will be.

This is because most college players aren’t good enough to consistently score in iso situations against good defenses.

And so far Indiana is showing some signs that its defensive growth is real. Among them:

• The Race Thompson rate stats I mentioned above
• Excellent ball pressure at the top with Rob Phinisee
• More interchangeable pieces to be able to execute switches and playing different styles (like icing ball screens)
• Credible rim protection from Race and Trayce
• A versatile wing defender in Armaan Franklin who can win one-on-one matchups and prevent drives
• Commitment and enthusiasm on defense
• The accumulated institutional knowledge of four years in the same system.

The defensive rebounding is a concern, and probably caps Indiana at a very good defense instead of an elite one, but putbacks are also unassisted buckets, so it’s another reason to think the defensive assist rate is more trend than mirage, and the overall improvement on D may well be here to stay … as long as Rob and Race both stay healthy. #knockonwood

Those are the stats that stand out to me. Do you agree or disagree with my trend/mirage assessments on any of them?

And what other stats stand out to you? Comment below!