SB Nation - Tom Pritchard

Kentucky 90, Indiana 73: a closer look.

John M (The Crimson Quarry) — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:31:38 -0000

More photos » by Darron Cummings - AP

The official stats are here. The Pomeroy gameplan is here.

It's no secret to anyone who watched the game that IU was dominated on the boards at both ends of the court. IU's 22.2 percent offensive rebound percentage is IU's second worst of the season, second only to the performance against Boston University. Further, at the offensive end, Kentucky rebounded an incredible 56.8 percent of its own misses. In other words, nearly 6 in 10 Kentucky misses led to another opportunity for the Wildcats to score. Unlike some other numbers, UK's rebounding advantage was constant throughout the game. In the first half, UK rebounded 7 of 14 of its missed shots. Obviously, this is an extremely difficult disadvantage to overcome. Still, for over half of the game the Hoosiers did overcome the board deficit, but only with unsustainable 63 percent shooting, including 5-8 from three point range, in the first half. IU's offense cratered in the second half (IU shot only 33 percent from the field), and UK rolled.

Really, for all of the justifiable John Wall hype, the entire stat sheet demonstrates UK's interior dominance. UK scored 44 points in the paint, IU 26. Kentucky blocked 7 shots, IU 3. One third of IU's field goal attempts were three point shots. In short, UK, while taking multiple opportunities of its own, essentially limited IU to a single jump shot on a typical possession. IU's offensive output of nearly 1.1 points per possession was the Hoosiers' best of the season. Unfortunately, IU's 1.32 points per possession yielded to UK was by far the worst defensive performance of the season and third-worst of the Crean era.

Still, the news was not all bad for IU. The Hoosiers turned the ball over only 9 times in a 68 possession game (despite each team's purported desire to push the ball, this was IU's slowes pace of the season). The turnover percentage of 13.3 represents, by far, IU's best ball-handling of the Crean era. Turnovers were the bane of IU's existence last season, but IU now is ranked #151 in Division I in turnover percentage, and has taken good care of the ball in the games against Pitt and Kentucky. Considering that UK pressed for part of the game, this is significant progress. I simply cannot accept a 17 point home loss to Kentucky as any sort of moral victory, but the Hoosiers, for the entire game against Pitt and in the first half against Kentucky, have looked like a transformed team. I have no idea how that will translate to Big Ten play, but things do not look as hopeless as they looked after 0-3 in Puerto Rico. All along, I and many others have said that unlike last year's overmatched team, the 2009-10 Hoosiers have enough talent to improve. That seems to be happening, however modestly. Enough to break .500 and sneak into the NIT? Keep watching, I guess.

Individual performances:

As I mentioned yesterday, Maurice Creek's performance was the finest of his short career. Creek shot 5-8 from three point range, 4-6 from inside the arc, and 8-8 from the line. Thanks to his success behind the arc and at the line, Creek averaged 2.2 points per shot for a total of 31. He also had 2 steals and an assist and only one turnover.
Christian Watford, talented but scrawny, continues to struggle against more powerful opponents. Watford scored 7 points on 3-8 from the field, did not get to the line, and had only 3 rebounds in 18 minutes.
Jeremiah Rivers should consider a Daniel Moore-style shooting rule (layups only), but other than his 3-9 from the field, he was very good, with 8 assists, 1 turnover, and a block.
Jordan Hulls scored 6 points on 2-4 shooting (all behind the arc) but didn't have an assist in 17 minutes.
Devan Dumes continues to play reasonably well in a limited role. He scored 5 points on 2-3 from the field and had two assists, a block, and a steal.
Tom Pritchard was the invisible man. He played 20 minutes and was 2-2 from the field with one rebound, one foul, one assist, and one turnover.

The biggest problem facing these Hoosiers seems to be on the interior, and I don't see a great solution. We have to get bigger, better, and older, something that can't be done, at least not much, in a few weeks. Still, this team played very well at certain points against one of the best and most talented teams in the country.

As I said this morning, IU has another week-long layoff. This week, we will talk Big Ten expansion, take a long view of the basketball season so far, and perhaps some football post-mortem as most other Big Ten programs ready for bowl games.

Kentucky Wildcats @ Indiana Hoosiers: Pre-Game Analysis

Truzenzuzex — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:29:49 -0000

More photos » by Julie Jacobson - AP

Eric Bledsoe is due for a performance versus the Hoosiers.

Browse more photos »

It's time again for the border war -- the Kentucky Wildcats head north to challenge the Indiana Hoosiers in one of the longest-running and best rivalries between two schools in the nation.

This game is simply chock full of tradition and great games, from the 1975 classic in the NCAA Mideast Regional Finals to the 1998 overtime game in Freedom Hall, this series has been full of twists, turns, blowouts and close games. I believe this will likely be the last time UK faces Indiana with a prohibitive advantage in talent, so enjoy it while it lasts.

Kentucky has a small advantage in all-time wins versus the Hoosiers, 29-23, with our last loss to the Crimson and Cream back in 2007 at the hands of Cell Phone Kelvin Sampson's second and final Indiana team that included Eric Gordon and D.J. White. IU creamed the 'Cats that day, 70-51.

The Hoosiers are in the process of rebuilding a team decimated after Sampson's firing and subsequent defection of players to the NBA, loss to disciplinary actions and just plain thrown out. What was left wasn't pretty, and the proud Hoosiers suffered through a 6-25 season in 2008-09, the worst I can ever remember at IU.

But with a strong recruiting class and some solid returning players, the Crimson and Cream are playing much better basketball now than last year, just coming off a huge win over the Pittsburgh Panthers in Madison Square Garden. That victory brought the Hoosier's record this year to 4-4, and although they don't figure to challenge for the Big Ten crown or even an NCAA berth this year, they have a good team that will only get better as the younger players get experience. And we know that Tom Crean is a fine coach, having owned UK the last two times he played us while coach at Marquette.

Today, I had a nice long Q&A with Scott at Crimsoncast, which you can find linked here for your listening pleasure. It was a wide-ranging discussion about the rivalry that you may find interesting.

More after the jump.

Four Factors Analysis

As usual, we will begin our pre-game with the analysis of the Four Factors to Winning, compiled in this nice, interactive dashboard by A Sea of Blue member sylvar.

Looking at the offensive efficiency, we see that in all but the very first game, Kentucky has been far more efficient offensively than the Hoosiers. In fact, the Hoosiers have struggled at times this year, and even in their last game, a victory over a good team, they managed to achieve only 97.7 points/100 possessions. UK, on the other hand, had an OE of 110.6 in a tough, low-scoring battle with UConn. You can see the dial pointer well in the red for Indiana (the ranges use last year's top ten for scale), and Kentucky's is just below the green.

Defensively, Indiana is much better than they are offensively. As you can see, IU is allowing only 3.4 points/100 possessions more than Kentucky is, and both teams have been on a very even trend lately. So much like UConn, the Hoosiers are a solid defensive squad. Unlike UConn, the Hoosiers have trouble putting the ball in the basket.

Moving on to the Four Factors themselves, we see that UK is creeping up toward the kind of effective FG% they will need to reach the Great Eight at least in March, well over 50%. The Hoosiers are laboring around 47%, and that is an area they will need to improve to be competitive with the 'Cats.

Turnover-wise, the Hoosiers take better care of the ball, but not by much. Offensive rebounding is a mismatch, and will likely represent the statistic that will get the Crimson and Cream blown out if they allow the kind of disparity represented by the trend so far. Surprisingly, the Hoosiers are good at getting to the free throw line, and that is not a statistic that UK usually loses.

Defensively, the teams are very close to equal (remember lower is better for defensive eFG%). Indiana has been forcing more turnovers lately, but they give up way too many offensive rebounds. The Hoosiers also do not mind sending teams to the line, which could be a blessing or a curse for the Wildcats, depending on who they foul.

In the miscellaneous category, the Hoosiers are shooting 35.5% from three versus UK's 36.8%, and the Wildcats actually take more threes than the Hoosiers do per field goal try, which I find a bit surprising. Also somewhat surprising is that the Hoosiers actually play at a higher tempo, on average, than the Wildcats.

Next, we'll look at the players for the Hoosiers, and their stats:

Indiana Hoosiers Basketball Roster

	#	Pos.	Comments	W	H	College
Kory Barnett	-	F	-	186	6-6	sophomore
Bobby Capobianco	23	F	Spot minutes	230	6-9	freshman
Maurice Creek	3	G	Starter	200	6-5	freshman
Devan Dumes	33	G	Major reserve	188	6-2	senior
Derek Elston	32	F	Major reserve	220	6-9	freshman
Brett Finkelmeier	4	G	-	188	6-1	junior
Steven Gambles	24	F	-	220	6-4	senior
Jordan Hulls	1	G	Major reserve	170	6-0	freshman
Tijan Jobe	40	C	Spot minutes	255	7-0	senior
Verdell Jones III	12	G	Starter	176	6-5	sophomore
Daniel Moore	11	G	Spot minutes	167	5-11	sophomore
Bawa Muniru	15	C	-	260	6-10	freshman
Tom Pritchard	25	F	Starter	242	6-9	sophomore
Jeremiah Rivers	5	G	Starter	210	6-5	junior
Matt Roth	30	G	-	186	6-3	sophomore
Christian Watford	2	F	Starter	215	6-8	freshman

Indiana Statistics

			FG			3PT			FT			Rebounds			Misc
	G	M	M	A	Pct	M	A	Pct	M	A	Pct	Off	Def	Tot	Ast	TO	Stl	Blk	PF	PPG
Maurice Creek	8	25.5	5.5	11.4	48.4	2.1	5.4	39.5	2.5	3.6	69.0	1.9	2.3	4.1	2.0	1.3	1.5	0.5	1.8	15.6
Christian Watford	8	26.8	3.9	9.5	40.8	0.4	1.1	33.3	5.1	6.4	80.4	1.6	4.9	6.5	0.6	2.5	1.3	1.1	2.4	13.3
Verdell Jones III	8	28.5	4.8	12.1	39.2	0.4	1.6	23.1	2.6	4.3	61.8	1.0	2.8	3.8	3.1	2.3	1.4	0.6	1.6	12.5
Derek Elston	8	17.6	3.1	6.3	50.0	0.5	1.0	50.0	0.9	1.8	50.0	2.1	2.6	4.8	0.5	1.1	1.3	0.1	2.1	7.6
Jeremiah Rivers	8	29.3	2.3	5.8	39.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	2.8	4.8	57.9	1.1	4.6	5.8	4.4	4.0	1.0	0.6	2.5	7.3
Devan Dumes	8	15.9	1.5	5.0	30.0	1.0	2.8	36.4	1.0	1.6	61.5	0.5	1.8	2.3	1.4	1.9	1.1	0.1	1.6	5.0
Tom Pritchard	8	17.9	1.9	3.1	60.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.1	1.8	64.3	1.6	1.6	3.3	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.6	3.8	4.9
Jordan Hulls	8	15.0	0.8	2.5	30.0	0.5	1.5	33.3	0.8	1.0	75.0	0.3	1.0	1.3	1.4	0.6	0.5	0.0	1.5	2.8
Matt Roth	2	5.5	0.5	1.0	50.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	1.0	1.0	100.0	0.5	0.5	1.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	2.0
Bobby Capobianco	8	9.3	0.8	2.1	35.3	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.4	0.8	50.0	1.0	1.1	2.1	0.3	0.6	0.4	0.0	1.9	1.9
Daniel Moore	6	5.7	0.3	0.5	66.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.8	1.2	71.4	0.2	0.5	0.7	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.0	1.0	1.5
Tijan Jobe	8	6.8	0.4	0.4	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.4	1.5	0.8
Bawa Muniru	4	3.5	0.3	0.8	33.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	1.0	25.0	0.8	0.3	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.8	0.8
Kory Barnett	2	2.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Brett Finkelmeier	2	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.5	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Steven Gambles	2	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

Position Analysis: Point guard

The starting point guard for the Hoosiers is Jeremiah Rivers. Rivers is a transfer from Georgetown, and the son of NBA player and coach Doc Rivers. Rivers is a tall point, even taller than John Wall at 6'5". Rivers is a good ballhandler and passer, and a very good defender, although he is not ultra-athletic. Rivers does not shoot much from outside, and has only attempted a single three-point shot all year. He prefers to use his size and slash to the basket. Rivers leads the team in assists, and doesn't score a lot.

Rivers' defensive prowess will be severely tested against John Wall. Rivers does have good size to work with, but he is not even in the same universe with Wall when it comes to speed with the ball and the ability to finish at the rim. But Rivers is a very smart player, a coach's son, and he knows how to maximize his strengths and minimize his weaknesses. This will be a very interesting matchup.

Advantage: Kentucky

Position Analysis: Shooting guard

You may remember the name Verdell Jones from back during the Billy Gillispie days. Kentucky recruited Jones, although somewhat indifferently, and he was on the UK recruiting board right up to the very end, when he chose Indiana.

Jones is another tall guard at 6'5", but at only 176#, he is very slight of build. Jones is a very hard-working and intelligent player. He is reasonably athletic and shoots a solid percentage from three, even though he doesn't put the three-point shot up all that much. Jones is also a very good passer at over 3 assists/game, against just over two turnovers.

The matchup between Jones and Eric Bledsoe is one of length versus athleticism. Defensively, I think Jones has a slight advantage on Bledsoe due to his very long arms and size. Defensively, I think Bledsoe comes out on top. Overall, Bledsoe is the more talented player.

Advantage: Kentucky

Position Analysis: Small Forward

Freshman Maurice Creek starts at the wing for the Crimson and Cream. Creek is actually an off-guard rather than a true wing, so Indiana, in effect, is starting three guards.

Creek is a skilled player, a Rivals 4*, and quite dangerous offensively. Creek is leading the Hoosiers in scoring at over 15 points/contest and is a 40% shooter from deep. Creek is also a good passer, leads the team in steals, and is a very good athlete.

Darius Miller is significantly taller than Creek, but Creek is quicker off the bounce and will challenge Miller's defensive skills. Defensively, Creek will have to contend with a much taller and longer player, and if Miller can regain his shooting form after a poor offensive outing against UConn, Creek will be hard pressed to contain him. Overall, this is a fairly close matchup, but Miller's extra year of experience and solid fundamentals give him the edge.

Advantage: Kentucky

Position analysis: Power Forward

Christian Watford is the power forward for the Hoosiers and the star of Tom Crean's excellent 2009 recruiting class. I saw Watford play in the Derby Festival Classic game, and even though he is highly unconventional, he is extremely fast and athletic, can really get up in the air, and seems to invent new ways to get the ball in the basket every single time out.

Watford is second on the team in scoring at 13+ points per game, and leads Indiana in rebounding at 6.5/game. Watford is also a respectable 3-point shooter, and is capable of taking bigger players off the dribble.

Against Patrick Patterson, Watford will struggle in the role of post player. Patterson is bigger, stronger, and just as athletic, but unlike UConn's more ponderous power forwards, Patterson will have to make his living closer to the basket. He is not quick enough to take Watford off the bounce, and Watford is a long, tough matchup on the perimeter.

But Watford cannot match Patterson's experience, skill, and versatility. Patterson is also the superior defensive player and rebounder.

Advantage: Kentucky

Position Analysis: Center

Tom Pritchard starts at center for the Hoosiers, and he is a big body at 6'9"/240#. Pritchard is not a particularly good rebounder for a man his size, nor is he a scorer at just under 5 points per game. Pritchard is slow-footed and not very athletic, but he does take up space down low.

Pritchard, unfortunately, is over-matched by the bigger, stronger, longer and quicker DeMarcus Cousins. Pritchard plays good, tough defense as evidenced by his tendency to get into foul trouble, but Cousins is a very tough matchup for him. If Indiana tries to stay man-to-man (which I doubt they will), the 'Cats should try to get Cousins the ball every time in the post. He will force IU to double-team, and an open shot should be the result.

Advantage: Kentucky

Bench Analysis

Indiana has a couple of solid bench players in freshmen Derek Elston and Jordan Hulls, as well as senior Devan Dumes. These men are all nice players that can shoot, but IU has little bench size and their depth is as painfully young as Kentucky's

Advantage: Kentucky

Overall analysis

The Indiana Hoosiers are a young group, but their young talent is just not as good as UK's this year. Tom Crean has the nucleus of a very nice team, but he is one or two recruiting classes away from getting the Hoosiers back into contention in the Big Ten, let alone nationally.

Indiana plays very good, fundamental basketball and Kentucky will need to be aware of their length and athleticism, which is better than many think. They are a good defensive team who will force UK to beat them with better offense. Even though the Hoosiers are young, they are not the type of team who beats themselves.

UK's size, talent and athleticism will prove too much for Indiana. Crean will not be able to send his big guards to the glass for fear of a John Wall-lead runout, and that's likely to happen anyway. Defensively, the Hoosiers are going to be forced into a zone, and since they are already a poor rebounding team, second-chance points and putbacks are likely to be a frequent occurrence on missed UK shots.

The Hooisers are getting their groove back, but this year, they are no match for the young 'Cats.

Projected score: Kentucky 78, Indiana 63

Hoosier Headlines for December 11, 2009.

John M (The Crimson Quarry) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:32:31 -0000

Indiana faces strong test against No. 4 Kentucky (al.com)
Indiana's Pritchard hopes for turnaround against Kentucky (The News-Sentinel - Fort Wayne IN)
"The numbers don’t lie. Indiana’s Tom Pritchard is a foul waiting to happen. He is the LeBron James of fouls. No one spends more unwanted time sitting next to assistant coach Bennie Seltzer."
Welcome back, Jibreel Black? (Hoosier Hype | Indiana Daily Student)
To be clear, this post contains nothing but speculation, but it is worth wondering if Black, who decommitted from IU and committed to Cincinnati,will reconsider IU now that Brian Kelly is headed to Notre Dame.
Poll question: what team do you want to beat worse than all of the others? (Hoosiers Insider | The Indianapolis Star)
Know Thy Opponent: Kentucky Wildcats (Inside the Hall)
Glass: "We’re in a bit of a quiet period." (The Hoosier Scoop)
"Rumors circulating today that an announcement about IU’s next soccer coach will be made tomorrow are not true, athletic director Fred Glass said moments ago."

Mississippi Rebels 89, Indiana Hoosiers 71: turnovers doom Hoosiers again.

John M (The Crimson Quarry) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:15:18 -0000

More photos » by Ricardo Arduengo - AP

27 days ago: Indiana's Maurice Creek, center, is surrounded by Ole Miss' Trevor Gaskins, left, and DeAngelo Riley, right, as he goes up for a shot during their college basketball game of the Puerto Rico Tip-off tournament in San Juan, Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009. (AP Photo/Ricardo Arduengo)

Browse more photos »

Here's the box score. It was a 78 possession game. IU's 21 turnovers amount to 26 percent. The good news? IU committed 14 turnovers in the first half, so they did cut the giveaways in half inthe second half. IU led 20-11 with 14:10 left in the first half and then turned the ball over on 7 of the next 9 possessions, Mississippi was ahead 23-20, and it only got worse. IU threatened, playing reasonably well at the beginning of the second half, and had a chance to pull to within six late in the game, but turned the ball over. I really don't know what to say about the turnovers. It has to get better. The good news? IU had 24 offensive rebounds in 52 opportunities. Very good. And Ole Miss turned the ball over 19 times, which is a very high number for a team that doesn't turn the ball over very often. It's not that hard to see the Izzo influence on Crean, and how IU could win games by crashing the boards and playing aggressive defense. But we can't keep gacking up 25 percent of our possessions.

Even worse? 12-27 from the foul line. Mississippi shot 62 percent in the second half. This is a scattershot preview because there will be a quick turnaround. The individuals:

Christian Watford struggled, scoring 5 points on 2-10 from the field.
Tom Pritchard was decent: 8 points, 3-5 from the field, 8 rebounds.
Maurice Creek scored 18 points on 15 shots.
Verdell Jones scored 17 points but needed 15 shots to get there.

I'm more disappointed than I should be. I wasn't expecting to make the NCAA Tournament this year, but this team looked every bit as bad as the 2008-09 product for most of the game. I know that they really aren't that bad. The 2008-09 team would have been able to make some of the runs or some of the plays that IU made tonight. As i write this, Kansas State leads Boston U. by 5 in the second half, so it's still not clear which team IU will play in tomorrow's untelevised game. I'll write it up one way or another.

Indiana basketball preview, 2009-10: returning players (frontcourt)

John M (The Crimson Quarry) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:00:35 -0000

More photos » by Darron Cummings - AP

Indiana forward Tom Pritchard.

Browse more photos »

It's amazing, in retrospect, that last season IU played, essentially, with two true frontcourt players, Tom Pritchard and Kyle Taber. Taber is gone, of course, and so IU, despite last year's youth, returns little to the frontcourt.

Tom Pritchard, 6-9 sophomore. Pritchard began the season strong, but as the competition improved and the season wore on, his numbers really suffered. In some respects, he was the anti-Verdell Jones. I feel as if I should add a caveat to each of my posts about the horrific 2008-09 season mentioning that more was asked of any given player than is reasonable. That is certainly true of Pritchard.

Through January 25, the date of IU's close home loss to Minnesota, Pritchard had scored in double figures in 14 of 18 games. He scored in double figures only twice in the remaining 13 games. This wasn't all that hard to see coming. Pritchard struggled in IU's toughest earlier games, shooting 1-7 at Wake Forest and 2-8 at Kentucky. While Pritchard averaged 9.7 points per game on the season, he averaged only 7.8 in Big Ten games and shot 43 percent from the field in-conference.

Still, he had some highligts:

Although IU lost badly, Pritchard hung in against all-American Luke Harangody, scoring 14 points and 6 remounds (although on only 6-15 from the field) against Notre Dame;
He scored 13 points on 4-6 from the field against Gonzaga;
At Purdue, Pritchard scored 12 points and had 8 rebounds;
He scored a career-high 23 points on 7-7 from the field in a win against Cornell, IU's only win against an NCAA Tournament team;

The lowlights:

Despite playing 27 minutes, Pritchard was held scoreless on only 1 field goal attempt and had only three rebounds in a loss at Minnesota;
He scored only 2 points in 31 minutes in the tough senior night loss to Michigan State;

Pritchard, like all Hoosiers, played more of a role than most comparable players in IU history. He seems likely to remain a solid contributor throughout his time in Bloomington.

Tijan Jobe, 7-0 senior. As I said when Jobe signed in 2008:

He has been in the United States for only four years (it's unclear to me from the brief reports whether he played basketball before coming to the US) and averaged only 3 points and 3 rebounds per game. As a 7-footer in junior college.

Given his meager playing time last season, there is little to suggest that Jobe ever will have much of an opportunity to contribute at IU. Jobe scored 7 points in 2009, although he ended on a hot streak, with 5 points in his last 4 games. After a bucket against St. Joseph's in Maui, he didn't score again until February 28 at Penn State. Also, and oddly enough, he didn't score a single point at Assembly Hall. On the positive side, he did rebound quite effectively when he had the chance. Jobe played only 108 minutes but had 17 rebounds.

The departure, as I noted, was Kyle Taber. As I said before, Taber came to IU as a walk-on, spent a redshirt season with a knee injury, and then played not a single significant minute in the next 2.5 seasons. Taber, to everyone's surprise, started against Northwestern on February 3, 2008, and played 24 scoreless minutes with 4 rebounds, a block, and a turnover. From that point forward, Taber played in every game, exceeding 20 minutes four times, and playing at least 10 minutes in 10 of IU's 13 remaining games. Taber was a model of offensive efficiency, shooting only when a basket was certain. He shot 0-1 against NU but then made all nine of his attempts for the rest of the season. He shot 5-6 from the line, pulled down 3 rebounds per game, and turned the ball over only 5 times in 207 minutes. He was a classic do-no-harm player. He played minutes without making a huge positive impact, but with virtually no negative impact. With increased playing time, Taber's productivity declined. Still, he was the only Hoosier who shot over 50 percent last season. I hope he won't be missed, but he was a valuable contributor.

BtB 2009-10 Big Ten Preview

Chris Dobbertean — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:44:34 -0000

For all of the beating that the Big Ten took during a particularly rough and tumble regular season, the conference really validated itself in the postseason. Those March and April performances bode well for this season, especially considering that the Big Ten's main contenders didn't lose as much as the contenders in other conferences. For example, all five players on the coaches' All-Big Ten team from last season are back.

The two teams who progressed furthest in the NCAAs, national runner-up Michigan State and regional semifinalist Purdue are the clear favorites in the league, and both teams could make a serious run at a MIdwestern Final Four. Penn State, the NIT champions, will look to improve their standing enough to get into the Big Dance this time around. And of course, Northwestern will look to really shake things up in the league and make it to the NCAAs for the first time. In between, the Big Ten's other five NCAA entrants will attempt to stay in the field. The biggest thing for the conference this year is separating itself from the other BCS leagues, especially in non-conference play. With the Big Ten being hyper-competitive this year, its members really need to distinguish themselves during the early part of the season. Otherwise, teams will be clumped together on lines 8 through 12 of the bracket like last year, which doesn't bode well for sustained tourney runs. More on all 11 teams after the jump.

To refresh your memory, let's take a look at how the Big Ten standings looked at the end of the 2008-09 regular season.

Big Ten Conference Standings

(updated 4.7.2009 at 12:23 AM EDT)

	Conf		Overall
	W	L	W	L
Michigan St. Spartans	15	3	31	7
Purdue Boilermakers	11	7	27	10
Illinois Fighting Illini	11	7	24	10
Penn St. Nittany Lions	10	8	27	11
Ohio St. Buckeyes	10	8	22	11
Wisconsin Badgers	10	8	20	13
Minnesota Golden Gophers	9	9	22	11
Michigan Wolverines	9	9	21	14
Northwestern Wildcats	8	10	17	14
Iowa Hawkeyes	5	13	15	17
Indiana Hoosiers	1	17	6	25

Now, here are my picks for 2009-10, presented in reverse order. If a school's name appears in red, that's a link to its SBNation site. You can go there for more detailed analysis throughout the season.

Iowa (last NCAA: 2006) The long rebuilding process continues for Todd Lickliter. It looks to be another long year in Iowa City, especially since the Hawkeyes have real point guard issues after Jake Kelly (transfer to Indiana State for family reasons) and Jeff Peterson (transfer to Arkansas) left the program. 6-1 frosh Cully Payne will have to adjust to the Big Ten game fast, as he will have to be the main option. If he doesn't, expect sophomore Anthony Tucker (10.4 ppg, 0.6 apg) to move over from shooting guard. The team's only other returning double-digit scorer, Matt Gatens (10.8 ppg), will be a force as he can really shoot the ball (40.3 % from the perimeter and 90.4 % from the free throw line). The Hawkeyes really need more contributions inside, where Jarryd Cole has battled injuries and struggled offensively, which has also been a problem for the rest of Iowa's frontline players.

Indiana (last NCAA: 2008) Tom Crean is also in a rebuilding situation, but he loaded up on recruits this offseason, something Lickliter couldn't quite do. Jeremiah Rivers, son of Boston Celtics coach Doc and a Georgetown transfer, is now eligible and will run the offense. Rivers' steady hand should improve a team that rated near the bottom of Division I in assist/turnover ratio. Meanwhile, the incoming freshmen are so highly regarded that last year's leaders may see reduced playing time. Rivers' arrival, and that of freshman Jordan Hulls, will eat into Verdell Jones' playing time (11 ppg, 3,6 apg). 6-5 Maurice Creek will take time away from Devan Dumes (12.7 ppg). In the frontcourt, Tom Pritchard (9.7 ppg, 6.4 rpg) will still see significant time, and he'll be joined by freshmen Bobby Capobianco, Derek Elston, Bawa Muniru, and Christian Watford. Considering that Crean's returning frontcourt players not named Tom Pritchard only average 0.8 ppg, they should see plenty of action. If they adjust to the Big Ten quickly, the Hoosiers may win some of those close games they tended to lose in 2008-09.

Penn State (last NCAA: 2001) You rarely see teams as happy about winning the NIT than the Nittany Lions last year. PSU had a real case for an NCAA bid, thanks to 10 league wins, but a non-conference schedule full of cupcakes cost them. On that front, the Lions hope they can get some big wins in the Charleston Classic to help their case this time around. In terms of personnel, the good news is that all-Big Ten first teamer Talor Battle (16.7 ppg, 5 apg) is back. The bad news is that his backcourt mates, Stanley Pringle (12.8 ppg) and Danny Morrissey (5.3 ppg) are gone and so is star forward Jamelle Cornley (14.4 ppg, 6.3 rpg). The effectiveness of their replacements will dictate the Nittany Lions' chances of moving up. Sophomores Chris Babb (2.8 ppg) and Cammeron Woodyard (2.2 ppg) will have to step it up to replace Pringle, but incoming freshman Tim Frazier will also play a big role in the backcourt. In the frontcourt, 6-9 Andrew Jones (6.2 ppg, 5.7 rpg) is expected to increase his production to make up for Cornley's graduation, so will David Jackson. Both Jones and Jackson played key roles in PSU's NIT run. Serbian freshman Sasa Borovnjak and redshirt frosh Billy Oliver will also see lots of time inside.

Wisconsin (last NCAA: 2009) The Badgers struggled on offense and defense last year. However, Bo Ryan's team was able to right the ship after dropping six in a row in January to sneak into the tournament and grab a first round win over Florida State. However, Ryan lost two key performers off that team, swingman Joe Krabbenhoft and F Marcus Landry. Jason Bohannon (10.3 ppg, 1.7 apg) and Trevon Hughes (12.1 ppg, 2.8 apg) are back, however, so the backcourt remains in good shape, typical of a Ryan-coached team. The returning frontcourt players, led by 6-10 F Jon Leuer (8.8 ppg, 3.8 ppg) and 6-8 Keaton Nankivil (4.5 ppg, 2.5 rpg) will have to be tougher to adequately replace Landry and Krabbenhoft. Look out for the Badgers' two redshirt freshmen, Jared Berggren and Ryan Evans, as they should see significant frontcourt time as well. If the frontline improves significantly, the Badgers could go dancing for the 12th straight year.

Northwestern (last NCAA: None) While Wisconsin (and the rest of the league) has become a consistent NCAA performer, the Wildcats are the complete opposite. Once again, NU is the only team in a BCS conference to fail to qualify for a single NCAA tournament. On March 4, the men from Evanston stood at 17-11, after winning at Indiana, against Iowa at home, and at Purdue. They then managed to lose at Ohio State by 5 to finish 8-10 in the conference. If that wasn't bad enough, they then fell to Minnesota by 13 in the opening round of the conference tournament. The Wildcats cannot let something similar happen this season. Personnel-wise, the Wildcats bring back nearly everyone from last year, most importantly all-Big Ten second teamer Kevin Coble (15.5 ppg, 4.8 apg) and point guard Michael Thompson (9.9 ppg, 3.7 apg), a deadly three-point shooter (41.7%). The major loss is guard Craig Moore (14.3 ppg, 2.7 apg) who graduated. Incoming frosh Drew Crawford could slide into Moore's slot on the roster. He's the son of NBA referee Danny Crawford. If coach Bill Carmody can squeeze a little more from his returnees, who provided solid, if unspectacular and inconsistent performances throughout last season, the Wildcats will finally make the field of 65.

Minnesota (last NCAA: 2009) Expectations are high for Tubby Smith's third season in the Twin Cities. The Gophers will have to find a way to play Michigan State and Michigan better, as they didn't manage to win a single game against those two teams (0-5). The Gophers return all of their key performers from last season, including leading scorer Lawrence Westbrook (12.6 ppg), second leading scorer Damian Johnson (9.8 ppg), point guard Al Nolen (6.5 ppg, 4.3 apg), and big men Ralph Sampson III (6.3 ppg, 4.2 rpg) and Colton Iverson (5.4 ppg, 3.6 rpg). Sampson and Iverson should see more time at center thanks to the arrival of 6-7 freshman Royce White and JC transfer Trevor Mbakwe, if he's ever cleared to play. Mbakwe is due to go on trial for assault in South Florida in December. Nolen could also see the bench if he's as inconsistent as he was during Big Ten play, thanks to the arrival of freshman PG Justin Cobbs. The Gophers are drawn against Butler in the 76 Classic in Anaheim, which should be a good indicator of how well this team will perform in 2009-10.

Michigan (last NCAA: 2009) Much like with Tubby Smith's Minnesota team. great things are expected in Ann Arbor during John Beilein's third season. Beilein's offensive and defensive philosophies usually take consistent hold in that third season, and the team's performance improves as a result. One of the Wolverines' biggest needs is in the frontcourt, where DeShawn Sims (15.4 ppg, 6.8 rpg) was often left on an island last season. Seven-foot, redshirt freshman Ben Cronin should provide some help, as should 6-8 frosh Jordan Morgan, if he plays. Beilein may redshirt him depending on how well he's recovered from offseason knee surgery. 6-10 frosh Blake McLimans and 6-6 junior Anthony Wright may be called into duty frequently. The backcourt is the strength of this UM squad, led by all-Big Ten performer Manny Harris (16.9 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 4.4 apg). Harris should get more time to drive to the hoop (and get to the foul line), thanks to the arrival of freshman Darius Morris, who is expected to take over at the point. The reserve backcourt players need to show more consistency, as none averaged more than 6.7 ppg, despite some impressive shooting nights.

Illinois (last NCAA: 2009) While the Illini lost guards Chester Frazier and Trent Meacham, the returnees and Bruce Weber's best ever recruiting class should keep the squad near the top of the Big Ten. Demetri McCarney (11.5 ppg, 4.6 apg) already has plenty of experience at the point to replace Frazier. Incoming freshman D.J. Richardson will be called on to replace Meacham, especially from the defensive perspective. Brandon Paul, another heralded recruit, will be an inside-outside threat. In the frontcourt, Mike Davis very nearly averaged a double-double last season (11.3 ppg, 8.1 rpg), so he'll continue to be a force. Mike Tisdale could be a star if he's more aggressive. He has plenty of room to improve on the 10 points and 4 boards he averaged last season.

Ohio State (last NCAA: 2009) The Buckeyes did pretty well last season, winning 22 games and making the Big Ten title game despite losing G/F David Lighty in the seventh game of the year. With Lighty back and all-Big Ten selection/jack-of-all-trades Evan Turner still around, the Buckeyes should be even better this time around. Joining Turner as offensive forces are guards William Buford and Jon Diebler who both averaged a little more than 11 points a game. While Thad Matta has a lot of guys who can shoot, he doesn't have a true point guard. Not that this issue really stopped the Buckeyes last year. Jeremie Simmons (6.8 ppg, 2.5 apg) and P.J. Hill (3.2 ppg, 1.9 apg) saw some time at the point after Anthony Crater's departure for South Florida, with Hill making more of an impact. If the two have issues, Turner, who averaged 4 assists per game last year, could spend some time running the offense. Turner will also see time in the frontcourt, where Lighty will serve as OSU's power forward (9.7 ppg, 5.7 rpg). 6-8 junior Dallas Lauderdale and 7-foot UAB transfer Zisis Sarikopoulos will occupy the post. OSU will be tested early, thanks to a matchup with defending National Champion North Carolina at the Coaches vs. Cancer event in New York, followed by a game with either California or Syracuse.

Purdue (last NCAA: 2009) The Boilermakers bring back nearly everyone from last season's team, which fell to UConn in the West regional semifinals. Thanks to the graduation of Nemanja Calasan, Matt Painter has only two returning post players. However, they're two good ones. Robbie Hummel (12.5 ppg, 7 rpg) should be fully recovered from a stress fracture in his back that cost him five games last season. Meanwhile, 6-10 junior JaJuan Johnson (13.4 ppg, 5.6 rpg) is one of the most electrifying players in the country. They'll be backed up by a crop of freshmen, led by 6-10 Croatian C Sandi Marcius. Purdue's backcourt remains intact. Chris Kramer will provide the defense, E'Twaun Moore the scoring--and some assists (13.8 ppg, 3.0 apg), while Lewis Jackson (5.9 ppg, 3.3 apg) will run the show. The Boilermakers' commitment to defense, led by Kramer, Johnson, and Jackson, is a major reason why they will seriously threaten to make the short trip to Indy this season. If they avoid the health issues of last season, they should get a seed that will help their path.

Michigan State (last NCAA: 2009) While the Boilermakers will attempt to do what the Spartans did last year, make a short trip in state to play in the season's final weekend, don't discount MSU, a team that has plenty of history of its own in Indianapolis. Tom Izzo has a team that may be able repeat Sparty's 2000 triumph. Kalin Lucas, the Big Ten Player of the Year is back at the point. Raymar Morgan is back in the frontcourt. But the biggest questions are how well the Spartan frontcourt plays without Goran Suton and who replaces Travis Walton's defensive prowess in the backcourt. Junior Tom Herzog and incoming freshmen Derrick Nix and Garrick Sherman will be given every chance to fill Suton's shoes. Meanwhile, Lucas will have to play more of a defensive role this season than in the past, to make up for Walton's absence. While Lucas is the unquestioned star of the team, he'll need lots of support from players like guards Chris Allen (8.4 ppg) and Durrell Summers (8.6 ppg), and F Delvon Roe (5.6 ppg, 5.2 rpg) to make a second straight Final Four run.

So, the Spartans will hold the Big Ten's auto bid in my 2009-10 Final Preseason Bracket, which I will release on November 9. Check in then to see what other teams from the conference I've penciled in at the start of the season. To wrap up this preview, here is my preseason All-Big Ten team, featuring the best returning players from last season.

Preseason All-Big Ten Team

Player of the Year: Evan Turner, 6-7 G/F, Jr. (Ohio State)

Remainder of the Team
Talor Battle, 5-11 G, Jr. (Penn State)
Manny Harris, 6-5 G, Jr. (Michigan)
JaJuan Johnson, 6-10 F, Jr. (Purdue)
Kalin Lucas, 6-0 G, Jr. (Michigan State)

Poll

Who is your pick to win the Big Ten this season?

Illinois

72 votes

Indiana

4 votes

Iowa

5 votes

Michigan

12 votes

Michigan State

106 votes

Minnesota

9 votes

Northwestern

5 votes

Ohio State

14 votes

Penn State

20 votes

Purdue

49 votes

Wisconsin

4 votes

300 votes | Poll has closed

Season in review: Tom Pritchard.

John M (The Crimson Quarry) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:00:12 -0000

Pritchard, one of two Kelvin Sampson recruits (the other is Matt Roth) remaining on the roster, began the season strong, but as the competition improved and the season wore on, his numbers really suffered. In some respects, he was the anti-Verdell Jones. I feel as if I should add a caveat to each of my posts about this season mentioning that more was asked of any given player than is reasonable. That is certainlly true of Pritchard.

Still, he had some highligts:

Although IU lost badly, Pritchard hung in against all-American Luke Harangody, scoring 14 points and 6 remounds (although on only 6-15 from the field) against Notre Dame;
He scored 13 points on 4-6 from the field against Gonzaga;
At Purdue, Pritchard scored 12 points and had 8 rebounds;
He scored a career-high 23 points on 7-7 from the field in a win against Cornell, IU's only win against an NCAA Tournament team;

The lowlights:

Despite playing 27 minutes, Pritchard was held scoreless on only 1 field goal attempt and had only three rebounds in a loss at Minnesota;
He scored only 2 points in 31 minutes in the tough senior night loss to Michigan State;

Pritchard, like all Hoosiers, played more of a role than most comparable players in IU history. He seems likely to remain a solid contributor throughout his time in Bloomington.

The Case For Matt Gatens

Oops Pow Surprise — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:41:33 -0000

According to HawkMania, the Big Ten will be handing out its postseason awards tonight. We expect Jake Kelly to be on the 2nd team after the last three weeks, and if that doesn't happen there'll be hell to pay.

But let's talk about the other accolade at stake, which is Big Ten Freshman of the Year. There are two main candidates in play here: OSU's William Buford and Gatens. There are some tertiary characters as well--OSU's BJ Mullens, Indiana's Tom Pritchard, MSU's Delvon Roe, but they're probably not getting much other than a few third place votes from homers. This stuff happens.

And let's be clear: Buford's pretty damn good. He kind of reminds us of Ricky Davis at this stage in the game, but a little less athletic and with a better outside shot. He's an effective scorer who can go to the NBA whenever he feels like it, basically.

But at the same time, while OSU would still be pretty good without Buford, Iowa may not have won a game in the BXI without Matt Gatens.

Fact: Gatens is 8 and a half feet tall.

First, the intangibles. Gatens was the smartest player on the court at all times for Iowa, and he could capably D up any of the first four positions. He's every bit as good a shooter as anyone else on the team; had Lickliter instructed him to stand in the corner and just wait for the ball so he could jack up 3s (not to name any names), he probably would have managed a higher shooting percentage than Bawinkel (okay, we named names).

The offense just plain ran better with Gatens involved. He rarely, if ever, picked up a dribble at an inopportune time, threw a lazy pass, or dribbled a hole in the court while the shot clock ran out. We're not saying those are things that Buford did, but we are saying that those are things that everyone else on the entire Iowa team did.

Most importantly, when it comes down to the numbers, Gatens was just better. Observe:

Minutes per game: Buford 28.0, Gatens 34.1
BXI Minutes per game: Buford 35.1, Gatens 36.7
Points per game: Buford 11.14, Gatens 11.06
FG%: Buford 44.6%, Gatens 43.5%
3-pt. FG%: Buford 35.6%, Gatens 41.3%
FT%: Buford 92.1%, Gatens 90.4%
Points per weighted shot: Buford 1.16, Gatens 1.38
Assists per game: Buford 1.2, Gatens 2.3
Turnovers per game: Buford 1.0, Gatens 1.5
Assist/TO ratio: Buford 1.14, Gatens 1.49
Blocks per game: Buford 0.36, Gatens 0.32
Steals per game: Buford .93, Gatens .74

Yes, both led in six categories. The difference is that of the six, Buford is only clearly better in one, steals, and not a standout by any stretch there. Meanwhile, Buford's only within sniffing distance of one of Gatens' superior qualities (two if you're feeling generous about 3-point percentage).

Again, we're taking nothing away from Buford, who is a fine player in his own right and who will probably have a more productive NBA career when it's all said and done. Probably.

But it sure seems like giving the trophy to Buford will be most largely a reflection of Ohio State's record compared to the Hawkeyes, and that's the most unfair metric of them all. Ohio State was never fighting not to implode under the weight of all the injuries and absences that befell the team, nor did Ohio State need to lean on Buford from Day 1.

8'7" Gatens makes a block without jumping.

And look, we understand that from a semantical standpoint, the name of the award is "Freshman of the Year" and not "Most Valuable Freshman," so a voter would have the option to foresake whatever larger team context he saw fit. That's fine. But these guys didn't play in vacuums--they're much too tall to fit in a Shopvac, we checked--and to determine that Buford was better requires a substantial and obvious amount of shortsightedness and cherry-picking, and that makes picking Buford over Gatens a bad choice.

Don't make a bad choice.

[UPDATE: It looks like while we were fighting with tech issues, the awards were released, and Gatens, in fact, didn't win FOTY. Further, Kelly didn't even make 3rd team, which is a silly fucking joke. Yes, Iowa went 5-13, but Kelly and Gatens weren't to blame. Way to go, guys.]

Michigan Basketball Update and Indiana Preview

Maize n Brew Dave — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:18:14 -0000

It's been a busy couple of weeks for the Men's Basketball team. They've beaten a top four team. Lost to a top four team. Lost to a good Maryland squad in College Park. Beaten a top four team. Lost to Wisconsin at home. Then beat a 13-1 team that beat #9 Purdue (in West LaFayette), and in the process secured a better record this year than all of last year. They've been unranked. Ranked. And then back to unranked. They've lost a player to a redshirt and gained another.

And all that's in just 14 games.

via multimedia.detnews.com

The transformation of Michigan under Beilein from bottom feeder to a legitimate NCAA bubble team in just one year has been downright staggering. But, as Beilein will be the first to tell you, the transformation isn't complete. The team still lacks a legitimate big man to fit Beilein's offense. The point guard position, while not critical to the offense, is still somewhat up for grabs. There are still way too many forced, bad three pointers. Even so, this is a good basketball team that appears just as capable of shutting down one end of the court as it is lighting up the other.

Tonight Michigan faces its first road test of the Big Ten season when they travel to Assembly Hall to play Indiana at 6:30 Eastern Time. As UMHoops.com points out, Michigan hasn't won there since 1995, so this is a great time to pick up a road win a exorcise whatever demons have plagued the Wolverines in Bloomington.

The reason its such a great opportunity is because, well, Indiana is terrible this year. If you're looking for a traditional power to kick while it's down, Indiana's your team. The Hoosiers currently rate 226 in KenPom's rankings, and have one of the worst turnover ratios in all of college basketball. As a result, Indiana sports an anemic offense averaging just 61.8 points a game, a league low 43% field goal percentage, and a league high 19 turnovers a game. On defense things are just as bad. Indiana gives up nearly 70 a game and allow opponents to shoot at a nearly 47% clip.

This isn't to say tonight isn't a dangerous game. One of the few things Indiana does well is limit three point shooting. The Hoosiers have allowed just 221 three point attempts this season. Part of the reason for that is the Hoosiers are slowing the game down as much as possible. Teams aren't pounding Indiana inside as such low 3 point numbers would indicate. In fact, the Hoosiers are near the bottom of the league in opponent's field goal attempts as well.

For a team allowing 68 total possessions a game, you'd expect higher numbers. Especially when Michigan averages 63 total possessions a game and has given up almost 100 more field goal attempts!!!

What it comes down to is Indiana isn't a particularly talented team right now. If you're looking for an analogy, look at Michigan football. Indiana's going through a purge and transition and will come out stronger for it. But man, oh man, is this year going to suck. Starting four freshman that aren't McDonald's All Americans tends to do that.

Indiana is led by Jr. Devon Dumes (G) and Fr. big name Tom Pritchard (F), who are both averaging more than 12 a game. At this point, Indiana doesn't have a game breaker and relies on a pressure defense to cause turnovers and fast break points. Oddly, there are eight players averaging close to or more than 20 minutes a game, so expect to see a lot of bodies on the court tonight for the Hoosiers.

For Michigan, it seems everyone is fairly healthy. The ankle injury that's been bugging DeShawn Sims is apparently healed and Novak's gash over his left eye, aside from the stiches, is just a bruise. That same Detroit News article echoes a Free Press article on Zack Novak's summers at Assembly Hall for basketball camps. Zach Gibson's dunkeration is apparently helping him get his groove on. Laval Lucas-Perry is apparently just like Illinois Football, he's gettin' better all the time.

via multimedia.detnews.com

Tonight's probable starting line-ups Courtesy Jeff Arnold of the Ann Arbor News:

Probable starters
Michigan Wolverines (11-3, 1-1 Big Ten)
P Name Yr. Ht. Wt. Ppg Rpg
F DeShawn Sims Jr. 6-8 235 16.6 8.8
G Zack Novak Fr. 6-5 210 7.1 2.6
G Manny Harris So. 6-5 210 18.8 7.6
G Laval Lucas-Perry R-Fr. 6-3 185 12.0 3.0
G David Merritt Sr. 5-10 170 2.0 1.5

Indiana Hoosiers (5-8, 0-1 Big Ten)
P Name Yr. Ht. Wt. Ppg Rpg
F Tom Pritchard Fr. 6-9 242 12.8 7.3
G Matt Roth Fr. 6-3 186 5.6 1.3
G Verdell Jones III Fr. 6-5 176 7.6 1.9
G Nick Williams Fr. 6-4 211 8.4 4.8
G Devan Dumes Jr. 6-2 188 13.5 3.1