[Postgame 3-2-1] What We Learned From Indiana's Win Against Army

We break down three key stats, two observations, and one lingering question from Indiana's concerning and underwhelming victory against Army.

That wasn’t fun!

Indiana’s narrow defeat over Army — the No. 338 team in KenPom rankings — rounded out a rollercoaster weekend in Indiana athletics.

While the Hoosiers’ performance and ultimate 72-64 victory might not have been appalling enough to warrant panic, I think it’s fair to be at least a little bit unsettled after watching that game.

There were some bright spots, as you’d expect in any victory: Xavier Johnson’s aggressive offensive performance, free throw shooting, Kel’el Ware’s second half offense, Gabe Cupps (duh).

But there were also some lows: lack of intensity, disoriented offense, questionable minutes distribution, sloppy perimeter defense, poor shot selection, body language …the list goes on.

The good news? Indiana still has time to turn this thing around, although the schedule gets much tougher starting Thursday night. The bad news? I’m not sure many people expected the team to stoop this low in the first place.

There’s certainly a lot to unpack and a lot of emotions to wrestle with here. Side note: am I the only one who couldn’t stop thinking about that matchup with No. 6 UConn that’s now less than a week away? Anyway …

Let’s break down three key stats, two observations, and one lingering question coming out of Indiana’s game against Army.

Did you miss yesterday's edition of the postgame show?

3 Meaningful Stats

1. Indiana had four points in transition.

A simple stat, but an incredibly disheartening one at that. What was once thought to be potential strength for the Hoosiers was exposed in a suboptimal performance against the Black Knights.

The root of the issue came, once again, from disjointed team defense. Pair the lackluster communication with surrendering 11 offensive rebounds, and it’s pretty clear why the Hoosiers couldn’t even get many transition opportunities.

From Woodson’s postgame comments, he recognizes that transition efforts are halted after a made basket, and he made it clear that it’s on his players to do a better job of preventing multiple shot opportunities in the first place. Army scored 14 second-chance points to Indiana’s five.

The Hoosiers theoretically have four or five guys on the court at all times that can grab a rebound or a loose ball and push the break. But only X was really able execute that well for Indiana, and he did manage to draw a couple fouls on fast break layups that led to points.

But the general tempo of the game was oddly slow. Outside of X, Cupps, and Trey Galloway, no one else made a consistent effort to get up the floor to give Indiana a numbers or size advantage in transition.

There was no real sense of urgency. That’s not the effort you hope to see, and it’s a major reason why Indiana trailed one of the statistically-worst teams in the country for an alarmingly large portion of the game.

2. Through two games, Mackenzie Mgbako has not played past the under-16 timeout of the second half

Puzzling, right?

Well, upon listening to the postgame press conferences, the issue at hand became super clear: Mgbako isn’t playing hard enough. Woodson voiced his concern with both the starters (I believe “they stunk” were his exact words) and his young wing players (as he also mentioned needing more from Kaleb Banks and CJ Gunn).

Unfortunately, Mgbako falls into both of those categories.

The former McDonald’s All-American finished the night with two points, bringing his official season total to six. (He combined for 29 in two exhibition games.)

He’s also struggled with defense — both from an effort and comprehension standpoint — throughout this young season.

But can Woodson afford to do this with Mgbako’s minutes?

Obviously, good defense and overall effort are critical pieces to any player’s and team’s success. Still, Mgbako is the most talented three-level scorer on this team. Is benching one of your highest-rated recruits this early in the season really worth it for Woodson? Or is now exactly the right time to send such a message to a player like Mgbako?

I suppose time will tell.

Regardless, intensity is clearly a team-wide issue so far. And it is undoubtedly something that needs to be amended if Indiana plans to compete with UConn, Kansas, and within the Big Ten.

But I can’t help but wonder if this might turn into a continuous cycle of lowered confidence, lowered minutes, and lowered production. Mgbako came to Indiana to be the go-to guy. He’s wired to score. If he can’t get into an offensive rhythm because of his minutes, it stands to reason that is going to take a toll on him that is at least somewhat reflected in his effort.

This reminds me of a certain QB situation in the stadium down the road, but I digress.

Disappointing as it might be, don’t expect to see Mgbako on the floor during crunch time in the near future. Whenever he finally makes the jump that deems him worthy of playing crunch time in Woodson’s eyes, that will be a turning point to keep on your radar.

3. Indiana has 24 attempted 3-pointers over two games while allowing 72.

Remember when Indiana played Penn State in January, giving up a slew of 3-pointers and suffering its most lopsided, crushing loss of the season?

Yeah, not much has changed.

The Hoosiers struggled to defend beyond the arc against the Black Knights, just as they have in all four contests this season. And against an Army squad whose only offensive firepower came from 3-point attempts, it makes sense why Indiana struggled to gain and maintain a lead for a large portion of the game.

Indiana entered the matchup 4-13 from 3 in its one game against FGCU. Army came into the contest shooting 13-52 in two games from long range. For the math geniuses in the crowd — yes, that’s double the volume of attempts, which is honestly a wild number when you think about it. Even wilder when you witness the copious amounts of shot-chucking in person.

Army shot 38 (!!!) 3-pointers against Indiana and made 13 of them. Despite the prior evidence of that habit, it’s pretty clear the Black Knights read the scouting report. They weren’t exactly tremendous slashers or free throw shooters, and they knew that the only way they could compete with the Hoosiers was to try to expose one of their biggest weaknesses — defense beyond the arc.

It’s fair to say this is going to be one of the biggest concerns for Woodson and his squad to address moving forward. Indiana will face some pretty talented shooters and teams in the coming months — not just the semi-decent or below-average mid-majors they’ve faced so far.

This one facet could truly make or break the team’s success this season.