What IU basketball’s advanced metrics reveal following the nonconference schedule.

We wonder what the next IU basketball team will look like for over eight months, and then once the season starts, we have to drink from a firehose.

Now that 2024 has here and Big Ten play is set to get up steam, it’s a good idea to step back and look at what the advanced analytics has to say about these 2023–24 vintage Hoosiers.

First, this is the overall picture for Indiana based on three of the most important advanced analytical tools, including the NCAA Tournament Committee’s usage of the NET tool to assess at-large selections.

12th in the Big Ten and national overall No. 100 according to NCAA NET
KenPom, ranking 87th out of 12 in the Big Ten
Bart Torvik, ranking 94th out of the Big Ten

This is February 7 , and those are clearly worrying numbers. Rutgers in 2022 was the team with the lowest NET ranking to ever receive an at-large bid. No. 77 was the Scarlet Knights.

Since 2010, when the program was still trying to recover from the Kelvin Sampson scandal, Indiana has not concluded a season with a team ranked lower than its current rating, according to KenPom data. Thus, it’s evident that the Hoosiers aren’t deceiving the algorithms despite their 10-3 overall record and 2-0 Big Ten record.

Yet Indiana will have plenty of opportunities to advance, as they have 15 of their remaining 18 games against teams ranked better than they are.

THE HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE

The Hoosiers have a lot of cleanup work ahead of them on both sides of the court, so this is probably not shocking. Indiana’s performance on both the offensive and defensive sides is average.

The Hoosiers rank 89th in terms of offensive efficiency and 86th in terms of defensive efficiency, according to KenPom. IU finished the previous season at No. 28 and No. 45, in contrast. The drop-off is therefore evident.

Indiana ranks 116th in terms of pace, with an average offensive possession length of 16.7 seconds, and 216th in terms of average defensive possession length of 17.4 seconds. Ranks for IU were 48 and 355, respectively, a year ago.

INTENT

On the attacking side, there are a few positive aspects about IU.

With 53.3 percent from 2-point range (No. 41), they rank No. 60 nationally in overall effective field goal percentage (53.4 percent).

However, Indiana’s three-point percentage is only 31.9 percent (No. 229). The quantity of long-range shots that IU takes is currently a major source of disagreement. Should a team that struggles with 3-point shooting attempt more of them? Indiana shoots just 25.7% of its shots from beyond the arc, which is No. 357 nationally (out of 362 Division I teams).

The frequency with which IU reaches the free throw line is another significant anomaly in their offensive profile. The tenth highest percentage in the nation, or 45.6%, of field goal attempts are free throw attempts. This is partly because Indiana’s big men and guards prioritize scoring in the paint. The Hoosiers aren’t making a profit, though. They are only ranking 276th in terms of free throw percentage, making only 68 percent of them.

Most of the remainder of IU’s offensive metrics are middle of the road.  But here’s one that is a bit troubling.  Despite having the third tallest rotation in the country, Indiana is just No. 224 in offensive rebounding rate.

Defense

In reverse relation to the offensive is Indiana’s defensive profile. Of all field goal attempts, opponents make up 42.9% of 3-point attempts. The proportion of threes versus 45 teams is higher than any other squad. With 34.7 percent of all those threes made by teams, they rank No. 250. Moreover, the Hoosiers are losing by a record of 37.7% of all points scored, which is the 14th highest percentage in the country.

While IU has struggled to guard the perimeter, they’ve been pretty good inside.  Opponents are only making 47.1 percent of 2-point shots (81st best), and Indiana has a 12.6 percent block rate (No. 44).  The Hoosiers are also doing a good job of not sending opponents to the stripe.  Opposing free throw attempts make up just 27.1 percent of field goal attempts (No. 62).

Opponents are committing turnovers on just 16.3 percent of possessions.  That comes in at just No. 259.  Defensive possessions are 1.3 seconds shorter on average than a year ago, and Indiana’s defensive turnover rate is exactly the same as last season, so it seems fairly clear that opposing teams do not have to work as hard to find an open shot.  And if you’ve been watching this team all season, you’re probably nodding in agreement.

NOTABLE NUMBERS — THE PLAYERS

Malik Reneau’s fouls called per 40 minutes have dropped from 6.8 to 3.6 year-over-year.  His 62.6 percent effective field goal percentage is 71st best in the nation, and he has the highest assist rate on the team (21.9 percent).

Kel’el Ware’s 25.7 percent defensive rebounding rate is No. 37 in the country.  He’s only shooting 10-of-31 from two against top-100 opponents, a problem he didn’t have last season.

Mackenzie Mgbako’s 94.4 percent free throw shooting (34-of-36) is No. 15 in the country.

Trey Galloway has played the highest percentage of Indiana’s minutes so far, and that’s in part because he has the lowest fouls called per 40 minutes (1.9) on the team.  He is shooting just 52.5 percent from the free throw line and 27.8 percent from three.  He made 64.4 and 46.2 percent, respectively, a year ago.  He has been very good from two — making 59.7 percent.

Xavier Johnson obviously hasn’t played a lot this season, but he’s drawing a team high 6.0 fouls per-40 while shooting 80 percent from the stripe.  He’s shooting 5-of-10 from three and has the highest effective field goal percentage on the team (64).

Anthony Walker draws 5.7 fouls per 40 minutes, the 121st highest rate nationally.  Payton Sparks doesn’t play enough minutes to rank, but he draws 7.1 per 40.  But could this be hack-a-Sparks? He is shooting just 33.3 percent at the line.  Sparks also has the highest block rate on the team at 7 percent, and highest offensive rebounding rate (11.6 percent).

Gabe Cupps has the highest turnover rate (26.7 percent) on the team.  He isn’t making a meaningful impact on the offensive end.  He’s last on the team in percentage of shots taken while on the floor, and just eighth in assist rate.

Kaleb Banks has stepped into the role of the player who fouls too much.  He’s committing a team high 6.5 per 40 minutes.

C.J. Gunn’s 5.9 percent steal rate is the highest on the team by more than 3 percentage points.  But his 35.1 percent effective field goal percentage is the worst on the team, as is his 4.1 percent assist rate.