Executive Summary
Program-wide assessment across offensive efficiency, defensive performance, ball security, rebounding, shot-zone shooting, and transition output for the 2025–26 season.
Overall Program
C+
18-14 overall, losing record in Big Ten (6-12)
Offensive Rating
A–
103.3 ORtg — 87th pct. in Big Ten
Defensive Rating
D+
101.6 DRtg — 16th pct., well below avg
Ball Security
C
20.1% TOV% — average, but team-wide
Offensive Rebounding
F
23.4% OReb% — bottom-5 pct.
Perimeter Shooting
A
37.2% 3PT% — elite in every zone
Transition Defense
D–
1.000 PPP allowed — Poor, 11th pct.
Transition Off.
A–
1.046 PPP — excellent offensive context
The Indiana Hoosiers 2025–26 WBB program is a high-powered, guard-driven offense that ranks among the Big Ten's most efficient units (103.3 ORtg, 87th percentile) but is undone by a defense that sits in the bottom quartile of the conference (101.6 DRtg, 16th percentile). The result is an 18-14 overall record that flatters the underlying numbers — a losing 6-12 mark in Big Ten play reflects a program whose offensive identity has not yet been matched by complementary depth or defensive discipline. NET #56 places Indiana outside the at-large conversation despite a genuinely dangerous top of the roster.
The team's identity is anchored by the Ciezki–Makalusky perimeter duo, with Shay Ciezki (#10) posting a team-high 1.09 PPP on 647 possessions and Maya Makalusky (#3) the roster's most efficient high-usage scorer at 1.103 PPP. The most urgent program-wide vulnerability is transition defense — opponents are scoring at a 1.000 PPP clip in the open floor (11th percentile), a number that stands in stark contrast to Indiana's own elite transition offense (1.046 PPP). Secondary concerns are offensive rebounding (23.4% OReb%, 5th percentile) and an offense that drops off sharply beyond its top two scorers, with bench production (Stotjin's 0.455 PPP) a clear soft spot. Indiana's shot-zone efficiency is a genuine program strength — elite in every zone tracked — and should anchor offensive design going forward.
✦ Strengths
- Elite offensive efficiency in every tracked shot zone — 85th percentile or better across the board
- Shay Ciezki: 1.09 PPP on a team-high 647 possessions — a true lead-guard engine
- Maya Makalusky: 1.103 PPP — the most efficient high-usage player on the roster
- Transition offense at 1.046 PPP — among the best contexts in the conference
- Last-4-seconds shot clock defense at 0.517 PPP allowed — elite, 90th percentile
- Strong free-throw shooting (79.8% team) keeps possessions alive
⚠ Weaknesses
- Transition defense at 1.000 PPP allowed — the program's single biggest red flag (11th pct.)
- Offensive rebounding at 23.4% OReb% — bottom-5 percentile in the conference
- At-rim defense allows 61.9% — a clear, exploitable interior leak (13th pct.)
- Corner three defense allows 37.5% — second-clearest defensive leak (11th pct.)
- Turnovers elevated up and down the roster (14.6 TO/g), not isolated to one player
- Offense is top-heavy — the tier behind Ciezki/Makalusky is merely solid
→ Opportunities
- Above-the-break three (37.4%, 99th pct.) is the best shot in the arsenal but only 26.4% of attempts
- Press defense allows just 0.725 PPP — better than man (0.831) — yet used on only 3.0% of possessions
- Caffey's freshman trajectory (40.5% 3PT on limited volume) — expand her role as the sample grows
- Socka-Nguemen's transition scoring (~1.25 PPP) is elite in a small sample — worth expanded minutes
- Kadlecova's efficiency (0.922 PPP, 9.4% TO%, Very Good defender) outpaces her current usage
⚑ Caution Areas
- Ciezki–Beaumont–Noyan–Ondineme–Makalusky five posted a –18.3 net rating — avoid in key situations
- Phoenix Stotjin's 0.455 PPP profile creates real risk whenever she's on the floor in close games
- Jerni Kiaku's 29.7% turnover rate and Poor defensive grade make her a high-variance rotation piece
- Conference-level competition exposes defensive gaps a lighter non-conference slate can mask
- Offensive rebounding gap directly compounds paint (21st pct.) and 2nd-chance (10th pct.) scoring
Offensive Analysis
Efficiency metrics, shot-zone production, scoring distribution, and areas requiring offensive development.
Offensive Rating103.3 — Elite, 87th pct. Big Ten
Effective FG%53.8% — Elite, 97th pct.
True Shooting %58.0% — strong
3-Point % (Team)37.2% — Elite, well above D-I average
At-Rim FG%64.9% — Elite, 95th pct.
PPP (Transition)1.046 — Excellent, best offensive context
Turnover % (lower = better)20.1% — average, but a team-wide issue
Off. Rebound %23.4% — Poor, bottom-5 pct.
FT Attempt Rate30.4% — Good, 68th pct.
✦ Offensive Strengths
- At-rim finishing at 64.9% (95th pct.) — one of the best interior numbers in the conference
- Above-the-break 3PT at 37.4% (99th pct.) — the single best zone in the arsenal
- Mid-range 2s at 40.8% (96th pct.) — elite, though low-volume (13.2% of attempts)
- Ciezki (1.09 PPP) and Makalusky (1.103 PPP) anchor an elite top-of-roster duo
- Transition offense at 1.046 PPP, 57.4% eFG — Indiana's most efficient context
- Corner 3PT at 37.6% (85th pct.) — defenses should not help into the corner
⚠ Offensive Areas to Improve
- OReb% of 23.4% — bottom-5 pct., compounding paint (21st pct.) and 2nd-chance (10th pct.) scoring
- Offense is top-heavy — the tier behind Ciezki/Makalusky (Beaumont 0.907, Caffey 0.866) is merely solid
- Bench scoring is uneven — Stotjin's 0.455 PPP is a clear soft spot in reserve minutes
- Team-wide turnover issue — 14.6 TO/g, elevated up and down the roster
- Mid-range volume (13.2% of attempts) is low relative to its elite efficiency — underused weapon
| Player | PPP | eFG% | 3PT% | FT% | TO% | Grade |
|---|
| Maya Makalusky #3 Jr | 1.103 | 58.8% | 37.6% | 80.0% | 12.1% | A |
| Shay Ciezki #10 Sr | 1.09 | 60.5% | 44.4% | 91.4% | 16.5% | A |
| Zania Socka-Nguemen #23 So | 0.953 | 60.6% | — | 70.0% | 23.6% | B+ |
| Valentyna Kadlecova #15 So | 0.922 | 46.4% | 33.3% | 87.5% | 9.4% | B |
| Lenee Beaumont #5 Jr | 0.907 | 49.9% | 37.6% | 86.3% | 18.3% | B |
| Edessa Noyan #8 So | 0.886 | 58.0% | — | 68.3% | 25.6% | B– |
| Nevaeh Caffey #2 Fr | 0.866 | 45.3% | 40.5% | 81.3% | 20.1% | B– |
| Jerni Kiaku #7 Sr | 0.78 | 50.7% | 28.6% | 69.0% | 29.7% | C |
| Jade Ondineme #45 Jr | 0.743 | 52.4% | — | 57.1% | 31.4% | C– |
| Phoenix Stotjin #1 So | 0.455 | 29.5% | 12.8% | 53.8% | 28.2% | D |
Indiana's offense is built around a true two-player engine: Ciezki's table-setting volume (647 possessions, 94 AST, 1.09 PPP) and Makalusky's elite floor-spacing (1.103 PPP on a 75%-from-three diet). Both grade as the rotation's most efficient and highest-usage scorers, and the supporting cast — Beaumont, Caffey, Noyan, Socka-Nguemen — is solid rather than special. The clearest structural drag is offensive rebounding: a bottom-5-percentile 23.4% OReb% directly explains why paint points (21st pct.) and second-chance points (10th pct.) both lag the league despite elite shooting efficiency everywhere on the floor.
Indiana is elite-efficient in every single shot zone tracked, which means the offensive ceiling is less about shot quality and more about volume, shot selection, and possession count. Building more structured actions to generate the above-the-break three (37.4%, the single best shot in the arsenal, yet only 26.4% of attempts) and continuing to develop Caffey and Kadlecova as complementary shooters represent the clearest paths to deepening the offense beyond its top two scorers in Year 2.
Defensive Analysis
Defensive rating, coverage mix, situational splits, shot-zone containment, and individual defensive contributions.
Defensive Rating101.6 — Poor, 16th pct. Big Ten
Opp. eFG% Allowed46.1% — Average, 44th pct.
Opp. 3PT% Allowed30.9% — average
Opp. TO% Forced14.4% — Average, 39th pct.
Opp. Off. Reb% Allowed31.5% — Average, 44th pct.
Blocks Per Game1.4 BLK/g — limited rim deterrence
Steals Per Game4.8 STL/g — average disruption
PPP Allowed (Transition)1.000 — Poor, 11th pct., biggest red flag
PPP Allowed (Half Court)0.832 — Poor, 12th pct.
PPP Allowed (Last 4 Sec. Shot Clock)0.517 — Excellent, 90th pct.
Opp. At-Rim FG% Allowed61.9% — Poor, 13th pct.
Opp. Corner 3PT% Allowed37.5% — Poor, 11th pct.
Man Defense % (primary scheme)97.3% — extremely committed
✦ Defensive Strengths
- Last-4-seconds shot clock defense at 0.517 PPP allowed — Excellent, 90th pct., best situational number in the data
- Opp. FT rate allowed of 25.0% — Good, 72nd pct., limits cheap line trips
- Paint (non-rim) 2s allowed at 35.4% — solid containment, 74th pct.
- Above-the-break 3PT allowed at 29.4% — good defense on the most common 3PT shot, 64th pct.
- Press defense allows just 0.725 PPP — Indiana's most efficient defensive coverage by a wide margin
⚠ Defensive Areas to Improve
- Transition defense at 1.000 PPP allowed — Poor, 11th pct., the program's single biggest red flag
- At-rim FG% allowed of 61.9% — Poor, 13th pct., a clear interior leak
- Corner 3PT% allowed of 37.5% — Poor, 11th pct., second-clearest leak
- Half-court defense overall also grades Poor — 0.832 PPP allowed, 12th pct.
- BLK/g of only 1.4 — limited rim deterrence across the rotation
- Mid-range 2s allowed at 35.0% — Below average, 22nd pct.
| Player | Def. PPP Allowed | Def. Rating | Role | Def. Grade |
|---|
| Valentyna Kadlecova #15 So | 0.694 | Very Good | Spot-Up Wing | A– |
| Maya Makalusky #3 Jr | 0.717 | Very Good | Spot-Up Wing | A– |
| Edessa Noyan #8 So | 0.744 | Good | Rim-Finishing Big | B+ |
| Shay Ciezki #10 Sr | 0.754 | Good | Scoring Ball Handler | B+ |
| Zania Socka-Nguemen #23 So | 0.756 | Good | Post-Up Big | B+ |
| Nevaeh Caffey #2 Fr | 0.822 | Average | Secondary BH | B– |
| Phoenix Stotjin #1 So | 0.851 | Below Average | Secondary BH | C |
| Jade Ondineme #45 Jr | 0.884 | Below Average | Rim-Finishing Big | C– |
| Lenee Beaumont #5 Jr | 0.895 | Below Average | Secondary BH | C– |
| Jerni Kiaku #7 Sr | 0.954 | Poor | Scoring Ball Handler | D+ |
Indiana's defense is built almost exclusively around man-to-man coverage (97.3% of possessions), with zone (2.7%) and press (3.0%) used sparingly. The situational split is the clearest tell in the data: the Hoosiers defend the final four seconds of the shot clock at an elite level (0.517 PPP allowed, 90th pct.) but bleed points in both transition (1.000 PPP, 11th pct.) and general half-court action (0.832 PPP, 12th pct.). That gap suggests a defense that can execute a disciplined, structured possession but struggles to get into structure in the first place — particularly in the open floor.
The two clearest shot-zone leaks are the rim (61.9% allowed, 13th pct.) and the corner three (37.5% allowed, 11th pct.) — both bottom-of-the-conference numbers that point to rotation-timing issues rather than pure individual technique. Notably, Indiana's own press defense (0.725 PPP allowed) outperforms its primary man coverage (0.831 PPP) by a wide margin, yet is used on only 3.0% of defensive possessions — an underexploited tactical lever heading into Year 2.
Player Development Assessment
Individual strengths, development opportunities, and coaching focus areas for each rotation player based on 2025–26 season data.
#10 Shay Ciezki
Scoring Ball Handler · G · Sr · 647 possessions
A
Offensive Strengths
1.09 PPP on a team-high 647 possessions — true lead-guard engine · 60.5% eFG%, 44.4% on 178 three-point attempts · 91.4% FT% on 116 attempts — elite free-throw conversion · 94 assists against 107 TOs (0.88 AST/TO) — facilitates without ceding her own shot
Offensive Development
107 turnovers (16.5% TO%) is the clearest crack in her game given her usage — a modest reduction would meaningfully raise offensive efficiency at this volume
Defensive Strengths
Graded a Good individual defender (0.754 PPP allowed) — not a player opponents can target casually on switches
Defensive Development
As the focal point of opposing game plans, managing the cumulative load of guarding the top defensive assignment every night
Coaching Focus
Targeted ball-security work given her possession volume — even a 2-3 point TO% reduction compounds across 647 possessions; continue featuring her as the offense's primary table-setter; she is the swing piece — the program's ceiling tracks her health and form
#3 Maya Makalusky
Spot-Up Shooting Wing · F/W · Jr · 281 possessions
A
Offensive Strengths
1.103 PPP — most efficient high-usage player on the roster · 75% of FGA from three at 37.6% on real volume (170 attempts) · 58.8% eFG despite the heavy three-point diet · Elite in transition (~1.22 PPP)
Offensive Development
Limited on-ball creation (10 AST on 281 poss) — value is almost entirely as a catch-and-shoot release valve; a modest live-dribble counter would diversify her profile
Defensive Strengths
Graded a Very Good individual defender (0.717 PPP allowed) — not purely a specialist on that end either
Defensive Development
Relies on team structure rather than independent shot-creation pressure when opponents key on her specifically
Coaching Focus
Build more relocation and ball-reversal actions to keep generating clean catch-and-shoot windows as defenses adjust; introduce a modest live-dribble counter so opponents can't simply run her off the line; her two-way value makes her a true starter, not just a specialist
#5 Lenee Beaumont
Secondary Ball Handler · G · Jr · 471 possessions
B
Offensive Strengths
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% · 87 assists — organizes the offense when Ciezki rests or is denied
Offensive Development
0.907 PPP sits a tier below Ciezki and Makalusky · 18.3% TO% has room to tighten given her playmaking role
Defensive Strengths
Logs heavy minutes without major scheme breakdowns; willing point-of-attack engager
Defensive Development
0.895 PPP allowed grades Below Average — the softest mark among Indiana's regular starters, a clear target for opponents
Coaching Focus
Defensive technique work is the priority — she's a legitimate offensive piece but a defensive liability opponents will hunt; pairing discipline (avoiding switch-heavy lineups that put her on bigger wings) would mitigate the exposure
#2 Nevaeh Caffey
Secondary Ball Handler · G · Fr · 314 possessions
B–
Offensive Strengths
Real downhill ability and 75 assists as a true freshman · 40.5% on three-point attempts (37 attempts) — efficient on a small sample · 314 possessions used — already a real share of the offense
Offensive Development
0.866 PPP and 20.1% TO% are both middle-of-the-pack · Three-point volume (37 attempts) is too low to plan around yet — expand the sample with reps
Defensive Strengths
Grades Average defensively (0.822 PPP allowed) — neither a target nor a stopper, a solid floor for a freshman
Defensive Development
Continue building physical and positional foundation as she adds strength and experience
Coaching Focus
Increase three-point volume deliberately — the early efficiency (40.5%) is promising and merits more reps; she's the clearest long-term developmental priority on the roster given her class year and existing role
#8 Edessa Noyan
Rim-Finishing Big · F · So · 32 GP
B
Offensive Strengths
Team-leading 51 offensive rebounds by a wide margin · 58.0% eFG — efficient finishing inside · Best volume shot-blocker on the roster (17 BLK)
Offensive Development
25.6% TO% — turnover-prone in the post against doubles · Not a floor-spacer — limited value if forced away from the basket
Defensive Strengths
Graded a Good individual defender (0.744 PPP allowed) · Elite offensive rebounder translates to defensive activity and rim deterrence
Defensive Development
Foul management when contesting at the rim repeatedly
Coaching Focus
Develop a counter for doubles in the post to cut into the 25.6% TO rate; her offensive rebounding is already an elite program asset — keep her central to second-chance design as the clear #1 box-out priority
#23 Zania Socka-Nguemen
Post-Up Big · F · So · 18 GP
B+
Offensive Strengths
60.6% eFG — efficient interior scorer · Arguably the team's best transition big (~1.25 PPP) · 30 offensive rebounds — second priority on the offensive glass
Offensive Development
23.6% TO% against set, physical post defense · Zero three-point attempts — no spacing value, limits lineup flexibility
Defensive Strengths
Graded a Good individual defender (0.756 PPP allowed)
Defensive Development
Limited sample (18 GP) — continued evaluation needed as minutes and availability increase
Coaching Focus
Expand her role given the efficiency-to-usage ratio — she may be underutilized relative to her transition scoring and rebounding profile; develop a face-up counter against doubles to address the turnover rate
#7 Jerni Kiaku
Scoring Ball Handler · G · Sr · 24 GP
C
Offensive Strengths
Real shot-creation feel and 40 assists · Functional secondary scoring option in spurts
Offensive Development
0.78 PPP is below the rotation average · 29.7% TO% is the highest on the team — a structural issue · 28.6% on low three-point volume (14 attempts) — not yet a consistent floor-spacer
Defensive Strengths
Veteran experience and a willingness to engage in ball-screen actions
Defensive Development
0.954 PPP allowed grades Poor (11th pct.) — the weakest high-rotation individual defender on the roster
Coaching Focus
Defensive rebuild is the top priority — ball-pressure resistance and closeout technique; turnover reduction through simplified decision-making in ball-screen reads; manage her minutes carefully in matchups where opponents can exploit her defensively
#15 Valentyna Kadlecova
Spot-Up Shooting Wing · G · So · 64 possessions
B
Offensive Strengths
Lowest TO% among regulars (9.4%) — values possessions · 87.5% FT% — elite when fouled · 33.3% on three-point attempts (36 attempts) — clean catch-and-shoot profile
Offensive Development
Small sample (64 poss, 11 GP) limits confidence in projecting forward; needs expanded run to confirm the profile
Defensive Strengths
0.694 PPP allowed grades Very Good — best individual defensive mark on the roster
Defensive Development
Same sample-size caveat applies defensively as it does offensively
Coaching Focus
Earn expanded minutes — both the offensive (low-TO, efficient) and defensive (Very Good) underlying numbers suggest she's outperforming her current role; worth a deliberate audition in higher-leverage minutes to validate the small sample
#1 Phoenix Stotjin
Secondary Ball Handler · F · So · 12 GP
D
Offensive Strengths
Limited — does not currently offer a reliable offensive contribution on a meaningful sample
Offensive Development
0.455 PPP, 29.5% eFG%, 12.8% 3PT% — a genuinely rough offensive profile that pressures the top perimeter trio whenever she's on the floor · 28.2% TO%
Defensive Strengths
Engages physically in post coverage situations
Defensive Development
0.851 PPP allowed grades Below Average · 53.8% FT% makes her a crunch-time liability — opponents are already game-planning to foul her intentionally (1.08 Foul EPP, #1 target on the roster)
Coaching Focus
This is the clearest individual rebuild project on the roster — shot mechanics and shot selection need a full offseason reset; until the offensive profile stabilizes, deploy her minutes carefully in close games given the crunch-time foul exposure
#45 Jade Ondineme
Rim-Finishing Big · F · Jr · 15 GP
C–
Offensive Strengths
Clean finishing percentage (52.4% eFG) in a small sample · 19 offensive rebounds in limited minutes — disproportionate impact on the glass
Offensive Development
31.4% TO% — the highest on the roster, struggles with the ball against physical post pressure · Offensive role is narrow (interior finishing only)
Defensive Strengths
Active rebounding translates to some defensive activity on the glass
Defensive Development
0.884 PPP allowed grades Below Average · 57.1% FT% makes her the second-clearest crunch-time foul target on the roster (1.14 EPP)
Coaching Focus
Ball-security work against doubles is the clear priority given the 31.4% TO rate; her offensive rebounding is a real asset in limited minutes; the –18.3 net rating flag for lineups featuring her suggests minutes need careful pairing rather than blanket reduction
Limited-Usage Reserves: Faith Wiseman (F, 6'4", So, 14 GP) and Chloe Spreen (G, 5'10", So, 10 GP) play sparingly and offer little offensive value at this stage. Both graded Poor defensively on small samples (Wiseman 0.970 PPP allowed; Spreen limited data) — situational only, with Wiseman a viable late-game foul target (50.0% FT) if she sees the floor in close games.
Action Priorities
Ranked coaching focus areas for offensive improvement, defensive sustainability, and player development heading into the offseason and Year 2.
Offensive Priorities
1
Fix the Offensive Rebounding Crisis — Program's #1 Offensive Lever
A bottom-5-percentile 23.4% OReb% is the direct cause of paint points (21st pct.) and 2nd-chance points (10th pct.) trailing the league. A rebounding-rate improvement to even the 25th–30th percentile would unlock points that are currently left on the floor without any change in shot quality.
2
Develop a Credible Third Scoring Option Beyond Ciezki and Makalusky
The next offensive tier (Beaumont 0.907 PPP, Caffey 0.866 PPP) is merely solid, and bench scoring (Stotjin 0.455 PPP) is a clear soft spot. Continued reps for Caffey, given her freshman trajectory and 40.5% three-point efficiency on limited volume, is the most promising path to a third reliable scorer.
3
Build Structured Actions Around the Above-the-Break Three
At 37.4% on 99th-percentile efficiency, the above-the-break three is the single best shot in Indiana's arsenal, yet it represents only 26.4% of attempts. Designing 2–3 additional half-court sets that specifically generate this shot for Ciezki and Makalusky would convert an underused efficiency edge into more possessions.
4
Reduce the Team-Wide Turnover Rate
At 20.1% (14.6 TO/g), turnovers are elevated up and down the roster rather than isolated to one player. Daily ball-security work should be a team-wide rather than player-specific emphasis, with particular attention to Kiaku (29.7%), Ondineme (31.4%), and Stotjin (28.2%).
5
Expand Minutes for Efficient Small-Sample Pieces
Kadlecova (0.922 PPP, 9.4% TO%) and Socka-Nguemen (0.953 PPP, elite transition scoring) both show efficiency profiles that outpace their current usage. A deliberate expansion of their roles would add offensive value without new personnel.
Defensive Priorities
1
Fix Transition Defense — Program's #1 Defensive Lever
At 1.000 PPP allowed (11th pct.), transition defense is the single clearest weakness in the program and stands in direct contrast to Indiana's own excellent transition offense. Structured get-back rules after both makes and misses, with designated transition-stopper assignments, should be the top defensive priority heading into the offseason.
2
Close the At-Rim Defensive Leak
Opponents shoot 61.9% at the rim (13th pct.) against Indiana — the clearest half-court defensive vulnerability. Combined with a modest 1.4 BLK/g, the issue is rotation discipline rather than individual rim protection — develop pre-rotation triggers so help defenders arrive before drives reach the basket.
3
Eliminate the Corner-Three Rotation Breakdown
Opponents shoot 37.5% from the corner (11th pct.) — the second clearest defensive leak in the data. This is very likely a weak-side rotation timing issue; film-session breakdown of every corner three allowed, followed by targeted closeout repetitions, is the most direct fix.
4
Address Defensive Point-of-Attack Issues at Guard
Beaumont (0.895 PPP allowed), Stotjin (0.851), Ondineme (0.884), and Kiaku (0.954, Poor) are all graded Below Average or worse defensively. Opponents will hunt these matchups through screening actions — targeted technique work and careful lineup pairing, avoiding stacking multiple weak defenders together, would limit the exposure.
5
Expand Press Usage as a Tactical Change-Up
Indiana's press defense allows just 0.725 PPP — meaningfully better than its primary man coverage (0.831 PPP) — yet is used on only 3.0% of defensive possessions. Even a modest increase in press usage, especially against turnover-prone opponents, would leverage an already-effective look that is currently underexploited.
Player Development Priorities
1
Shay Ciezki — Ball Security at Elite Usage
Her 107 turnovers (16.5% TO%) are the clearest crack in an otherwise complete game. Given her 647-possession workload, even a 2–3 percentage point reduction would meaningfully raise offensive efficiency. She remains the program's most important player and its primary engine.
2
Jerni Kiaku — Defensive Rebuild and Turnover Reduction
The weakest individual defender on the roster (0.954 PPP allowed, Poor/11th pct.) and the highest turnover rate (29.7%). Daily closeout and ball-pressure-resistance work is the priority; until her defensive profile improves, her minutes in matchup-sensitive games should be managed carefully.
3
Phoenix Stotjin — Full Offensive Reconstruction
At 0.455 PPP and 29.5% eFG, hers is the clearest individual rebuild project on the roster. A full offseason of shot mechanics and shot-selection work is needed before she can be a neutral, rather than negative, offensive contributor in meaningful minutes.
4
Edessa Noyan & Zania Socka-Nguemen — Turnover Reduction Against Doubles
Both bigs post elevated turnover rates (25.6% and 23.6%, respectively) specifically against set, physical post defense. Developing a reliable counter — a face-up jumper or a quick kick-out read — would protect their otherwise strong offensive rebounding and finishing profiles.
5
Nevaeh Caffey — Expand Three-Point Volume
Her 40.5% three-point shooting is real but built on a small sample (37 attempts). As a freshman already carrying 314 possessions, deliberately expanding her shot diet from three is the clearest path to her becoming Indiana's needed third scoring option.