Player and Recruit Retention News/Discussion & Potential Transfers

[HoosierAloha 30,024]

Smith already made a big jump, if makes another jump he might be all big ten.

Sent from my LG-K371 using BtownBanners mobile app

I wouldn't be surprised to see him in the AllBig Ten Honorable Mention category next season.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[ebridges24 2,417]

14 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

I wouldn't be surprised to see him in the AllBig Ten Honorable Mention category next season.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

or higher, if he continues the progression he's on. 

[HoosierAloha 30,024]

More fun with numbers (if anyone cares).  It's been interesting looking into these stats.

From teams in the Sweet 16 and... Indiana (from most to least)

Total Games played by players 6'8'' or taller

• (171) Syracuse
• (155) Kentucky
• (128) Texas A&M
• (126) West Virginia
• (124) Duke
• (119) Florida State
• (111) Clemson
• (109) Michigan
• (108) Gonzaga
• (106) Villanova
• (105) Kansas
• (105) Purdue
• (91) Texas Tech
• (67) Kansas State
• (46) Indiana
• (35) Loyola-Chicago
• (0) Nevada

Hey, we had more games played by 6'8'' or taller players than two mid-majors!  I guess it isn't exactly fair because we didn't play deep into the conference tourney or into the Sweet 16, so we'll add a handful more games to even that up... 51!  Still at the bottom.

 

Total minutes played by 6'8'' or taller players (most to least)

• (4292) Syracuse
• (3446) Texas A&M
• (3217) Kentucky
• (2938) West Virginia
• (2732) Duke
• (2719) Gonzaga
• (2544) Kansas
• (2498) Purdue
• (2439) Villanova
• (2387) Michigan
• (2345) Clemson
• (2154) Florida State
• (1776) Kansas State
• (1465) Texas Tech
• (1194) Indiana
• (840) Loyola-Chicago
• (0) Nevada

Again, only ahead of a few mid-majors.  I'll add another handful of games with Morgan playing 30 mpg, so add 150 more minutes.  That gets up to 1344.  De'Ron Davis playing the whole season at his 18.8 mpg clip would definitely help too.  That would have been another 300 minutes and put us at 1644.  We're creeping up on the bottom power 5 schools in the Sweet 16...

Minutes per game by players 6'8'' or taller (most to least)

• (122.6) Syracuse
• (107.8) Texas A&M
• (100.9) Kentucky
• (95.1) West Virginia
• (88.4) Clemson
• (86.4) Duke
• (75.5) Gonzaga
• (72.6) Kansas
• (71.8) Purdue
• (71.6) Florida State
• (69.4) Villanova
• (66) Michigan
• (53.6) Kansas State
• (50.1) Texas Tech
• (48.2) Indiana
• (24) Loyola-Chicago
• (0) Nevada

You guess it, at that bottom ahead of only the lower mid-majors.  It's like we're missing a few 15-20 minutes per game players 6'8'' or taller.

 

Points per game by players 6'8'' or taller

• (42.9) Texas A&M
• (42.3) Duke
• (37.9) Gonzaga
• (37) Kentucky
• (36) West Virginia
• (34.2) Purdue
• (32.2) Kansas
• (31.8) Clemson
• (31.8) Syracuse
• (29.4) Florida State
• (27.3) Michigan
• (26.1) Indiana
• (24.1) Villanova
• (23.6) Kansas State
• (15.5) Texas Tech
• (10.4) Loyola-Chicago
• (0) Nevada

Booyah!!  We're moving on up but still on the lower end.  Losing De'Ron's 9.6 didn't help but having a few more scorers besides those two would help a lot.

Total points by players 6'8'' or taller

• (1373) Texas A&M
• (1365) Gonzaga
• (1349) Duke
• (1193) Kentucky
• (1186) Prudue
• (1120) Kansas
• (1120) Syracuse
• (1108) West Virginia
• (985) Michigan
• (886) Florida State
• (846) Villanova
• (835) Clemson
• (778) Kansas State
• (656) Indiana
• (458) Texas Tech
• (365) Loyola-Chicago
• (0) Nevada

Again, add Davis 9.6 ppg clip over the entire season and that'll add another 154 points.  That would move us ahead of Kansas State at 810 total points.

 

I compare IU to the teams in the Sweet 16 because IU should be there more often than not.  A huge hole in IU's roster is another big that can contribute minutes and some points.  It would be difficult to expect Morgan to carry IU into the Sweet 16 as the primary big.  Davis and Thompson certainly help but IU really needs that second true big to split time with Davis.

(5) Davis/grad transfer big/Morgan

(4) Morgan/Smith/Thompson

(3) McBob/Smith/Hunter

(2) Romeo or grad transfer/Durham/Green

(1) Green/Phinisee

 

Next, I'll compare IU to the top 25! (soon)

[Certified Sunshine Pumper 8,916]

17 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

More fun with numbers (if anyone cares).  It's been interesting looking into these stats.

From teams in the Sweet 16 and... Indiana (from most to least)

Total Games played by players 6'8'' or taller

• (171) Syracuse
• (155) Kentucky
• (128) Texas A&M
• (126) West Virginia
• (124) Duke
• (119) Florida State
• (111) Clemson
• (109) Michigan
• (108) Gonzaga
• (106) Villanova
• (105) Kansas
• (105) Purdue
• (91) Texas Tech
• (67) Kansas State
• (46) Indiana
• (35) Loyola-Chicago
• (0) Nevada

Hey, we had more games played by 6'8'' or taller players than two mid-majors!  I guess it isn't exactly fair because we didn't play deep into the conference tourney or into the Sweet 16, so we'll add a handful more games to even that up... 51!  Still at the bottom.

 

Total minutes played by 6'8'' or taller players (most to least)

• (4292) Syracuse
• (3446) Texas A&M
• (3217) Kentucky
• (2938) West Virginia
• (2732) Duke
• (2719) Gonzaga
• (2544) Kansas
• (2498) Purdue
• (2439) Villanova
• (2387) Michigan
• (2345) Clemson
• (2154) Florida State
• (1776) Kansas State
• (1465) Texas Tech
• (1194) Indiana
• (840) Loyola-Chicago
• (0) Nevada

Again, only ahead of a few mid-majors.  I'll add another handful of games with Morgan playing 30 mpg, so add 150 more minutes.  That gets up to 1344.  De'Ron Davis playing the whole season at his 18.8 mpg clip would definitely help too.  That would have been another 300 minutes and put us at 1644.  We're creeping up on the bottom power 5 schools in the Sweet 16...

Minutes per game by players 6'8'' or taller (most to least)

• (122.6) Syracuse
• (107.8) Texas A&M
• (100.9) Kentucky
• (95.1) West Virginia
• (88.4) Clemson
• (86.4) Duke
• (75.5) Gonzaga
• (72.6) Kansas
• (71.8) Purdue
• (71.6) Florida State
• (69.4) Villanova
• (66) Michigan
• (53.6) Kansas State
• (50.1) Texas Tech
• (48.2) Indiana
• (24) Loyola-Chicago
• (0) Nevada

You guess it, at that bottom ahead of only the lower mid-majors.  It's like we're missing a few 15-20 minutes per game players 6'8'' or taller.

 

Points per game by players 6'8'' or taller

• (42.9) Texas A&M
• (42.3) Duke
• (37.9) Gonzaga
• (37) Kentucky
• (36) West Virginia
• (34.2) Purdue
• (32.2) Kansas
• (31.8) Clemson
• (31.8) Syracuse
• (29.4) Florida State
• (27.3) Michigan
• (26.1) Indiana
• (24.1) Villanova
• (23.6) Kansas State
• (15.5) Texas Tech
• (10.4) Loyola-Chicago
• (0) Nevada

Booyah!!  We're moving on up but still on the lower end.  Losing De'Ron's 9.6 didn't help but having a few more scorers besides those two would help a lot.

Total points by players 6'8'' or taller

• (1373) Texas A&M
• (1365) Gonzaga
• (1349) Duke
• (1193) Kentucky
• (1186) Prudue
• (1120) Kansas
• (1120) Syracuse
• (1108) West Virginia
• (985) Michigan
• (886) Florida State
• (846) Villanova
• (835) Clemson
• (778) Kansas State
• (656) Indiana
• (458) Texas Tech
• (365) Loyola-Chicago
• (0) Nevada

Again, add Davis 9.6 ppg clip over the entire season and that'll add another 154 points.  That would move us ahead of Kansas State at 810 total points.

 

I compare IU to the teams in the Sweet 16 because IU should be there more often than not.  A huge hole in IU's roster is another big that can contribute minutes and some points.  It would be difficult to expect Morgan to carry IU into the Sweet 16 as the primary big.  Davis and Thompson certainly help but IU really needs that second true big to split time with Davis.

(5) Davis/grad transfer big/Morgan

(4) Morgan/Smith/Thompson

(3) McBob/Smith/Hunter

(2) Romeo or grad transfer/Durham/Green

(1) Green/Phinisee

 

Next, I'll compare IU to the top 25! (soon)

Please start doing 3pt shooting percentages and turnover rate as well! 

Morgan 30

Smith 25

Taylor 20

Romeo 30

Green 25

Bench: Thompson 10, Davis 15, RP 10, Hunter 10, McRoberts 15, Durham 10

8 of our 11 that'll be 6'6 or taller. Nice to have height and that gives the actual depth we need at each position, along with... SHOOTERS.

[BtownBanner6 1,298]

Morgan isn't even 6'8


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[WayneFleekHoosier 47,969]

Please start doing 3pt shooting percentages and turnover rate as well! 
Morgan
Smith 
Taylor 
Romeo 
Green 
Bench: Thompson, Davis, RP, Hunter, McRoberts, Durham
8 of our 11 that'll be 6'6 or taller. Nice to have height. 

Counting 2 guys we don’t have yet?


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Certified Sunshine Pumper 8,916]

1 minute ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:

Counting 2 guys we don’t have yet?


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

This whole discussion is literally about players we don't have/players we want. 

[HoosierAloha 30,024]

3 minutes ago, btownqb said:

Please start doing 3pt shooting percentages and turnover rate as well! 

Morgan

Smith 

Taylor 

Romeo 

Green 

Bench: Thompson, Davis, RP, Hunter, McRoberts, Durham

8 of our 11 that'll be 6'6 or taller. Nice to have height. 

If I get around to it.  I do agree we need better guards.  I believe Green and Durham improve, some.  I doubt Phinisee will turn it over at the rate Newkirk did.  Romeo or the UE guard would help a ton with shooting.

The 6'7'' or taller definitely worked for Nevada this season.

• 5/7 rotation players 6'7''
• Top 4 leaders in Total minutes, mpg, ppg, and total points 6'7''

 

 

[Certified Sunshine Pumper 8,916]

6'8 isn't some line you can just use. There plenty of ways to go around not being 6'8. I'd take Smith over hundreds of 6'8 or 6'9 guys. Idc that he is 6'6-6'7... Thompson is fine as a college big guy. 

[Certified Sunshine Pumper 8,916]

6 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

If I get around to it.  I do agree we need better guards.  I believe Green and Durham improve, some.  I doubt Phinisee will turn it over at the rate Newkirk did.  Romeo or the UE guard would help a ton with shooting.

The 6'7'' or taller definitely worked for Nevada this season.

• 5/7 rotation players 6'7''
• Top 4 leaders in Total minutes, mpg, ppg, and total points 6'7''

 

 

Then we're good to go.. We will be bigger than them this year. We have the height we need now.. once we can stretch the floor with shooters.. let Morgan work on another teams slow footed "big guy". 

[WayneFleekHoosier 47,969]

This whole discussion is literally about players we don't have/players we want. 

1. We will agree, if we add 2 players the quality of Romeo and Taylor we will compete on a level we would like to be competing.

 

2. Will we add both? Or 2 guys of that quality? IDK, but using that fictitious lineup to counter Aloha's point isn't really a fair comparison.

 

3. I'd like to have 1 or 2 roster spots in the future dedicated to a defensive force in the paint. If Archie can prove to me we can beat like teams consistently with small ball at the 5, I'm good with that.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

[Certified Sunshine Pumper 8,916]

9 minutes ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:

1. We will agree, if we add 2 players the quality of Romeo and Taylor we will compete on a level we would like to be competing.

 

2. Will we add both? Or 2 guys of that quality? IDK, but using that fictitious lineup to counter Aloha's point isn't really a fair comparison.

 

3. I'd like to have 1 or 2 roster spots in the future dedicated to a defensive force in the paint. If Archie can prove to me we can beat like teams consistently with small ball at the 5, I'm good with that.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

He's literally doing the exact same thing. He wants Romeo or a grad transfer wing and then wants a grad transfer big for the second scholarship. I want two wings or Romeo and a combo guard. Archie has already proven he can win playing small. And.. again we wouldn't be small, just wouldn't be big. 

Both lineups are fictious, there's no difference in the two. 

Playing 3-4 guys that are 6'8, 6'8, 6'10 and maybe one that's 6'9 will be plenty big when you have the talent of Romeo, RP, Taylor, Green, and Smith to go along with it. And defensive guys like Durham and McRoberts.

[Certified Sunshine Pumper 8,916]

I'd like 6'11 guys in the paint as well.. but they have to be able to defend ball screens. 

[mdn82 25,510]

Please start doing 3pt shooting percentages and turnover rate as well! 
Morgan 30
Smith 25
Taylor 20
Romeo 30
Green 25
Bench: Thompson 10, Davis 15, RP 10, Hunter 10, McRoberts 15, Durham 10
8 of our 11 that'll be 6'6 or taller. Nice to have height and that gives the actual depth we need at each position, along with... SHOOTERS.

We will never go 11 deep with Archie. Plus 6’6”? Nah, we need skilled size. Not sure of our ending turnover rate, but our 12.5 turnovers per game is not bad at all so we were for sure less than 20%. We couldn’t shoot. We have added shooters in this theory. I don’t get what a team of 6’6” guys does. There are 2 people on your list of 11 that can play the 5. 1 coming off of an Achilles. No clue how and when he comes back. He was already unathletic and slow before. Doesn’t Romeo, Taylor, and Smith (assuming sophomore jump) improve our shooting? We are assuming huge things for Smith as a big. We should really assume the same for Durham, Green, and hope that atleast 2 Freshman can come in and shoot.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Certified Sunshine Pumper 8,916]

11 minutes ago, mdn82 said:

We will never go 11 deep with Archie. Plus 6’6”? Nah, we need skilled size. Not sure of our ending turnover rate, but our 12.5 turnovers per game is not bad at all so we were for sure less than 20%. We couldn’t shoot. We have added shooters in this theory. I don’t get what a team of 6’6” guys does. There are 2 people on your list of 11 that can play the 5. 1 coming off of an Achilles. No clue how and when he comes back. He was already unathletic and slow before. Doesn’t Romeo, Taylor, and Smith (assuming sophomore jump) improve our shooting? We are assuming huge things for Smith as a big. We should really assume the same for Durham, Green, and hope that atleast 2 Freshman can come in and shoot.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Why is 6'8 a magical number but we disregard anybody that's 6'6 or 6'7 makes no sense. 

Morgan, Thompson, and Davis can all play the 5. I guess you can call it a 5 in college basketball at this point. If Moore transfers then for sure pick up a grad big guy. We don't know what Forrester will look like. From what you have seen this year wouldn't you bet on Smith being the best out of himself, Green, Durham and the FR???? 

Our turnovers were pathetic, as was our guard play in general. Idc about the rate. It was awful. 

You've been nice enough to nitpick my posts this entire time but offer very little in the way of any sort of opinion whatsoever. 

I want Taylor and Romeo for the last two spots. If not one of the two.. then a combo guard that plays the exact opposite of Green (at this point). If Moore or Davis transfer I want a grad big then. Ahola wants a grad big and Romeo or Taylor. 

Would you like offer an opinion on who you want and why? Or you can just continue to gripe at me. I honestly don't care lol

[HoosierAloha 30,024]

More fun with numbers, this time with the top 25! (again these numbers come from players that played ~10 mpg or more, something of rotation players)

Total number of players 6'8'' or taller

• (4) Cincinatti
• (4) Clemson
• (4) Duke
• (4) North Carolina
• (4) West Virginia
• (4) Wichita State
• (4) Xavier
• (3) Arizona
• (3) Gonzaga
• (3) Kansas
• (3) Miami
• (3) Michigan
• (3) Purdue
• (3) Texas Tech
• (3) Villanova
• (2) Auburn
• (2) Florida
• (2) Indiana
• (2) Michigan State
• (2) Ohio State
• (2) Rhode Island
• (2) St. Mary's
• (2) Virginia
• (1) Houston
• (1) Tennessee
• (0) Nevada

Not too bad, De'Ron going out definitely hurt as we spent half of the season with just 1.  Next season, having a healthy Davis and Thompson step up would help a lot.

Total games played by players 6'8'' or taller

• (143) Cincinnati
• (137) North Carolina
• (136) Xavier
• (126) West Virginia
• (124) Duke
• (121) Wichita State
• (111) Clemson
• (109) Michigan
• (108) Gonzaga
• (106) Villanova
• (105) Kansas
• (105) Purdue
• (102) Arizona
• (91) Texas Tech
• (85) Miami
• (70) Michigan State
• (70) St. Mary's
• (68) Auburn
• (68) Virginia
• (67) Florida
• (65) Rhode Island
• (62) Ohio State
• (46) Indiana
• (34) Tennessee
• (33) Houston
• (0) Nevada

Lower end of the top 25.  Davis going out cost us 16 games but that would still put us at the lower end.  Size is an issue...

Total minutes played by 6'8'' or taller players (most to least)

• (2938) West Virginia
• (2864) North Carolina
• (2732) Duke
• (2719) Gonzaga
• (2652) Cincinatti
• (2544) Kansas
• (2498) Purdue
• (2455) Arizona
• (2439) Villanova
• (2387) Michigan
• (2374) Xavier
• (2345) Clemson
• (2241) Wichita State
• (1718) Saint Mary's
• (1602) Miami
• (1584) Florida
• (1465) Texas Tech
• (1426) Michigan State
• (1321) Auburn
• (1205) Virginia
• (1194) Indiana
• (1155) Rhode Island
• (974) Ohio State
• (690) Tennessee
• (413) Houston
• (0) Nevada

Minutes per game by players 6'8'' or taller (most to least)

• (95.1) West Virginia
• (88.4) Clemson
• (86.4) Duke
• (86.1) North Carolina
• (75.5) Gonzaga
• (74.2) Wichita State
• (74) Cincinatti
• (72.6) Kansas
• (71.8) Purdue
• (71) Arizona
• (69.8) Xavier
• (69.4) Villanova
• (66) Michigan
• (55.2) Miami
• (50.1) Texas Tech
• (49.1) Saint Mary's
• (48.2) Indiana
• (47.2) Florida
• (40.7) Michigan State
• (38.9) Auburn
• (35.6) Rhode Island
• (35.4) Virginia
• (30.8) Ohio State
• (20.3) Tennessee
• (12.5) Houston
• (0) Nevada

Not bad but that includes Davis' minutes.  We need more bigs.

Points per game by players 6'8'' or taller

• (42.3) Duke
• (39.2) North Carolina
• (37.9) Gonzaga
• (37.4) Wichita State
• (36) West Virginia
• (34.6) Arizona
• (34.2) Purdue
• (32.2) Kansas
• (31.8) Clemson
• (31.8) Xavier
• (29.9) Cincinnati
• (27.3) Michigan
• (26.4) Saint Mary's
• (26.1) Indiana
• (24.1) Villanova
• (23.3) Michigan State
• (19.7) Miami
• (15.5) Texas Tech
• (15) Rhode Island
• (14.3) Ohio State
• (13.6) Florida
• (12.2) Auburn
• (8.8) Virginia
• (5.6) Tennessee
• (4.2) Houston
• (0) Nevada

Midpack, not bad but again that include Davis' ppg that wasn't there for half of the season.  Morgan was huge this season and could be even better next season, if he's protected by another big.

Total points by players 6'8'' or taller

• (1365) Gonzaga
• (1349) Duke
• (1315) North Carolina
• (1205) Arizona
• (1186) Purdue
• (1138) Wichita State
• (1120) Kansas
• (1108) West Virginia
• (1086) Xavier
• (1073) Cincinnati
• (985) Michigan
• (924) Saint Mary's
• (846) Villanova
• (835) Clemson
• (817) Michigan State
• (656) Indiana
• (594) Miami
• (492) Rhode Island
• (458) Florida
• (458) Texas Tech
• (456) Ohio State
• (415) Auburn
• (299) Virginia
• (192) Tennessee
• (139) Houston
• (0) Nevada

Throw another 150ish for Davis production that he couldn't contribute the second half of the season.  Hopefully, Davis can return to play to the level he did last season (294ish total points) and Thompson can contribute 5 or 6 ppg.

 

I believe we need a grad transfer big that can split 30-35 minutes with Davis at the 5. 

[Certified Sunshine Pumper 8,916]

7 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

More fun with numbers, this time with the top 25! (again these numbers come from players that played ~10 mpg or more, something of rotation players)

Total number of players 6'8'' or taller

• (4) Cincinatti
• (4) Clemson
• (4) Duke
• (4) North Carolina
• (4) West Virginia
• (4) Wichita State
• (4) Xavier
• (3) Arizona
• (3) Gonzaga
• (3) Kansas
• (3) Miami
• (3) Michigan
• (3) Purdue
• (3) Texas Tech
• (3) Villanova
• (2) Auburn
• (2) Florida
• (2) Indiana
• (2) Michigan State
• (2) Ohio State
• (2) Rhode Island
• (2) St. Mary's
• (2) Virginia
• (1) Houston
• (1) Tennessee
• (0) Nevada

Not too bad, De'Ron going out definitely hurt as we spent half of the season with just 1.  Next season, having a healthy Davis and Thompson step up would help a lot.

Total games played by players 6'8'' or taller

• (143) Cincinnati
• (137) North Carolina
• (136) Xavier
• (126) West Virginia
• (124) Duke
• (121) Wichita State
• (111) Clemson
• (109) Michigan
• (108) Gonzaga
• (106) Villanova
• (105) Kansas
• (105) Purdue
• (102) Arizona
• (91) Texas Tech
• (85) Miami
• (70) Michigan State
• (70) St. Mary's
• (68) Auburn
• (68) Virginia
• (67) Florida
• (65) Rhode Island
• (62) Ohio State
• (46) Indiana
• (34) Tennessee
• (33) Houston
• (0) Nevada

Lower end of the top 25.  Davis going out cost us 16 games but that would still put us at the lower end.  Size is an issue...

Total minutes played by 6'8'' or taller players (most to least)

• (2938) West Virginia
• (2864) North Carolina
• (2732) Duke
• (2719) Gonzaga
• (2652) Cincinatti
• (2544) Kansas
• (2498) Purdue
• (2455) Arizona
• (2439) Villanova
• (2387) Michigan
• (2374) Xavier
• (2345) Clemson
• (2241) Wichita State
• (1718) Saint Mary's
• (1602) Miami
• (1584) Florida
• (1465) Texas Tech
• (1426) Michigan State
• (1321) Auburn
• (1205) Virginia
• (1194) Indiana
• (1155) Rhode Island
• (974) Ohio State
• (690) Tennessee
• (413) Houston
• (0) Nevada

Minutes per game by players 6'8'' or taller (most to least)

• (95.1) West Virginia
• (88.4) Clemson
• (86.4) Duke
• (86.1) North Carolina
• (75.5) Gonzaga
• (74.2) Wichita State
• (74) Cincinatti
• (72.6) Kansas
• (71.8) Purdue
• (71) Arizona
• (69.8) Xavier
• (69.4) Villanova
• (66) Michigan
• (55.2) Miami
• (50.1) Texas Tech
• (49.1) Saint Mary's
• (48.2) Indiana
• (47.2) Florida
• (40.7) Michigan State
• (38.9) Auburn
• (35.6) Rhode Island
• (35.4) Virginia
• (30.8) Ohio State
• (20.3) Tennessee
• (12.5) Houston
• (0) Nevada

Not bad but that includes Davis' minutes.  We need more bigs.

Points per game by players 6'8'' or taller

• (42.3) Duke
• (39.2) North Carolina
• (37.9) Gonzaga
• (37.4) Wichita State
• (36) West Virginia
• (34.6) Arizona
• (34.2) Purdue
• (32.2) Kansas
• (31.8) Clemson
• (31.8) Xavier
• (29.9) Cincinnati
• (27.3) Michigan
• (26.4) Saint Mary's
• (26.1) Indiana
• (24.1) Villanova
• (23.3) Michigan State
• (19.7) Miami
• (15.5) Texas Tech
• (15) Rhode Island
• (14.3) Ohio State
• (13.6) Florida
• (12.2) Auburn
• (8.8) Virginia
• (5.6) Tennessee
• (4.2) Houston
• (0) Nevada

Midpack, not bad but again that include Davis' ppg that wasn't there for half of the season.  Morgan was huge this season and could be even better next season, if he's protected by another big.

Total points by players 6'8'' or taller

• (1365) Gonzaga
• (1349) Duke
• (1315) North Carolina
• (1205) Arizona
• (1186) Purdue
• (1138) Wichita State
• (1120) Kansas
• (1108) West Virginia
• (1086) Xavier
• (1073) Cincinnati
• (985) Michigan
• (924) Saint Mary's
• (846) Villanova
• (835) Clemson
• (817) Michigan State
• (656) Indiana
• (594) Miami
• (492) Rhode Island
• (458) Florida
• (458) Texas Tech
• (456) Ohio State
• (415) Auburn
• (299) Virginia
• (192) Tennessee
• (139) Houston
• (0) Nevada

Throw another 150ish for Davis production that he couldn't contribute the second half of the season.  Hopefully, Davis can return to play to the level he did last season (294ish total points) and Thompson can contribute 5 or 6 ppg.

 

I believe we need a grad transfer big that can split 30-35 minutes with Davis at the 5. 

Inserting Thompson puts us nearly midpack in all of these stats. Again.. We won't be big, we won't be small. 

[HoosierAloha 30,024]

1 hour ago, btownqb said:

Please start doing 3pt shooting percentages and turnover rate as well! 

Morgan 30

Smith 25

Taylor 20

Romeo 30

Green 25

Bench: Thompson 10, Davis 15, RP 10, Hunter 10, McRoberts 15, Durham 10

8 of our 11 that'll be 6'6 or taller. Nice to have height and that gives the actual depth we need at each position, along with... SHOOTERS.

 

17 minutes ago, btownqb said:

Why is 6'8 a magical number but we disregard anybody that's 6'6 or 6'7 makes no sense. 

Morgan, Thompson, and Davis can all play the 5. I guess you can call it a 5 in college basketball at this point. If Moore transfers then for sure pick up a grad big guy. We don't know what Forrester will look like. From what you have seen this year wouldn't you bet on Smith being the best out of himself, Green, Durham and the FR???? 

Our turnovers were pathetic, as was our guard play in general. Idc about the rate. It was awful. 

You've been nice enough to nitpick my posts this entire time but offer very little in the way of any sort of opinion whatsoever. 

I want Taylor and Romeo for the last two spots. If not one of the two.. then a combo guard that plays the exact opposite of Green (at this point). If Moore or Davis transfer I want a grad big then. Ahola wants a grad big and Romeo or Taylor. 

Would you like offer an opinion on who you want and why? Or you can just continue to gripe at me. I honestly don't care lol

You do or don't care about turnover rate?

6'8'' was some magical number I pulled out of the air for this exercise.  It was argued earlier in the thread about height and I chose 6'8'' so I could include Morgan.  If we wanted to go a little taller the numbers would look a little worse for IU.  If we wanted to go smaller to 6'6'' or 6'7'' IU would be towards the bottom of every category when compared to the top 25. 

6'8'' doesn't automatically make you a good post player.  I'd take a shorter player with a longer reach and wingspan.  However, re: IU post next season we need someone else to protect Morgan.  Freddie did a bang up job this season but he was extremely limited.  Davis is coming back from a major injury that will most likely hamper his athleticism even more.  I'm sorry but Smith won't be able to hold his own against other 5s.  Thompson will get some run but again we are severely limiting our potential if we're expecting Morgan and Smith to get more of the minutes at the 4 and 5.  I don't care if we have Romeo and the UE guard we're not going far with them in the post.  We'll need more (Moore could definitely help if he was better).

[Certified Sunshine Pumper 8,916]

1 minute ago, HoosierAloha said:

 

You do or don't care about turnover rate?

6'8'' was some magical number I pulled out of the air for this exercise.  It was argued earlier in the thread about height and I chose 6'8'' so I could include Morgan.  If we wanted to go a little taller the numbers would look a little worse for IU.  If we wanted to go smaller to 6'6'' or 6'7'' IU would be towards the bottom of every category when compared to the top 25. 

6'8'' doesn't automatically make you a good post player.  I'd take a shorter player with a longer reach and wingspan.  However, re: IU post next season we need someone else to protect Morgan.  Freddie did a bang up job this season but he was extremely limited.  Davis is coming back from a major injury that will most likely hamper his athleticism even more.  I'm sorry but Smith won't be able to hold his own against other 5s.  Thompson will get some run but again we are severely limiting our potential if we're expecting Morgan and Smith to get more of the minutes at the 4 and 5.  I don't care if we have Romeo and the UE guard we're not going far with them in the post.  We'll need more (Moore could definitely help if he was better).

Shouldn't have said turnover rate the first time. I misspoke. My apologies. 

And you're proving my point here.. you keep talking about the post... the post is irrelevant. Morgan gets some points there.. no one else needs to unless it's a cut off dribble drive or an off reb. Ball screens, dribble drive, running in transition. We don't need any more height, especially when you compare it to how much we need shooting/ball handling/depth on the wing. 

[Certified Sunshine Pumper 8,916]

I've said my piece. I have stated my opinion.. over and over. I'm out.