Indiana Hoosiers at Penn State Nittany Lions (preview).
by John M (The Crimson Quarry) on Jan 6, 2012 2:00 PM EST
in Indiana Hoosiers Basketball
Email
PrintPenn State Nittany Lions
Current record: 9-7 (1-2)
Current RPI: 159 (IU is #15)
Current Sagarin: 136 (IU is #4)
Current Pomeroy: 130 (IU is #9)
2010-11 record: 19-14 (9-9), lost to Temple in first round of NCAA Tournament
2010-11 RPI: 39
2010-11 Sagarin: 49
2010-11 Pomeroy: 37
Series: IU leads 28-9 (26-7 since Penn State joined the Big Ten in 1992-93)
Last Penn State win: March 10, 2011 (61-55 in Big Ten Tournament, Indianapolis)
Last IU win: 1/21/2010 (67-61 at University Park)
Pomeroy scouting report
TV: noon Sunday, Big Ten Network
Blogs: Black Shoe Diaries, Linebacker U, Nittany White Out
As I said in my Michigan wrapup post, I considered writing this preview early, but something held me back. It turns out that last night's win over Purdue, not a fluky close one but a 20-point beatdown, changed the outlook for this game...maybe. Before last night, Penn State had nothing approximating a quality win. The best team Penn State had beaten was South Florida, #110 in Pomeroy, and the Nittany Lions lost at home to #112 Mississippi and #269 Lafayette. Penn State is under the leadership of first-year coach Patrick Chambers, who beat IU in 2009-10 in Puerto Rico when he was the coach at Boston University.
As bad as Penn State has been, the defense has been reasonably respectable. PSU is #80 in the country, allowing only .98 points per possession, although a really bad offense holds the Lions back. Last night, PSU played well on both sides of the ball. The Lions shot only 43 percent from the field, but they made 10-21 three pointers. Most notably, and most concerning for IU, the Nittany Lions absolutely dominated the boards at both ends of the court. Penn State boarded 37 percent of its OR opportunities and limited Purdue to 18 percent. In a game in which Purdue missed 32 field goals, the Boilermakers had only 6 offensive boards. So, while IU will remain heavily favored in this game, PSU's rebounding lines up nicely with one of IU's relative weaknesses. Of course, Penn State's three point flurry against Purdue is concerning as well, but was quite out of character. On the season, Penn State is in the unenviable position of being a well-below-average three point shooting team (32 percent) while taking a well-above-average number of its shots from deep (39 percent). Chambers's BU teams were heavily three point reliant as well, but actually made shots.
If there aren't a lot of familar names on there, that's because Penn State lost nearly everyone from last year's team thanks to graduation and other departures. Penn State is a work in progress, and let's hope that IU can prevent the Nittany Lions from building on the Purdue win, at least for one game.
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The key to eliminating a huge disparity in O-Rebs is to just make sure that every shot falls through the hoop.
A sassy, brassy, classy lassy.
Thanks to last night
Penn State won’t sneak up on anyone. Reading TMill’s rant over at H&R, it sounds like Purdue showed up not ready to play, with the exception of DJ Byrd and Hummel (as an aside, if you were Hummel, wouldn’t you at this point in your life go by “Rob”, “Robert”, “R”, or anything other than “Robbie”?). Anyway, if you are trotting Lawson and Carroll out as your post players, they better show up ready every night. And apparently, they didn’t. In part because of the extent of the beat-down last night, and in part because they are much better players than Lawson and Carroll, I do not expect the same let down from Zeller and Watford on Sunday.
Also, Mr. Frazier: allow me to introduce you to Messrs. Oladipo and Abell. Enjoy your time together.
no inside info, but scuttlebutt from Dakich and others suggests a week or 10 days more.
The Crimson Quarry, SB Nation's Indiana Hoosiers blog
by John M (The Crimson Quarry) on Jan 7, 2012 5:18 AM EST via Android app up reply actions
Re: Sheehey
1) Longtime reader, first time poster. John, love what you do, I would not be able to keep up with my Hoosiers during my travels if it weren’t for what you do.
2) About Sheehey was the exact question I was going to ask. The follow-up is, since I didn’t see the Meechigan game, this: How much did Sheehey’s absence account for the struggles defending the perimeter?
It could have helped, but
I don’t think perimeter defense was that huge of an issue until the end of the game. Indiana did a pretty good job with Michigan of getting a hand in the face of the perimeter shooters. The flurry of 3s that came at the end of the game came from long rebounds out of the defensive set and one or two missed rotations. I wouldn’t be too concerned about the perimeter defense solely based on the Michigan game. It was pretty good all game long and then some crazy bounces made it look statistically worse to end the game.
-Contributing Writer at The Crimson Quarry.
To speak around the Sheehey questions...
a sign of how good this team is: they can lose Sheehey and keep winning. They can have a sub-par game from one of their starters (Hulls) and keep winning. This team has resilience.
more directly, Colt, Sheehey might well have helped. Indiana did not always do a good job getting out on Michigan’s shooters. They had some problems switching effectively on high screens, and Will might have been a useful option there. I suspect he also provides important competition in practice. Finally, Will often subs for Oladipo, and I thought Victor was atrocious on offence against Michigan. His D was often good, and when he drove with the ball good things often happened, but he settled for very poor outside shots, especially in the second half.
Re: To speak . . .
Thanks! That’s a good point. Let’s take heart that, while the actual depth is not yet there, the resiliency does seem to be a basic characteristic of this team.
And I think your point about Oladipo is a good one too. I just looked: VO is averaging just a shade over 25 minutes a game for the season, while his minutes against MSU and OSU were 34 and 35 respectively. That reverted to the mean against Michigan, but it may just be a matter of a little bit of fatigue. If you’re busting your tail to fight screens at one end, you might not have a lot left in the tank for attacking the hoop at the other.
some fun mathematical facts before the game in an hour
Indiana has lost 20 games three straight seasons. That is now statistically impossible.
Indiana has a <60% chance of winning in only two more games this season @ Ohio State and @ Wisconsin.
Some of the key games that Indiana has more than a 60% chance of winning as of today? @ Michigan 65%, @ Purdue 61%, @ Minnesota 71% and home against Purdue on senior night comes in at a 83% chance of a victory.
IU’s best chance of a final record sits at 26-5. However bot 25-6 and 27-4 have a +20% chance of happening.
If we’re looking for the best chance at being involved in a letdown that would the three games @ Purdue, @ Michigan and home against MSU.
IU’s overall Strength of Schedule is 90th in the nation and they are playing the second hardest B1G schedule to date.
-Contributing Writer at The Crimson Quarry.
Purdue's statistical best chance record is
19-12 by the way.
-Contributing Writer at The Crimson Quarry.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
