lillurk

TJD’s not coming back, they’ll have a roster hole on the interior anyone could’ve seen coming years ahead, the roster is perpetually one guy short or one injury from disaster while he carries an empty scholarship...I don’t know that it’s time to cut bait but anyone who thinks he’s clearly the answer is just unwilling to accept some glaring flaws

I wouldn’t worry too much about his overall FG% given the 3 point acumen. As a frosh, 78% of his FGs were 3s; last year it was 53% of his FGs: https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/parker-stewart-1.html Now his 2 point shot selection? Not good when he takes them. Too many two point jumpers, too often unassisted though he was good at the rim at UT-Martin (60%). https://hoop-math.com/Pittsburgh2018.php https://hoop-math.com/UTMartin2020.php

Agreed, especially with both seniors out I was surprised he didn’t get some run. When the frontcourt is at full strength, I wonder if we’ll see some lineups that push Jerome to the 3.

I think one thing the Archie defenders fail to grapple with: lots of sustainable turnarounds start with *even less* inherited than Arch did and have things going the right way by year 3/4 or even sooner. Does one game mean the season is over? Of course not! But the offensive scheme is still poor and the shooting is poorer. Three of the four guys who’ve grown the most under Arch (Juwan, Al, Justin, Race?) were actually recruited by Crean. I’d add that the specific recruitment/development player type failure, beyond shooting generally, is the sort of big guard/wing bucket getter that you can center an offense around. Just haven’t gotten or developed one, except Romeo.

Meant to add: 4. Even if Lander is “only” a good backup pg this year, well...when was the last time IU had a good backup pg? Probably 2012-2013 when they started two pgs but almost never played without one of them on the floor (Yogi and Hulls). It’s a luxury not to chew through your nails when your starter has to sit. Even if Lander and Rob don’t play much together this year, what we saw Wednesday was promising. 5. that said, both Lander and Geronimo seem likely to grow into larger roles in just a few months, which is great.

My short answer: too early to tell. Some things I liked from the TTU game: 1. Archie got flexible on defense: they switched some screens! If you were sick of watching unnecessary hedges non-shooters thirty feet from the hoop, then wide open roll/pop bigs, as I was: good news. 2. Fewer two-traditional-big lineups: I imagine this will continue, with Brunk mostly backing up TJD at the five. Race, Jerome, and eventually Jordan (?) all provide more athleticism at the 4 or in Race’s case, the five (maybe more shooting, too). 3. Theoretically, more shooters on the floor: the results weren’t good from three and FT but I’m not too worried about that, there were some surprising individual lows and they still won by dozens.

Agree, I think highly of Race and Duncomb and even think in 21-22 you can squeeze maybe ~15 combined minutes out of them at the 5: ten from Race, who’s undersized but strong and long-armed, and spot minutes from Duncomb. Race is sturdy but probably not an ideal rim protector. But I’ve said for awhile they need a grad transfer 5 for next year, and this probably heightens that need. Obviously no one thinks Trey is a college or pro 5 full-time but he could probably play some minutes there in a small-ball lineup. Wayne’s right, with Geronimo and Hunter plus some big guards who can guard SFs (Galloway and Franklin), IU can Hope to patch the forward spots.

I initially thought it was a hoax, and it may still be — if it was on the radio, I’m surprised no one has the audio. But I worry the rumor has enough legs that we’re at the point where it’s concerning no professional media have debunked it.

Yeah if a sit out transfer big is an option I’d sniff around. The 21-22 team has a need for a five that isn’t a frosh or notably undersized.

I think Paul Biancardi has a more nuanced, specific way of describing KL’s results here in point 2: ”

I think you’re right, I guess I just think “streaky” has some negative connotations and at some point there’s gotta be a better way to say this.

I keep seeing him referred to as a “streaky” shooter. Meyer’s 247 scouting report says it; Bossi says it here. But across almost 300 attempts I could find from HS and AAU, he hit 37%. Isn't that almost too good, cumulatively, to be streaky?

Yes, I guess that’s the “shoot the moon” option.

Yes, got my years mixed up. Brass is right. Brunk graduates and assuming Trayce is at least a serious possibility to leave, you need someone you know can give you good minutes at the five thereafter. 20+ minutes, IMO, even if you play small some and trust Duncomb some in year one.

IU should really work to get a multi-year big on the last available scholarship, whether a late-rising 2020 HSer we haven’t heard they’re after or a transfer. I think Duncomb is a nice long-term piece and I like either/both Race and a particular ‘21 PF to play some minutes as a small-ball 5, but as of now the 2020-21 and 21-22 rosters seem to have one clear gap at the 5.

Beilein used to say that for you to go up, someone else has to go down. I think Howard can have success there but IU is in a good spot to potentially leapfrog UM in 2021 and can hopefully maintain it.

I think he could be a good pickup somewhere: strong track record and USF is a good program for its level. However. Career 31.8% on 443 threes. He did shoot well, 37%, as a freshman on 138 attempts... This staff’s continued prioritization of middling shooters and a shallow track record of developing them confuses me.

I vaguely remember watching Damon Bailey, must’ve been his senior year, 93-94. I would’ve been 5. First really specific memory is asking my dad why Brian Evans cut out of bounds on the baseline all the time, specifically at AH, so 6 or 7.

I think I’m where Aloha is here. Not only has the trend been slower than I thought it should be but there are the concerns I outlined before: trend goes in the other direction in conference, stubbornness may not serve Arch well schematically, etc. But that said things look set up for a perfectly acceptable season next year. Probably not the type of year we hope we’re hitting consistently sometime soon, but the sort of year you can deal with occasionally once you’re at cruising altitude: in the tournament easily, some memorable moments, and some things to hang your hat on (beat rivals, conf/NCAA tourney success, though I don’t like judging on single-year tourney outcomes). So yes: if this happens it will reframe the amount of time it took. There are enough concerning things that I’m always a bit surprised when anyone’s an all-in, 100% sure True Believer. But it’s there for the taking.

Okay sure but I was comparing *rank of conference-only efficiency number among a 14 team league,* not raw numbers, so that doesn’t apply

“Pointless” is strong — they tell me much more than W/L record in conference, given the unbalanced schedule. And I’m not sure adjusting would change rank much — if anything, this year’s team likely wouldn’t given 3 of its 9 wins were against the two worst teams by far, and 5/9 against the bottom 3 teams.

The conference-only efficiency numbers have gone the wrong way (7th in efficiency margin in conference games in Arch’s 1st year, then 10th, then 12th). Yes, the conference was stronger this year, but some of that is still worrisome: the conference got better for a few reasons, and some of them will stick (Illinois and Ohio State may not fall back much, for example). Still, while I think there are some reasons for optimism, that’s concerning. I do also worry about the scheme on both ends. Arch stubbornly stuck with slow big + high hedge too long on defense and gave up tons of open threes. Things were better as Hunter and Thompson came along, but it’s still a scheme that tends to give up lots of 3s. Arch doesn’t seem to want to adjust, and I hope he considers some new ideas on both sides of the ball this offseason. Currently he’s got a lot of time to watch film. On offense, IU occasionally does interesting things but the big picture is less than the sum of its parts — even within the conference, many coaches get better production with less talent. He seems to have a hard time getting his teams on the same page. This seems less true with the guys Arch has recruited. Some have called this an attitude problem, but attitude reflects leadership. We’ll see if this can change. It’s main on-court impact is too many bad decisions, and too many give-up road games. I wouldn’t say next year is a “put up or shut up” year for Arch but it’s definitely time to be past the perpetual tournament bubble. Even without Lander, Torvik’s super early projections have IU 22nd. The too early top 25s have them just outside. That seems about the range...a six or seven seed, give or take.

No idea whatsoever but I wouldn’t be shocked if he was completing (or planning to complete) the two remaining courses he needs remotely anyway.

I appreciate the discussion. I never said throw the season out, though. You criticized the hypothetical even though you thought it through and concluded one layup mattered as to whether he would be a candidate, so I’m not sure it’s as bad as you suggested ;) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I didn’t want Cronin at IU but I think his track record at Cincinnati certainly indicates he could be successful at a program a level up. I don’t think UCLA is a great fit but I’m curious how he’ll do.