Indiana 71, Michigan 65: absurdly late look at the numbers.
Sorry about the dead time for the last couple of days. My land line and DSL have been out for four of the last 9 days. What year is this? At least IU was off this weekend.
Once again, here were the stats for the Michigan game. As the Pomeroy numbers make clear, this IU's slowest game of the year, a 65 possession game. As I discussed in my short recap post of a couple of days ago, IU's turnover numbers were great: onl7 9 total, and only 1 in the second half. Even with the slower pace, IU's turnover percentage of 13.9 is IU's second-best of the season (13.3 against Kentucky is the best) and second-best of the Crean era. IU did not rebound very well against a team that is not known for rebounding, and that's a bit of a concern for the future. Ultimately, the Hoosiers shot well and took advantage of what is becoming Michigan's characteristically poor three point shooting.
The individuals:
- As he did in the Pitt win, Verdell Jones played very well. He led IU with 20 points on 14 attempts and had 5 assists to two turnovers.
- Jordan Hulls's 6-6 free throw shooting performance has been much-discussed. Thanks to 8-8 from the line, he scored 11 points despite shooting 1-5 from the field.
- Christian Watford has struggled against more physical teams this season, but was 7-12 for 19 points against Michigan. Unfortunately, he had only three rebounds.
- Devan Dumes, who will be an important part of IU's effort to replace Maurice Creek's reproduction, scored 11 points on 4-9 shooting.
After a weekend off, the Hoosiers resume play with a trip to Columbus to play Ohio State on Wednesday night. The Buckeyes, who lost key player Evan Turner to injury, opened the Big Ten with a blowout loss at Wisconsin and play at Michigan this afternoon. As I said a couple of days ago, I'm reluctant to draw too many conclusions from the game against Michigan, a team that IU matches up with well in many respects. Still, I do think last year's team would have folded after losing the lead late in the fourth quarter. The losses to George Mason, Boston U., and Loyola make any postseason tournament quite unlikely, but the Hoosiers have the chance to make some progress in a Big Ten that doesn't look as strong as it once did.
2 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hulls
Unfortunately, I have not had much chance to watch IU on television so far this year. I have seen some, but not a lot. As fans, we are suckers for the scrappy home-grown kid. Can you or any other commenters let me know what it is that separates Hulls from Daniel Moore or Errick Suhr? And I am NOT suggesting that there is no difference. I know Don Fischer loves him, and frankly that’s all I need. Still, is he a better shooter? Better ball-handler? Better court presence? I ask because I have not yet had a chance to really take it in with mine own eyes. I am curious as to the thoughts of others.
I’m no talent evaluator, but my sense is that Hulls is taller (while listed heights are not necessarily accurate, Hulls is listed at 6-0, Moore at 5-10, and Suhr played at 5-8), a better shooter (particularly compared to Moore), and quicker. Suhr was an above average high school player. Moore was good enough to make the Indiana All-Star team. Hulls was the best player on one of the best high school teams in Indiana history and was ranked around #100 by most recruiting services. Moore and Suhr were basically low Division I talents who were, because of hard work, good coaching in younger years, and a talent deficit at IU, able to contribute. Hulls just strikes me as a higher level athlete—not Maurice Creek-hihg, but certainly higher than Suhr or Moore. Even though he didn’t play much in earlier games, Hulls’s 4.8 points per game this season already is better than anything Suhr or Moore has done.
The Crimson Quarry, SB Nation's Indiana Hoosiers blog
by John M (The Crimson Quarry) on Jan 4, 2010 10:31 AM EST reply actions

by 












