Team Overview
Four factors, scoring identity, and the season-long shape of Indiana's offense and defense.
Four Factors — Offense Big Ten %ile
Effective FG%
53.8% 97th
Turnover %
20.1% 46th
Off. Reb %
23.4% 5th
FT Attempt Rate
30.4% 68th
Four Factors — Defense Big Ten %ile
Opp. eFG%
46.1% 44th
Opp. TO% Forced
14.4% 39th
Opp. Off Reb %
31.5% 44th
Opp. FT Rate
25.0% 72nd
Ratings & Pace Big Ten %ile
Net Rating
+1.8 58th
Off. Rating
103.3 87th
Def. Rating
101.6 16th
Pace
69.1 49th
Offensive Profile
71.3
PPG
0.94
PPP
46.9%
FG%
58.0%
TS%
37.2%
3PT%
0.36
3PA/FGA
79.8%
FT%
11.9
AST/G
Defensive Profile
70.2
Opp PPG
0.854
Opp PPP
47.6%
Opp FG%
53.8%
Opp eFG%
30.9%
Opp 3PT%
14.6
TO/G Forced*
4.8
STL/G
1.4
BLK/G
Scoring Breakdown Per Game
9.3
Fast Break
34.1
Paint
12.3
2nd Chance
14.4
Off Turnovers
16.9
Bench
Paint points (21st pct.) and 2nd-chance points (10th pct.) both lag the league — a direct byproduct of Indiana's bottom-5-percentile offensive rebounding rate. This is a jump-shooting, guard-built offense more than a pound-the-paint one.
Identity & Strengths
- Lead-guard offense through Shay Ciezki — high-usage, efficient, and a true table-setter (647 poss, 1.09 PPP, 94 AST)
- Elite spacing and shot-making from Maya Makalusky — 1.103 PPP on a 75%-from-three diet
- Excellent transition offense — 1.046 PPP, 57.4% eFG, paced by Makalusky and Zania Socka-Nguemen pushing the floor
- Multiple half-court answers — graded excellent vs. man, very good vs. zone defense
- Strong free-throw shooting (79.8%) keeps possessions alive when shots aren't falling
Identity & Weaknesses
- Transition defense is the single biggest red flag — 1.000 PPP allowed, Poor (11th pct. in Big Ten)
- Turnovers are a team-wide issue, not isolated to one player — 14.6 TO/game and elevated rates up and down the roster
- Offense is top-heavy — outside of Ciezki/Makalusky, the next tier (Beaumont 0.907 PPP, Caffey 0.866 PPP) is merely solid
- Offensive rebounding is a bottom-5-percentile weakness (23.4% ORB%) that compounds the 2nd-chance scoring gap
- Bench production is uneven — Phoenix Stotjin's 0.455 PPP profile is a clear soft spot in reserve minutes
Player Profiles
Ten rotation players, ranked by offensive usage. Each card pairs the box score with actionable coverage notes.
Shay Ciezki
Scoring Ball Handler
#10
22.7
PPG
1.09
PPP
60.5%
eFG%
44.4%
3PT%
91.4%
FT%
94
AST
16.5%
TO%
0.754
Def. PPP
Indiana's offensive engine and primary table-setter. Carries the largest possession share on the roster (647 poss) while staying efficient (60.5% eFG, 64.6% TS) and distributing (94 AST) — a true lead-guard profile, not just a high-volume scorer. She also graded as a good individual defender (0.754 PPP allowed), so she isn't a player to target casually on switches. The turnover number (107) comes with the territory of her usage and is the clearest crack in her game.
How She Scores
- 647 offensive possessions used — by far the heaviest shot-creation load on the team
- 44.4% on 178 three-point attempts; comfortable shooting off movement and the catch
- 91.4% FT shooter on 116 attempts — draws contact and cashes in
- Biggest individual load in transition and still effective; sets up Makalusky in early offense
- 94 assists against 107 TOs (0.88 AST/TO) — facilitates without ceding her own shot
How to Guard Her
- Load coverage toward her on every possession — make the secondary creators beat you instead
- Make her work over screens repeatedly; soft coverage lets her play in rhythm
- Force the ball out of her hands early in the clock — she's not just a scorer, the offense runs through her
- Never foul her at the arc or off movement (91.4% FT) — closeouts should be controlled, not desperate
- Get bodies on her in transition before the secondary break forms
Maya Makalusky
Spot-Up Shooting Wing
#3
9.7
PPG
1.103
PPP
58.8%
eFG%
37.6%
3PT%
80.0%
FT%
75%
FGA from 3
12.1%
TO%
0.717
Def. PPP
The most efficient high-usage player on the roster (1.103 PPP) and the engine of Indiana's spacing. Three-quarters of her attempts come from three, and she hits them at a 37.6% clip on real volume (170 attempts). Quietly one of the team's best individual defenders too (0.717 PPP allowed, Very Good) — she is not a player offenses should assume is purely a specialist. Excellent in transition (~1.22 PPP), which makes her a load-management problem in both directions.
How She Scores
- 75% of her field goal attempts come from three — elite floor-spacing profile
- Sprints to space in transition (~1.22 PPP) rather than waiting for half-court structure
- High catch-and-shoot value off relocation and ball reversals, not a high-usage shot creator
- 58.8% eFG despite the heavy three-point diet — she's not a low-value gunner
- Limited on-ball creation (only 10 AST on 281 poss) — value is almost entirely as a release valve
How to Guard Her
- Top-lock or hard chase off every screen — do not allow a clean catch-and-shoot look
- Make her put the ball on the floor into traffic; she is far less comfortable creating than catching
- Locate her specifically in transition before sprinting back — she'll find the arc immediately
- Acceptable to help off her only in short, controlled doses given her limited shot creation
- Don't assume she's a non-factor defensively — she's a good individual defender, not a target
Lenee Beaumont
Secondary Ball Handler
#5
13.3
PPG
0.907
PPP
49.9%
eFG%
37.6%
3PT%
86.3%
FT%
87
AST
18.3%
TO%
0.895
Def. PPP
Indiana's clear second perimeter threat and secondary organizer (471 poss, 427 pts). A legitimate three-point shooter (37.6% on 125 attempts) and good free-throw shooter (86.3%), but her overall efficiency (0.907 PPP) sits a tier below Ciezki and Makalusky. Defensively she's a clear point of attack — 0.895 PPP allowed grades Below Average, the softest mark of Indiana's regular starters.
How She Scores
- 471 possessions used — Indiana's #2 offensive load behind Ciezki
- 37.6% on 125 three-point attempts; legitimate movement and spot-up shooter
- 86.3% FT shooter — draws and converts contact reliably
- 87 assists — helps organize offense when Ciezki rests or is denied the ball
- Strong in transition (~0.99 PPP) — runs the floor as a secondary ball-mover
How to Guard Her
- Top point-of-attack target among the starters — hunt switches and isolations onto her
- Force her to finish over length; her efficiency drops without a clean driving lane
- Make her create multiple reads under ball pressure rather than letting her play simple catch-and-go
- Closeouts can be slightly more aggressive than against Ciezki/Makalusky — she's good, not elite, from three
- Don't help excessively off her on the perimeter; she'll punish open catch-and-shoot windows
Nevaeh Caffey
Secondary Ball Handler
#2
8.5
PPG
0.866
PPP
45.3%
eFG%
40.5%
3PT%
81.3%
FT%
75
AST
20.1%
TO%
0.822
Def. PPP
A productive freshman with real downhill juice and 75 assists in a secondary playmaking role, but the efficiency (0.866 PPP) and turnover rate (20.1%) are both middle-of-the-pack. Her three-point shooting (40.5%) is real but on low volume (37 attempts) — not yet a high-frequency weapon. Defensively she grades Average (0.822 PPP allowed) — not a target, not a stopper.
How She Scores
- Secondary ball handler with real downhill ability and 75 assists on the season
- 40.5% from three on limited volume (37 attempts) — capable but not yet a high-frequency shooter
- 314 offensive possessions used — a real share of the offense, particularly off the bench/second unit
- Transition offense numbers graded poorly in the underlying data — not her best avenue to score
How to Guard Her
- Crowd decision windows and force tough pull-ups rather than clean catch-and-shoot threes
- Live-ball pressure is worthwhile — 20.1% TO rate is the second-highest among regular ball handlers
- Respect drives more than the catch-and-shoot — her value skews downhill, not floor-spacing
- Average individual defender — neither a hunting target nor a player to avoid attacking
Edessa Noyan
Rim-Finishing Big
#8
5.8
PPG
0.886
PPP
58.0%
eFG%
68.3%
FT%
51
OREB
17
BLK
25.6%
TO%
0.744
Def. PPP
Indiana's primary interior presence — leads the team in offensive rebounds (51) by a wide margin and provides real rim deterrence (17 blocks). Efficient finishing inside (58.0% eFG) but turnover-prone in usage (25.6% TO%) and not a floor-spacer. Graded as a Good individual defender (0.744 PPP allowed) and the team's best volume shot-blocker. Her 68.3% FT% makes her a viable crunch-time foul consideration.
How She Scores
- Rim-finishing big — 58.0% eFG, almost entirely at-the-rim and short-range value
- Team-leading 51 offensive rebounds — second-chance points and put-backs are a real part of her profile
- Turnover-prone in the post (25.6% TO%) against physical or doubling coverage
- Not a floor-spacer — limited value if forced away from the basket
How to Guard Her
- Box out aggressively — she is the single biggest offensive-rebounding priority on the floor
- Crowd catches in the post; her turnover rate climbs under physical, doubling pressure
- Mid-tier crunch-time foul target (68.3% FT) if the priority targets (Stotjin, Ondineme) are off the floor
- Respect her as a help defender and shot-blocker — she's a Good individual defender, not a free target
Zania Socka-Nguemen
Post-Up Big
#23
7.8
PPG
0.953
PPP
60.6%
eFG%
70.0%
FT%
30
OREB
~1.25
Transition PPP
23.6%
TO%
0.756
Def. PPP
An efficient interior scorer (60.6% eFG) and arguably Indiana's best transition big (~1.25 PPP running the floor) in a smaller sample of action. Active on the offensive glass (30 OREB) and graded as a Good individual defender (0.756 PPP allowed). Limited spacing and an elevated turnover rate (23.6%) when forced to create against set defenses are the trade-offs.
How She Scores
- Post-up big with strong efficiency (60.6% eFG) — purely a two-point, interior scorer (zero 3PA on the season)
- One of Indiana's best transition weapons (~1.25 PPP) — runs the floor and finishes early
- 30 offensive rebounds — second priority box-out target behind Noyan
- 23.6% turnover rate against set, physical post defense
How to Guard Her
- Sit on direct post lines and make catches difficult — force her into one more dribble than she wants
- Get back in transition specifically against her — she's a clear early-offense weapon
- Crash the boards hard; she's a high-effort offensive rebounder
- Solid individual defender — not a player to deliberately hunt on switches
Jerni Kiaku
Scoring Ball Handler
#7
3.8
PPG
0.78
PPP
50.7%
eFG%
69.0%
FT%
40
AST
29.7%
TO%
0.954
Def. PPP
Poor
Def. Rating
Can create and attack with some real playmaking feel (40 AST), but the efficiency (0.78 PPP) and turnover rate (29.7%, the worst on the roster) are real concerns. The weakest high-rotation individual defender on the team (0.954 PPP allowed, Poor/11th pct.) — if she's on the floor, target her directly.
How She Scores
- Some shot-creation ability and 40 assists, but overall efficiency (0.78 PPP) is below the rotation average
- 28.6% on low three-point volume (14 attempts) — not a consistent floor-spacer
- 29.7% turnover rate is a structural issue — the highest on the team
How to Guard Her
- Make her a contested jump shooter — force her into second-side, lower-value decisions
- Top defensive hunt target on the roster — involve her repeatedly in switches and isolations
- Mid-tier crunch-time foul target (69.0% FT) when priority targets are unavailable
- Pressure her decision-making — her turnover rate suggests she folds under sustained ball pressure
Valentyna Kadlecova
Spot-Up Shooting Wing
#15
5.4
PPG
0.922
PPP
46.4%
eFG%
33.3%
3PT%
87.5%
FT%
9.4%
TO%
0.694
Def. PPP
Very Good
Def. Rating
A low-turnover complementary piece (9.4% TO%, lowest on the roster among regulars) with a clean catch-and-shoot profile. Small sample (64 poss) limits confidence, but the underlying defensive number (0.694 PPP allowed, Very Good) and excellent free-throw rate (87.5%) both stand out. Featured prominently in the team's most efficient small-sample five-man lineup.
How She Scores
- Low-turnover role player (9.4% TO%) — values possessions and takes what the defense gives
- Decent catch-and-shoot utility (33.3% on 36 three-point attempts)
- 87.5% FT shooter — efficient when fouled, a non-target late
- Lower-volume piece overall — complementary, not a primary scoring threat
How to Guard Her
- Can be helped off more selectively than Indiana's top two shooters — lower volume, lower threat level
- Don't bother fouling her intentionally late — 87.5% FT is among the team's best
- Small sample but a Very Good defensive number — don't assume she's a soft target on switches
Phoenix Stotjin
Secondary Ball Handler
#1
4.2
PPG
0.455
PPP
29.5%
eFG%
12.8%
3PT%
53.8%
FT%
28.2%
TO%
0.851
Def. PPP
1.08
Foul EPP
The clearest soft spot in Indiana's bench rotation. A genuinely rough offensive profile on a meaningful sample — 0.455 PPP, 31.8% TS, 12.8% from three — that puts extra pressure on the top perimeter trio whenever she's on the floor. Indiana's #1 crunch-time foul target at 53.8% FT (Expected Points Per Possession of just 1.08 if intentionally fouled).
How She Scores
- Very limited offensive value (0.455 PPP) — not a player opponents need to game-plan around offensively
- 12.8% from three on real volume (39 attempts) — closeouts can be conceded almost entirely
- 28.2% turnover rate — pressure compounds an already-inefficient profile
How to Guard Her
- Play off her entirely beyond 10 feet — live with anything she shoots from outside
- #1 priority intentional-foul target in late-game situations — 53.8% FT, lowest EPP on the roster among regulars
- Below-average individual defender (0.851 PPP allowed) — also a hunting target on the other end
- Free up help responsibilities elsewhere by sagging off her aggressively
Jade Ondineme
Rim-Finishing Big
#45
1.7
PPG
0.743
PPP
52.4%
eFG%
57.1%
FT%
19
OREB
31.4%
TO%
0.884
Def. PPP
1.14
Foul EPP
Limited-minutes interior depth (35 poss) with a clean finishing percentage (52.4% eFG) but real ball-security issues against set defense (31.4% TO%). Active enough on the glass (19 OREB) to matter as a box-out priority when she's on the floor. The second-best crunch-time foul target on the roster behind Stotjin (57.1% FT, 1.14 EPP).
How She Scores
- Purely an interior finisher (52.4% eFG, all attempts inside) in a small offensive sample
- 19 offensive rebounds in limited minutes — disproportionate impact on the glass
- 31.4% turnover rate — struggles with the ball against physical post pressure
How to Guard Her
- Box out — disproportionate offensive rebounding for her minutes played
- #2 crunch-time foul target (57.1% FT, 1.14 EPP) when Stotjin is off the floor
- Crowd post touches; her turnover rate climbs fast under doubles
- Below-average individual defender — a viable hunting target alongside Beaumont and Kiaku
Bench Notes — Minimal Usage
Faith Wiseman (F, 6'4", So, 14 GP) and Chloe Spreen (G, 5'10", So, 10 GP) play sparingly. Both graded Poor defensively on small samples (Wiseman 0.970 PPP allowed; Spreen limited data) and offer little offensive value at this point — situational fouls only if either is on the floor late (Wiseman 50.0% FT, Spreen 42.9% FT).
Shot Zones
Where Indiana scores best — and where the defense leaks the most efficiency.
Offensive Shot Zone Efficiency Season · Big Ten %ile
| Zone | FG% | % of Attempts | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| At Rim | 64.9%95th | 27.9% | Elite finishing inside — one of the best at-rim numbers in the conference |
| Paint (non-rim) 2s | 44.1%89th | 23.1% | Strong floater/short-range game complements the rim finishing |
| Mid-Range 2s | 40.8%96th | 13.2% | Elite mid-range efficiency, though low volume relative to other zones |
| Above-the-Break 3s | 37.4%99th | 26.4% | The best zone in their arsenal by percentile — Ciezki and Makalusky live here |
| Corner 3s | 37.6%85th | 9.5% | Excellent corner shooting on lower volume — don't help into the corner |
Indiana is elite-efficient in every single shooting zone by Big Ten percentile. There is no soft spot to funnel them toward shot-quality wise — the only lever is volume and shot quality (contested vs. open), not zone selection.
Defensive Shot Zone Efficiency (Allowed) Season · Big Ten %ile
| Zone | FG% Allowed | % of Opp. Attempts | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| At Rim | 61.9%13th | 28.7% | Biggest defensive leak. Rim protection is a clear weakness — attack downhill |
| Paint (non-rim) 2s | 35.4%74th | 24.2% | Solid containment on floaters and short-range looks |
| Mid-Range 2s | 35.0%22nd | 17.9% | Below-average mid-range defense relative to the conference |
| Above-the-Break 3s | 29.4%64th | 23.7% | Good defense on the most common three-point shot type |
| Corner 3s | 37.5%11th | 5.5% | Second leak. Corner three defense is a clear bottom-of-the-conference weakness |
The two clearest attack windows defensively are the rim (61.9% allowed, 13th pct.) and the corner three (37.5% allowed, 11th pct.) — both well below league average. Indiana defends mid-range and above-the-break threes at a respectable level, so the priority shots are downhill drives and skip passes to the corner, not standstill jumpers.
Net Zone Matchup Summary
| Zone | IND Offense | IND Defense (Allowed) | Net Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| At Rim | 64.9% | 61.9% | Vulnerable both ways |
| Paint 2s | 44.1% | 35.4% | Defended better than they shoot it |
| Mid-Range 2s | 40.8% | 35.0% | Even, slight offensive edge |
| Above-Break 3s | 37.4% | 29.4% | Defended better than they shoot it |
| Corner 3s | 37.6% | 37.5% | Vulnerable both ways |
The rim and the corner three are the two zones where Indiana is simultaneously elite on offense and poor on defense — meaning these are exactly the shots a smart opponent should be hunting, while expecting Indiana to hunt them right back.
Key Lineups
Five-man unit performance by possession volume, drawn from the season's most-used combinations.
Ciezki · Beaumont · Caffey · Makalusky · Noyan
"The Starting Five" — 509 possessions / 300 minutes (heaviest-used unit by far)
+14.2
Net Rtg · 84th pct.
ORtg 110.6 (66th)
eFG% 57.8% (89th)
TOV% 30.1% (40th)
ORB% 21.4% (18th)
Opp eFG% 45.3% (52nd)
Opp ORB% 33.2% (74th)
Indiana's clear best heavily-used five. The efficiency holds up across nearly 60% of available possessions — game plans should assume this exact group on the floor for the majority of the game and prepare specific coverage for it.
Ciezki · Kadlecova · Beaumont · Caffey · Makalusky
155 possessions / 91 minutes — shooting-heavy five
+46.5
Net Rtg · 95th pct.
ORtg 123.5 (95th)
eFG% 62.1% (95th)
TOV% 19.1% (74th)
ORB% 36.5% (71st)
Smaller sample, but the four-shooter look around Ciezki produces Indiana's most explosive offensive numbers on the season. Worth tracking specifically when Kadlecova checks in alongside the top perimeter group.
Ciezki · Beaumont · Socka-Nguemen · Makalusky · Caffey
158 possessions / 91 minutes
+14.6
Net Rtg · 88th pct.
eFG% 61.1% (94th)
TOV% 21.8% (30th)
ORB% 25.0% (66th)
A second viable shooting-heavy frontcourt look that swaps Noyan for Socka-Nguemen. Nearly identical net rating to the starting five — Indiana has more than one good five-man answer when this group is right.
Caffey · Noyan · Kadlecova · Beaumont · Ciezki
91 possessions / 53 minutes
-1.1
Net Rtg · 42nd pct.
eFG% 40.6% (24th)
TOV% 22.4% (53rd)
ORB% 17.4% (6th)
A near-even bench-infused mix that struggles specifically to generate clean shots (40.6% eFG, 24th pct.) despite featuring two of the top three perimeter names. Worth pressuring the catch when this group is on the floor.
Ciezki · Beaumont · Noyan · Ondineme · Makalusky
60 possessions / 33 minutes — red flag unit
-18.3
Net Rtg · 20th pct.
eFG% 47.4% (47th)
Opp eFG% 56.6% (79th, bad)
ORB% 33.3% (81st)
The clearest red flag in the data. Whenever Ondineme shares the frontcourt with this group, Indiana's defensive efficiency craters — opponents are shooting 56.6% eFG against this exact five. If Indiana goes to this look, attack relentlessly until they adjust.
Game Plan
Prioritized actions for beating Indiana, organized by tier.
STOPTake away first — the two non-negotiables
Shay Ciezki's rhythm in transition and on ball screens
Load coverage toward her on every action. Make her work over every screen and force the ball out early in the clock — soft coverage lets Indiana's entire offense play in rhythm through her.
Maya Makalusky's catch-and-shoot windows
75% of her attempts come from three at 37.6%. Top-lock her off screens and deny clean relocation catches — make her put it on the floor into traffic instead.
KEYWin these two battles and the game tilts your way
Win the turnover and transition battle
Indiana's transition defense allows 1.000 PPP (Poor, 11th pct.) — the single clearest exploit in the data. Push pace relentlessly off makes, misses, and especially live-ball turnovers before their shell is set.
Control the offensive glass
Indiana owns the league's 5th-percentile offensive rebounding rate but also allows a below-average 31.5% opponent ORB%. Crash the boards hard — second-chance points are sitting right there for the taking.
EXPLOITSpecific shots and matchups to hunt
Attack the rim and the corner three
Indiana allows 61.9% at the rim (13th pct.) and 37.5% on corner threes (11th pct.) — both clear bottom-of-the-conference numbers. Downhill drives and skip passes to the corner are the two highest-value shots available.
Hunt switches onto Beaumont, Stotjin, Kiaku, and Ondineme
All four graded Below Average or Poor defensively (0.851–0.954 PPP allowed). Force these matchups specifically through screening actions and isolations.
ATTACKPressure points to apply throughout the game
Apply ball pressure to force turnovers
Kiaku (29.7%), Stotjin (28.2%), Noyan (25.6%), and Socka-Nguemen (23.6%) all carry elevated turnover rates. Pressure catches, shrink driving lanes, and crowd second-side reads.
Foul intentionally in crunch time, in priority order
Stotjin (53.8% FT) and Ondineme (57.1% FT) are the clear top targets — both have Expected Points Per Possession under 1.15 if sent to the line. Noyan (68.3%) and Kiaku (69.0%) are secondary options.
WATCHContext to track throughout the game
The Ciezki + Makalusky combined value
1.09 and 1.103 PPP, respectively — if both get going simultaneously, Indiana can beat anyone in the conference on a given night. Disrupting both together is the single biggest lever in the game plan.
The starting five's heavy minute share
Ciezki-Beaumont-Caffey-Makalusky-Noyan (+14.2 Net Rtg) logs the bulk of available possessions. Have specific actions ready for this exact group rather than generic Indiana coverage.
Coaches Notes
Quick-reference splits and rankings for staff use during prep and in-game adjustments.
Defensive Coverage Mix
| Coverage | Share | PPP Allowed | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Man Defense | 97.3% | 0.831 | Poor (11th) |
| Zone Defense | 2.7% | 0.869 | Below Avg (28th) |
| Press | 3.0% | 0.725 | Average (44th) |
Indiana plays almost exclusively man-to-man (97.3% of defensive possessions). Zone and press are rarely used and shouldn't be game-planned for as a primary look.
Defense by Game Situation
| Situation | PPP Allowed | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Transition | 1.000 | Poor (11th) |
| Half Court | 0.832 | Poor (12th) |
| Last 4 Sec. Shot Clock | 0.517 | Excellent (90th) |
A team that defends the shot clock's final seconds at an elite level but bleeds points in transition — the gap between those two numbers is the clearest situational tell in the data.
Offense vs. Defensive Schemes
Indiana's offense is rated Excellent against man-to-man and Very Good against zone defense — they are not a one-dimensional unit that can be neutralized by a single defensive scheme. Multiple actions (Ciezki ball screens, Makalusky relocation, Beaumont/Caffey secondary creation, Noyan/Socka-Nguemen interior touches) all function independently of the defensive look faced.
Top 4 Three-Point Shooters to Track
| Player | 3PT% | Attempts | Note | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Shay Ciezki | 44.4% | 178 | Top priority — volume and efficiency both elite |
| 2 | Maya Makalusky | 37.6% | 170 | 75% of her shot diet — deny the catch entirely |
| 3 | Lenee Beaumont | 37.6% | 125 | Secondary threat, still a real number on volume |
| 4 | Nevaeh Caffey | 40.5% | 37 | Efficient but low volume — monitor, don't overreact |
Crunch-Time Foul Targets By EPP
| Player | FT% | EPP* | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Phoenix Stotjin | 53.8% | 1.08 |
| 2 | Jade Ondineme | 57.1% | 1.14 |
| 3 | Edessa Noyan | 68.3% | 1.37 |
| 4 | Jerni Kiaku | 69.0% | 1.38 |
*EPP = FT% × 2, the expected points from sending to the line on two shots. Lower is a better foul target. All four sit well below Indiana's 0.94 team PPP.
Top 4 Offensive Rebounders Box-Out Priority
| Player | OREB | Note | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Edessa Noyan | 51 | Clear #1 priority — well clear of the rest of the roster |
| 2 | Zania Socka-Nguemen | 30 | Second priority when on the floor |
| 3 | Jade Ondineme | 19 | Disproportionate to her limited minutes |
| 3 | Nevaeh Caffey | 19 | Tied — a guard crashing the glass, don't lose her |