lillurk

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.

Look, you can find a great coach with only one tourney run! The league titles in the A10 and the consecutive tournament qualifications are more important, but my point is are they enough to get considered for the job absent the other? I think they should be enough for consideration at least, pending other factors.

You’re proving my point. https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnGasaway/status/842354560161218560 They were about 31% to win at tip...so better than IU’s chances in Minnesota by a little, accounting for home court advantage: http://barttorvik.com/box.php?muid=400546900&year=2014. His best accomplishment was narrowly achieved, I’m not saying it was worthless.

And even if I was saying “take away his greatest single accomplishment to consider the candidate,” Stevens has two title game runs. So you drop the year he lost to Duke and still have a guy who made the title game. single tournament runs matter but track record (regular season and tournament success) matters much more. Ask Mike Davis or Porter Moses.

Actually I’m saying his “greatest accomplishment” hinges on Aaron Craft barely missing a floater. The fact that other schools would’ve considered him is poor justification: schools hire bad coaches constantly with weak processes. A single tournament run is not a lot to hang your hat on. Was Archie’s string of consistently making the tourney at Dayton enough to get a look absent three wins in March 2014?

A thought experiment: if Dayton lost either of its down-to-the-wire first weekend tournament games the year it went to the elite 8, is he even a candidate when IU is looking?

If he thinks this he’s correct (certainly once the season has begun and they couldn’t be easily replaced on this year’s roster). He has tools to lead with that he clearly isn’t using, and unlike last year, there are healthy alternatives you can reasonably expect to produce.

Not to mention that at least what’s described herein is immature but not worthy of dismissal.

Anyone who’s ever managed people has dealt with interpersonal challenges. Letting the problem fester (for years!) is the leader’s problem. He has plenty of power short of dismissal and at least the public-facing options like benching haven’t happened. He’s in charge, they’re his responsibility. If he can’t see that it’ll never work for him. (btw this is a good argument against letting captains be selected by their peers.)

Say what you will about this year’s team’s performance but he’d also inherit a level of talent he didn’t at Michigan.