Indiana's recent performances have been a tale of two strategies. After lighting up the court against Marquette and Milwaukee with back-to-back 14 of 28 three-point shooting displays, it seemed like the Hoosiers had found their offensive groove. However, the game of basketball is as much about adjustments as it is about execution, and Incarnate Word and Lindenwood showcased just that.
Lindenwood, with its respectable length and athleticism, opted for a switching defense rather than chasing Indiana's sharpshooters through a maze of screens. This strategy proved to be a kryptonite for the Hoosiers' previously dynamic offense. The game prior against Incarnate Word hinted at this vulnerability, as their zone defense held Indiana to a mere 5 of 24 from beyond the arc.
As Lindenwood passed off Indiana's players from one defender to the next, the Hoosiers' fluid offense became unexpectedly stagnant. The numbers tell the story: after breaking the century mark in consecutive games, Indiana averaged just 71 points against Incarnate Word and Lindenwood.
Head coach Darian DeVries acknowledged the challenge, emphasizing the need to adapt to switching defenses. "It's something we're focusing more on," DeVries shared, noting the importance of exploiting these defensive strategies in practice. While the carryover to games hasn't been seamless, it's a work in progress.
Indiana's struggle against switching defenses isn't just about tactics; it's also about personnel. The Hoosiers have been setting screens to create open threes effectively, but facing a switching defense demands different skills. Beyond Tayton Conerway, the team lacks players who excel in one-on-one dribble drives, a crucial asset against switching defenses, especially when mismatches are created.
Moreover, the Hoosiers don't possess the elite length and athleticism to capitalize on these mismatches or exploit back cuts and dives to the rim. This lack of versatility has led to rough patches where Indiana's offense seems stuck.
Throughout their 11 losses, a pattern emerges: scoring droughts often come late in games when opponents switch to a more adaptable defense. Whether it's a zone, switching concepts, or simply sticking close to Indiana's shooters, these strategies have disrupted the Hoosiers' rhythm.
For instance, against Minnesota, Indiana went over eight minutes without a field goal, turning a seven-point lead into a deficit. Similar scenarios played out against Kentucky, Nebraska, and Michigan State, where prolonged scoring droughts shifted the momentum.
Even when the Hoosiers faced aggressive man-to-man defenses like Louisville's, the physicality and athleticism posed significant challenges. Hard hedges on ball screens further complicated their offensive execution.
In games against teams like USC and Michigan, it wasn't just about defensive strategies; sometimes, Indiana simply struggled to find their shot, going cold from beyond the arc and failing to capitalize on opportunities.
The road ahead for Indiana involves more than just refining their offensive plays. It's about adapting to the defensive strategies that have proven effective against them. With each game, the Hoosiers have a chance to learn and grow, turning these challenges into stepping stones for future success.