A few final musings — yes, musings — from Purdue's 57-49 win over Indiana.
• The outcome of this game can be explained easily: Purdue is a better team than Indiana. I think that was proven in the first meeting between these teams, that Purdue in its worst year in quite some time, still has a better team than Indiana does in Year 3 under its current leadership structure.
That's a fun football for fans to spike, I'm sure, but it's also a bit of a back-handed compliment because when you frame Purdue being better than Indiana against the reality that IU is probably going to the NCAA Tournament and Purdue has slipped into long-shot land, that's a bitter pill, but one Purdue has to eat because it didn't win at Nebraska like IU did, because it let Florida State off the hook while Indiana beat the Seminoles, and because Indiana won all the home games it needed to win to make the tournament lately while Purdue lost the home games it needed to win, prior to tonight.
It's too bad for Purdue, because I think it's shown flashes this season of being an NCAA Tournament-caliber team, though it may not have the résumé to make it when all is said and done. Indiana, I've said from Day 1, looks like an NIT team. But it may have the résumé regardless.
Purdue is the better team and matches up well with a team that doesn't present many problems for defenses, and to me, the only question about this game coming in was whether or not Purdue was just broken, whether the losing streak had cooked it. Purdue has lost home games this Big Ten season. It has not lost home games to teams it is better than.
• Purdue didn't have a great game offensively, but man, if they could play every game against hard-hedging ball screen defenses, they'd really be in business. I know coaches commit to their systems, do what they do and all that, and that's fine, but what exactly is Eric Hunter going to do to your team coming off a ball screen that's worth allowing Matt Haarms dunks and and-ones and Trevion Williams comfortable rolls into post-ups or first dibs on deep position?
• Purdue was great on defense, I thought, but again, Indiana is so limited offensively. Matt Painter was asked a question tonight about his team's ability to do "one thing," to take a singularly important task and do that job. Well, if that's so, what's that say about Indiana, that if you pull one Jenga piece, the whole thing topples?
That was tonight. Purdue took away Trayce Jackson-Davis and all of the Hoosiers' deficiencies around him were laid bare.
• Lost in everything is the fact that Jahaad Proctor, after a bad first half, made some really big plays in the second half to keep Purdue stable, a couple buckets, one of a big-time YMCA-ball take to beat a shot clock, then hit Eric Hunter on a backcut for a layup. Big plays.
• That defensive sequence from Nojel Eastern to end the first half reminds that he is elite in that phase of the game. E-lite. The best Matt Painter's ever had on the ball, and it's not even close, and as good as anyone away from the ball. Those are the sorts of game-changing moments Purdue has needed more of from him this season and will need more of next season.
• I thought Purdue missed a bunch of blowout shots. Between going up 16 and Indiana finally scoring in the second half, the Boilermakers had, I think, four threes miss. One or two of those go and maybe Purdue wins this by three times as many points as it did.
• We need a new shooting percentage metric for Trevion Williams that reflects him putting back his own misses. Instead of true shooting percentage, maybe tre shooting percentage. There's something to be said for a dominant offensive rebounder putting up reboundable misses — higher-value misses. Get on it, analytics community.
Thanks for reading, folks.
• The outcome of this game can be explained easily: Purdue is a better team than Indiana. I think that was proven in the first meeting between these teams, that Purdue in its worst year in quite some time, still has a better team than Indiana does in Year 3 under its current leadership structure.
That's a fun football for fans to spike, I'm sure, but it's also a bit of a back-handed compliment because when you frame Purdue being better than Indiana against the reality that IU is probably going to the NCAA Tournament and Purdue has slipped into long-shot land, that's a bitter pill, but one Purdue has to eat because it didn't win at Nebraska like IU did, because it let Florida State off the hook while Indiana beat the Seminoles, and because Indiana won all the home games it needed to win to make the tournament lately while Purdue lost the home games it needed to win, prior to tonight.
It's too bad for Purdue, because I think it's shown flashes this season of being an NCAA Tournament-caliber team, though it may not have the résumé to make it when all is said and done. Indiana, I've said from Day 1, looks like an NIT team. But it may have the résumé regardless.
Purdue is the better team and matches up well with a team that doesn't present many problems for defenses, and to me, the only question about this game coming in was whether or not Purdue was just broken, whether the losing streak had cooked it. Purdue has lost home games this Big Ten season. It has not lost home games to teams it is better than.
• Purdue didn't have a great game offensively, but man, if they could play every game against hard-hedging ball screen defenses, they'd really be in business. I know coaches commit to their systems, do what they do and all that, and that's fine, but what exactly is Eric Hunter going to do to your team coming off a ball screen that's worth allowing Matt Haarms dunks and and-ones and Trevion Williams comfortable rolls into post-ups or first dibs on deep position?
• Purdue was great on defense, I thought, but again, Indiana is so limited offensively. Matt Painter was asked a question tonight about his team's ability to do "one thing," to take a singularly important task and do that job. Well, if that's so, what's that say about Indiana, that if you pull one Jenga piece, the whole thing topples?
That was tonight. Purdue took away Trayce Jackson-Davis and all of the Hoosiers' deficiencies around him were laid bare.
• Lost in everything is the fact that Jahaad Proctor, after a bad first half, made some really big plays in the second half to keep Purdue stable, a couple buckets, one of a big-time YMCA-ball take to beat a shot clock, then hit Eric Hunter on a backcut for a layup. Big plays.
• That defensive sequence from Nojel Eastern to end the first half reminds that he is elite in that phase of the game. E-lite. The best Matt Painter's ever had on the ball, and it's not even close, and as good as anyone away from the ball. Those are the sorts of game-changing moments Purdue has needed more of from him this season and will need more of next season.
• I thought Purdue missed a bunch of blowout shots. Between going up 16 and Indiana finally scoring in the second half, the Boilermakers had, I think, four threes miss. One or two of those go and maybe Purdue wins this by three times as many points as it did.
• We need a new shooting percentage metric for Trevion Williams that reflects him putting back his own misses. Instead of true shooting percentage, maybe tre shooting percentage. There's something to be said for a dominant offensive rebounder putting up reboundable misses — higher-value misses. Get on it, analytics community.
Thanks for reading, folks.
Last edited:
