The Bruce Pearl era to date: a geek’s look at the offense

There are obvious, easy to find metrics that say we’re getting better as a program under Bruce Pearl. Wins, for example, have increased from 22 to 24 to 31 in three years– and those are up from 14 in year 1 BB (Before Bruce).

But, as I am wont to do, I would like to take a look at a bunch of isolated statistics about all three of Bruce Pearl’s teams to see if there is a discernible pattern of direction in particular parts of BruceBall’s game. Let’s start on the offensive side of the ball.

Bruce’s run-and-gun and, barring that, Flex offense

In overall efficiency, Tennessee has ranked 8th, 14th, and 19th in 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively. The 2006 team featured two experienced post players in Andre Patterson and Major Wingate, floor leader Dane Bradshaw, and of course outstanding senior PG C.J. Watson. To me, that experience and leadership is what put that team over the hump offensively, and explains why it has been the most efficient of the three. In 2007 we had to break in a lot of new players, making the small offensive dropoff pretty impressive. What we got in 2007 that we didn’t in 2008 was good PG play down the stretch from Ramar Smith and consistent play from Chris Lofton. Chris’s early and late shooting slumps were a big factor in our inefficiency, and along with PG play pretty much explain why the offense dropped off a notch. This is despite the addition of Tyler Smith and his ability to finish in the lane– without him the offense would have stagnated far worse than it did.

Now some of the details . . .

Shooting: In 2008, Tennessee finished 67th in eFG%. This is not that good, and was the clear weak point in an otherwise efficient offense. It was an improvement over last year though (81st), and possibly reflected some more consistency in JaJuan Smith and the addition of another efficient scorer in Tyler Smith. The more experienced 2006 team shot quite well, finishing 25th in eFG%.

The notion that Tennessee wins games by bombing threes was much more true in 2006 than it has been the last two years; in addition to ranking highly in eFG%, the Vols finished 19th in the nation in three-point shooting at 38.8%. Lofton and Watson each shot above 42%, while JaJuan Smith and Jordan Howell shot 38% and 40%, respectively. These four shot about 90% of the Vols’ threes, so it was a pretty efficient team from the perimeter. In 2007 and 2008, perimeter shooting became much less reliable, with the Vols finishing 100th and 141st, respectively, in three-point percentage. Unfortunately for Tennessee it took just as many threes as before, taking 41% of their shots in 2007 and 39% of their shots in 2008 from beyond the arc. This is the single biggest reason that the Vols became less efficient offensively.

Free throws: Free throw shooting has not been a strength for Tennessee since Bruce has been here, but we did far better in 2006 (139th) than in the two years since (282nd and 279th in 2007 and 2008, respectively). The biggest difference? C.J. Watson. Watson was an 88% shooter at the stripe, and got there 50% more than any other player on the team. Between Watson and Lofton the Vols had two strong shooters that they could give the ball to in the end-game and could count on them to make the clutch shots. For the next two seasons, the free throw line became the place where points go to die, with just two shooters above 70% in 2007 and just three in 2008. Perhaps the most damaging were Wayne Chism ands Ramar Smith, who were both pretty likely to get to the line but could not hit more than 66% in either season.

The stripe was also not the source of many points because we failed to get there enough to make it a weapon. The Vols have been below average (216th, 182nd, 183rd) in free throw rate all three years of Pearl’s tenure, largely because the team lacked the ability to get into the paint and draw contact, instead shooting a lot of jumpers (which was fine in 2006 but more of a problem in 2007 and 2008 with the FG% decline). Next year’s Vols figure to shoot a lot more FTs, since the team loses three perimeter shooters and gains some players with a real presence around the rim. If the Vols hit a higher percentage once there, the FT line could finally become a weapon.

Offensive rebounding: Fortunately for Tennessee, dramatic improvements on the offensive glass offset the subpar shooting and kept the Vol offense from sliding into mediocrity. On the offensive end, this is where the Vols showed the most improvement over the last two years, ranking 51st nationally after being average in 2007 (136th) and awful in 2006 (232nd). The Vols lost a solid offensive glass man in Andre Patterson, but replaced him with Wayne Chism and Duke Crews, both pretty good on that end, and then added transfers Tyler Smith and J.P. Prince in 2008, both very good offensive rebounders for their position. Brian Williams also contributed mightily to the cause despite not playing huge minutes. Second chances were the name of the game in several Vol victories this year and reflect a major turnaround in this statistical category.

Turnovers: Tennessee, despite a chaotic and frenzied appearance at times, has been very good at taking care of the ball under Bruce Pearl. Turnovers create extra possessions for the opponent, and Pearl has encouraged his teams to play fast but to value the ball. The team can sometimes be reckless with shot selection, but has typically not been so reckless as to not get off a shot at all. And let’s be honest– a bad shot beats a turnover every day of the week, as it still has some chance of going in, and then some chance of being rebounded after that. 5 bad shots beats 3 turnovers most of the time.

In 2008 Tennessee finished 26th in the nation in turnovers given up. Before turnovers became problematic in late February and throughout March, Tennessee was in the top 10 for most of the season. This was still an improvement from the 2007 Vols, who finished a respectable but not world-beating 53rd in TO rate. In 2006, the veteran-laden and Watson-led Vols finished 15th, a definite strong point all season.

The late season struggles in 2008 were troublesome, but at this point I have decided that mental fatigue played as big a role as anything else. Losing Lofton and JaJuan Smith, both in the top 400 in the nation in TO rate, won’t help the Vols in this area next year.

Blocked shots: This has been a weakness for the Vols for three straight years. Tennessee has seen a lot of its shots returned to sender, and not just by good shotblocking teams. The Vols have seen a lot of shots rejected by teams that weren’t even very good at it overall. In 2006-2008, the Vols finished 278nd, 308th, and 291st nationally in avoiding blocked shots.

This may seem to contradict a prior post in which I detailed how the Vols did just fine against dynamic shotblockers . . . but we’re really talking about two different things. In that post I detailed how the Vols have overcome great shotblockers to win some games, and that these shotblockers bother everybody because they are on great teams. Tennessee’s problem is that it allows lesser players, lesser athletes, and lesser teams to block shots– to the point where we are ranked among the low majors in this category. The dynamic shotblocker has been just another player for the Vols to worry about, but every opponent has been a threat to block a Vol shot now and again.

Assists: Last but not least we come to passing. Passing is, of course, crucial to success in the college game, and the Vols improved substantially in this area in 2008. After finishing 110th and 154th in 2006 and 2007, Tennessee wrapped up 2008 ranked 56th nationally in assist rate. Tyler Smith and Ramar Smith both ranked in the top 350 in assist rate. Ramar improved slightly over the prior year and Tyler almost replaced what the Vols lost when Dane Bradshaw graduated. But the interesting thing is that the team’s other players all just seemed to become better passers between 2007 and 2008. In 2007, only Bradshaw (27.4%), Ramar Smith (20.3%), Jordan Howell (12.9%) and Chris Lofton (12.5%) had assist rates above 10%. In 2008, the Vols had 8 players above 10%, and 5 of these players will return next year, building a solid foundation for another good passing team.

All in all, the Vols have been solid offensively and except for shooting (which is admittedly a big exception), they have improved quite a bit on that end of the floor– despite inconsistent play at point. With a possible improvement in shot selection upon the graduation of two gunners in JaJuan and Chris, maybe we will see some improvement in that regard as well. One thing is for sure– the Vols are no longer as one-dimensional as they were in 2006, despite the media and opposing fans’ rants to the contrary. The three ball was a big weapon but was just one piece of the puzzle in 2008, and figures to be of even less value in 2009.

Et tu, KenPom?

Most of you know by now that I have a minor man-crush on Ken Pomeroy, largely because he has helped create an infrastructure and culture of unbiased basketball statistics that has advanced the game’s statistics well beyond where they were only a few years ago. Unfortunately, Ken has wounded me deeply with his latest article at Basketball Prospectus.

Ken’s assertion is quite similar to earlier comments by fellow BP writer John Gasaway. To sum up: if it can’t get opponents to turn the ball over, the Vol defense is very average. You may or may not remember that I ripped Gasaway pretty hard over his statements. That was easy because John is an Illinois homer, and the Illini can kiss my ass and Bruce’s ass, as well as the collective ass of the BruceBall nation. It was also easy because John gave one simple, weak statistic that hardly justified his position.

What I have to do now is going to be hard, no matter whether I choose to defend my team or my man-crush. You’re breaking my heart, Ken. So what’s it going to be? Is Ken right or wrong? I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

First, I think it’s important to note that every team has a hard time when it is taken out of its comfort zone by the style of play. In Tennessee’s case it happens two ways: 1) the opponent takes care of the ball and Tennessee cannot run, and 2) the opponent drags the tempo down to create a slow, plodding, halfcourt game. Tennessee is not the only team with this sort of problem. Last I checked, everyone except Memphis has lost a game so far this year, and often when a good team loses it has something to do with exposed weaknesses.

It’s inevitable that every team will play games in which they are taken out of their element. What separates the top teams is their ability to deal with it. Pomeroy suggests we don’t deal with it well, citing our 5 performances in which teams had less than 20% TO rate. The Vols are 3-2 in these games, and 20-0 in the rest. Clearly he has found a pattern to point to.

A few comments here. First, it says something to me that there are only 5 such games that the Vols have had to play. This tells me that we are especially good at forcing teams into our comfort zone. Pomeroy doesn’t really give the Vols any credit for that.

Another comment: 20% is an arbitrary choice. I could just as easily choose the national median turnover rate, 21.1%. This adds two more games to the mix: Ohio State and Arkansas, and in both of these games the Vols played exceptional defense (d-efficiency of 95.8 and 91.7, respectively). It also raises the Vols’ record in these games to a more respectable 5-2. I could also choose the Vols’ median TO% as the benchmark. How does a Vol opponent do if it manages to stay under the Vols’ median? The Vols’ median is 24.9%. 12 games lie below this, and the Vols are 10-2 in those games (can you see what a difference the arbitrary line makes?). It also adds three more games that the Vols held their opponents under 100 PP100.

Obviously the Vols do better when they turn people over. Obviously they struggle in exceptional cases where they don’t. That’s the idea behind the risky pressure man defense. This picture is hardly unique. What happens to Duke if they don’t shoot well? I’ll give you a hint: in five games this season Duke’s eFG% was less than 50%. Their record in these games? 3-2. What happens to UNC if Tyler Hansbrough doesn’t score a lot at the free throw line? In 6 games he’s hit 5 or fewer FTs. UNC is 4-2 in those games. Get the picture?

Ken’s best point in all this is that Tennessee’s opponents seemingly have more control over this weakness than they would against most weaknesses. They simply have to take care of the ball. I’m not sure how true this is, despite the stat he gives. Ask West Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Xavier, and UNC-Asheville about that. All average under Pomeroy’s benchmark 20% TO rate, and all failed to do this against the Vols. Only Alabama (23.9) and UNC-A (21.9) managed to stay under 24%. Why didn’t they just take care of the ball?

Now, I will give Ken that Tennessee plays a high risk, high reward type of defense that can sometimes get burned. Against Texas it certainly did. The Longhorns shot the lights out and are an exceptionally strong team. Against Kentucky it did as well, but the Wildcats hit an exceptional number of 2-point jumpshots in that game, and you can ask Ken how likely that is. It’s not coincidental that the Vols were also well below their standard offensive output in those games. That tends to contribute to losses as well.

Besides, Tennessee has performed quite well in general when taken out of its comfort zone. The Vols are 10-2 when the TO rate is below their median, item #1 on the what-bothers-the-Vols list. They have the same record in low-pace games. That’s astonishingly better than the Vols were a year ago– 10-7 in slow games as well as low-turnover games. It takes good coaching to see that kind of improvement.

I would like to see the Vols continue to get better in eFG% defense, which is the flip-side of the coin that Ken seems so concerned about. Tennessee is very average in this area (131st) but this is well ahead of where it was in Bruce’s first 2 years (302nd and 243rd), and the Vols won a lot of games those years, including a near-miss that would have propelled them to the Elite 8.

Bruce plays a defense predicated on forcing turnovers, so of course it’s not going to be firing on all cylinders when the opponent doesn’t cooperate. My contention is that there’s nothing unusual about this; every team has a weakness that, when exploited, can get the team beat. I’m not sure I buy that Tennessee’s is as easy to exploit as Pomeroy contends. I don’t know that the stats agree with his assertion as he believes they do.

I have a lot of respect for KenPom– that won’t change. But Ken, say something nice about my Vols, k? And if you don’t, I’m going to bring it right back at you . . . k? Hugs and kisses, big guy.

Oh no! The shotblocker is coming!

Some Vol fans, including myself, are concerned about how much Jarvis Varnardo is going to hurt us this weekend. There’s a perception that under Bruce Pearl, teams with dynamic shotblockers have generally given us more trouble than teams without such a presence. After doing some research, I think this is a misconception based on a few highly memorable games and blocks.

When I started looking into the history and stats, I was convinced I’d find something remarkable, some amazing discrepancy between our results against teams with good shotblockers and against teams without. The difference I found was unremarkable, which to me was a remarkable find.

First, to define what a “dynamic shotblocker” is. I think a fair assessment would be that a player is a dynamic shotblocker if he blocks a high percentage of shots while he is on the court. Thankfully our buddy Ken Pomeroy provides that very statistic. I will define a “dynamic shotblocker” as an individual who ranks in the top 50 nationally in this statistic.

I need to say a little about what sorts of teams have dynamic shotblockers. Typically, they’re very talented teams overall, with some ability at the other positions on the floor. Talented teams generally have talented post players. There have been a few exceptions on Tennessee’s schedule the last three years (UNC-A’s Kenny George, for example) but those are rare. Prior to 2007-2008, Pearl’s Vols played 13 games against teams with dynamic shotblockers and only 4 have come against teams outside of the pythag/Pomeroy top 50 (Tennessee is 3-1 in these games). We need to be comparing apples-to-apples, so the data I’m going to look at involves only good teams– top 50. Some have dynamic shotblockers and some don’t.

Here’s what I found. In the past 2 seasons, BruceBall is 16-14 against the top 50 teams. Nine of these games were against teams with dynamic shotblockers:

2006:

• Steven Hill, Arkansas (4th). Home loss.
• Tyrus Thomas, LSU (10th). Road loss.
• Joakim Noah, Florida (24th). Home win.
• Joakim Noah, Florida (24th). Road win.
• Joey Dorsey, Memphis (38th). Road loss.

2007:

• Steven Hill (9th) and Darian Townes (29th), Arkansas. Road win.
• Greg Oden, Ohio State (10th). Road loss.
• Greg Oden, Ohio State (10th). Neutral loss.
• Joey Dorsey, Memphis (37th), Home win.

Tennessee is 4-5 in these games, leaving the Vols with a 12-9 record in games against top 50 teams with no dominant shotblocker. That’s a 0.444 record vs. a 0.571 record. Seems like a difference, perhaps? First of all, I’d say with such a small sample size that’s not much of a difference. But let’s dig a little deeper anyway:

Of the five losses, four came against Elite 8 (2006 Memphis, 2006 LSU) or better (2007 OSU) teams. Of the four wins, three also came against elite 8 or better teams (2006 UF twice, 2007 Memphis).

Greg Oden had Conley, Cook, Butler, and a host of other talented players on the floor with him. Tyrus Thomas had SEC player of the year Glen Davis sharing the lane with him. Joey Dorsey was probably the least talented of the starters on the 2006 Memphis team, plus we beat him the next year. Steven Hill had Ronnie Brewer on the perimeter, and again we beat him (and co-tower Darian Townes) on the road the next year. Are we losing games to big-time shotblockers, or are we losing games to great teams who happen to have big-time shotblockers?

Let’s look a little more, this time at Tennessee’s games against the top 50 teams without dynamic shotblockers. In 2006, this included Elite 8 Texas and a whole host of teams not nearly as good: South Carolina (NIT), Vandy (NIT), Kentucky (2nd round NCAA), Alabama (2nd round NCAA), Wichita State. In 2007, this group included Elite 8 UNC, national champ Florida, and a bunch of teams that weren’t as great: Texas (2nd round NCAA), Vandy (Sweet 16), Mississippi State (NIT), Kentucky (2nd round NCAA), LSU (2nd round NCAA), and Virginia (2nd round NCAA).

As you can see, the slate of teams without big-time shotblockers simply isn’t as daunting. Seven of the Vols’ 9 games against dynamic shotblockers happened to be against top (Elite 8 ) teams. Of the 22 games against good teams without dynamic shotblockers, just four came against Elite 8 teams (and Tennessee was 2-2 in these games).

One could argue, I suppose, that the dynamic shotblockers are what make a good team more like an Elite 8 team. But that only goes further to the point– these shotblockers are good against everyone, not just UT. The bottom line would appear to be that Tennessee, understandably, loses some games against elite teams, and it seems to do it whether the team has a dynamic shotblocker or not (3-4 with, 2-2 without). Against dynamic shotblockers NOT on elite teams, Tennessee is 4-2 (1-1 vs. the top 50).

For what it’s worth, the Vols have faced three dynamic shotblockers so far in 2008: UNC-A’s Kenny George, South Carolina’s Sam Muldrow, and Gonzaga’s Austin Daye. The Vols are 3-0 against these teams.

BruceBall Statistical Update

My pal Bradley just gave me a friendly reminder: “you give all kinds of stats about opposing teams in your preview but you never give us the Vols’ stats for comparison. Are you going to start mentioning those, you prick, or am I going to have to beat you down with the force of a thousand rabid gorillas?” Okay, that’s not exactly how it went, but I could hear frustration and malice in his words.

It was a good idea, threat or no threat. So here is a rundown of some of the vitals for the BruceBall season so far:

Old school and tempo-biased stats (and SEC rank)

• scoring offense: 85.6 PPG (1)
• scoring defense: 68.2 PPG (7)
• scoring margin: 17.4 (2)
• FT shooting: 65.3% (9)
• FG shooting: 46.5% (
• FG defense: 42% (7)
• 3pt shooting: 35.4% (6)
• 3pt FG: 9.5 (1)
• 3pt defense: 28.9% (1)
• rebounds: 37.4 (5)
• rebounds against: 38.6 (11)
• rebound margin: -1.2 (10)
• O-rebounds: 14.3 (2)
• D-rebounds: 23.1 (12)
• blocks: 3.2 (11)
• assists: 20.2 (1)
• steals: 11.4 (1)
• TO margin: +8.5 (1)
• A/TO ratio: 1.6 (1)
• attendance: 19,912 (2)

New school and tempo-free unbiased stats (and SEC rank)

• pythag: 0.968 (1)
• adjusted offensive efficiency: 118.8 (1)
  • eFG%: 53.1 (5)
  • turnover %: 16.7 (2)
  • O-rebound rate: 36.4% (7)
  • A/FGM: 65.9% (1)
• adjusted defensive efficiency: 88.3 (2)
  • eFG% defense: 48.1 (
  • turnover % defense: 27.4 (1)
  • d-rebound rate: 62.7% (12)
• adjusted tempo: 73.1 (1)

You can see what a different picture the tempo-free stats paint, and also how important turnovers have been to our efficiency on both ends. We lead the conference in offense and are second in defense only to Mississippi State (85.3), which is a nice place to be statistically. We’ve also easily played the toughest schedule of all SEC teams: #3 RPI and #9 pythag.

I like where we stand, battle tested and improving all the time. In the weeks to come, hopefully we won’t have too many lapses and will be contending for a very high NCAA seed. The schedule still will not be kind, starting with the game in Rupp tonight. Buckle up, folks.

BruceBall vs. Kentucky Preview

When Tubby Smith left Kentucky under pressure from the fans (and likely the administration) and UK hired Billy Gillispie, I’m not sure this is exactly what Wildcat fans had in mind:

Record: 7-9
Pythag Rank: 71
RPI Rank: 183

Kentucky has struggled mightily this year, with four bad losses (Gardner-Webb, UAB, Houston, San Diego) and only one good win (Vanderbilt) through 16 games. In fact, not only is the Vandy win the only win over a good team– it’s the only win over a team with a winning record. Their other six wins game against teams ranked 185, 249, 252, 286, 295, and 323 in pythag. These are not good teams and Kentucky seriously lacks quality wins. They’ll be looking to pick one up tomorrow night against the streaking Vols, who have shot up to #1 in the RPI, #11 in pythag, and into the top 5 in the polls.

Kentucky has three things going for it in this game: senior guards, Patrick Patterson, and the Rupperees. Let’s hit them one at a time.

Ramel Bradley and Joe Crawford: The 6′2″ Bradley and 6′5″ Crawford do much of Kentucky’s damage, though both have been wildly and openly criticized by Kentucky fans. They combine to average 32.5 of Kentucky’s 72.1 PPG, shoot 34.9% from behind the arc, and nail 84.9% of their free throws. They are dangerous players, both outside and in getting to the basket. Bradley is second on the team with a 114.0 O-rating and ranks among the top 500 players in the NCAA in assist and steal rates. Crawford has a 105.2 O-rating and takes nearly 1/3 of UK’s shots when he’s in the game.

Patrick Patterson: This 6′9″ freshman was a coveted recruit and chose Kentucky over Florida. He’s lived up to his billing, scoring 16.6 PPG and pulling down 8.0 RPG. He leads the Wildcats with a 118.2 O-ratingand ranks highly nationally in eFG% (61.8, 68th), both rebounding stats (116th and 347th, and blocks (213th). He’s also very effective at the line for a player his size, hitting 74.2%. He’s got a mature body with a big build, and is a big presence inside on both ends.

The Rupperees: I hardly need to elaborate on these fellas. They’re different characters for each Kentucky home game, but seem to share a common goal: sending the home team out with a win. I’m sure they aren’t intentionally biased and I’m not going to accuse anyone of improper activities, but if you’re a Tennessee fan you know how many times the home cooking has kept the Vols out and Wildcats in games in Rupp Arena. It’s a frustrating place to play. Of course, maybe I could just give you some stats? In Kentucky’s three SEC games to date, here are the free-throw rates (FT attempts per FG attempt x100):

1. Vandy (home): 63.2
2. MSU (road): 20.0
3. Florida (road: 38.7

Hmm. Against Vandy, Kentucky attempted 57 FGs and were sent to the line 36 times. To be fair, this is not just a Rupp phenomenon, as UF and MSU had very high FT rates in their home wins over Kentucky. One team that doesn’t seem to get this benefit is Tennessee. In its last 6 home games, Tennessee’s best FT rate was 38.2 against Vandy. The Commodores’ rate in that game was 43.9. Oddly enough, scanning through the Vols’ schedule it seems that UT gets more love from the officials on the road than at home. Tomorrow we will find out if the Rupperees will be so kind.

Kentucky does do some things well. In particular, they get to the stripe and make them at a high rate, both bad news when the Rupperees are involved. Offensively they rank 84th in the nation, and their best asset is their shooting (eFG% is 85th). Defensively they rank 56th, with solid eFG defense (27th) and shotblocking (42nd).

But they do a lot of things poorly: UK can be exploited in the turnover battle– they rank 290th in taking care of the ball and 151st in taking it away from the opponent. You can bet Tennessee will attack them with pressure and try to exploit this. They are average rebounders (162nd on offense and 103rd on defense) and do not move the ball especially well (208th in assists per made FG).

Keys to the game: The first thing that jumps out at me is depth. Tennessee’s bench plays 38.4% of its minutes (NEW GEEK STAT!) while Kentucky’s plays just 33.1%. In particular, Kentucky always needs big games out of Patterson, Crawford, and Bradley in order to win. These guys average 16.6 points in 34.5 minutes, 16.4 points and 32.3 minutes, and 16.1 points and 33.4 minutes, respectively. That’s 68% of Kentucky’s scoring, if you’re keeping track, and a whole lot of minutes. In the tight games you can expect these three to be even more of a factor and the bench to play less of a role. Against Florida, Bradley played all 45 minutes (5 minutes of OT), Patterson played 44, and Crawford played 42. Against Mississippi State, they played 40, 36, and 39 minutes. Against Vandy, they played 50 minutes (10 minutes of OT), 50 minutes, and 48 minutes. Between the 3 of them, they have been off the floor a grand total of 11 minutes in the last three games.

As for Tennessee? JaJuan Smith played 33 minutes for the Vols against Ohio State, which was a season high- for the whole team. At first glance a Tennessee fan might worry about fatigue playing a role and favoring Kentucky with this being the third game in six days for the Vols; but the stats are quite revealing and I think we can expect the Vols’ legs to be just as fresh as Kentucky’s at tip, and moreso by the final horn.

Tempo will be a factor as well, just as it was against Ohio State. Kentucky will slow the pace down (184th) while Tennessee will look to run at every opportunity. If they can force turnovers, the Vols can really ramp up the pace and try to wear Kentucky out by challenging them up and down the floor.

Tennessee will mainly have to focus on Bradley, Crawford, and Patterson on the offensive end. They are easily the Wildcats’ best players and will have to lead Kentucky if they want to win. But like Ohio State’s Evan Turner, Kentucky has talented support players who are capable of hurting the Vols if we lose them defensively. In particular, 6′4″ Jodie Meeks and 6′6″ Derrick Jasper are very talented and capable of lighting it up if we are not careful. Both will come off the bench but play substantial minutes.

How it’s going to play out: Free throws will be an issue. I expect Kentucky to hurt us here with a lot of attempts, and for us to hurt ourselves with too many misses. I think Patrick Patterson will be a very tough player for Tennessee to defend and he will score some points and perhaps achieve a double-double. Bradley is the other player that scares me, as he’s an effective outside shooter as well as penetrator. The Vols will have to be very careful that he doesn’t burn them for easy buckets. Crawford is very talented but for some reason I don’t see him having a big game tomorrow. Call it a hunch. For Tennessee I think we could see a big game from the perimeter and not as much on the inside– but that’s okay as long as our posts are at least defending and rebounding admirably. But the big keys will be depth/fatigue and turnovers, and I think by the end of the game the Vols will have a significant edge in both. Kentucky’s advantage in the paint and on the line will be made up for by extra shots and fresher legs, and Tennessee has enough to hold them off in the end. My prediction: Vols 76, Wildcats 68.

Duke Crews cleared for practice; brief preview for OSU

Vol fans got great news today, as Duke Crews has been medically cleared to resume activities with the Tennessee basketball team. The Vols could use his toughness and athleticism on the inside, though it is sure to take some time before he’s ready to contribute many minutes. Duke hasn’t worked out or practiced in a month. Welcome back, Duke!

I am on the road, in Knoxville, and don’t have enough time to do my usual preview. So here are a few things you’ll want to know about OSU:

• The Buckeyes are solid (27th in pythag, #82 offense, #11 defense) and will be a challenge for the Vols
• OSU is young but talented, so they’re probably playing a lot better now than they were in December
• Senior guard Jamar Butler is good: O-rating 123.5, assist rate 34th nationally
• 7-foot center Kosta Koufos is a very good freshman (O-rating 110.5, ranked in both rebounding stats as well as in block rate, and rarely turns the ball over)
• Othello Hunter is a very solid post player too and will be tough to handle in the paint
• OSU will turn the ball over (their rate is 114th in the NCAA) and doesn’t turn its opponents over (256th)
• They prefer a slow pace (198th)
• They block a lot of shots and force low eFG%
• They don’t rebound very well (144th offensive, 228th defensive)
• They pass well (58th in assists/FGM) but sort of rely on the three ball (94th)
• Average minutes-weighted height (NEW GEEK STAT!) is 78.2 inches, or 6′6″. They play tall, 11th nationally. Tennessee’s AMWH is 6′5″, so it’s not a huge difference but one that could be important.

So, with all of this digested, we are faced with a familiar problem– a great perimeter player (Butler) and a great post player (Koufos). If we can defend them as effectively as we defended Foster and Ogilvy we’ll be in good shape. Also important are turnovers and especially tempo. Ohio State will want to slow it down into a halfcourt game, but if we can turn them over for easy buckets we could compound their errors and have some nice scoring spurts. We ought to hold our own in rebounding, and need to be cognizant of Hunter and Koufos’s ability to block shots. Chism will be a key player again.

Also of note– Chris Lofton owes them one after missing the front-end of a 1-1 that could have beaten OSU in Columbus a year ago. Might he break free tomorrow against the Buckeyes? Let’s hope so. My prediction: Vols 72, Buckeyes 64

Mid-season review, part I

I have plenty of time right now. What I don’t have is furniture, clothes, or a comfortable place to write. Thankfully the Brevard County Public Library is kind enough to provide two of the three, and also willing to put up with a naked visitor.

We’re roughly at the halfway point of the season, with SEC play beginning and just two more out-of-conference tests. This is a natural time to step back and look at what we’ve seen so far and what we can look forward to in the future.

For this post I’m mainly going to look at what we’ve done as a team and who we’ve done it against– not so much what individuals have accomplished.

12-1: Okay, so that much is obvious and it’s the first stat anyone sees when they assess Tennessee. We’ve won 12 games, 1 of which was over a Division II team (the Boll Weevils) . . . so we’ll mostly ignore that one.

RPI: This is the second number that everyone will see as the season progresses. I’ve discussed the RPI a few times already and it has been Tennessee’s best friend the last couple of years. As of January 2, Tennessee ranks #5 nationally in the RPI, trailing only Memphis, Arizona, St. Mary’s, and North Carolina. The 12-1 record is combined with the #33 schedule strength, identifying Tennessee as a team with some games against good competition early in the year. In fact, Tennessee has three wins against the RPI top 50 (WVU, Xavier, Gonzaga) and its lone loss came to a top 50 team (Texas). No team has won more than three against the top 50.

Pythag: Tennessee started off well in pythag, ranking #13 after in late November before slipping to 28th by mid-December. The Vols bounced around in the low 20s for a couple of weeks. Late December was a major rally for Tennessee, which has now pulled back up to #18 in pythag with solid wins over Western Kentucky, Xavier, and Gonzaga– one of which was a pure road game, one was semi-away, and one was neutral. Overall, Tennessee’s schedule ranks #31, surprisingly close to its schedule ranking in the RPI (there’s no reason those should be particularly similar). Offensively, Tennessee has shown gradual improvement, moving up to #14 in the nation in efficiency (adjusted). Defensively, the Vols trailed off in early December but rallied with strong performances in its last two games, improving to #40 nationally in adjusted efficiency.

Schedule

Tennessee has played nobody with RPI worse than 300 (though if Pythag is any indication, PVAMU is likely to get there) and just three teams with RPI worse than 200. In contrast, Florida has played 3 teams ranked 300+ and a total of 8 ranked 200+. That’s 8 of Florida’s 12 wins. Those of you who have looked closely at UF’s OOC schedule in past years will know this is very typical. Personally, I like our philosophy better. Play the Western Kentuckys, the Xaviers, the Gonzagas, the WVUs, the Texases, and the Chattanoogas on the road. You’ll be a better team when SEC play rolls around than you would playing Stetson and Jax State.

I’ll highlight some opponents:

• Temple: The Owls have been semi-decent since the Vols played them, compiling a 6-6 record with just 2 bad losses (College of Charleston and Akron) and 4 losses to tough teams (UT, Providence, Villanova, UF). 56 RPI is pretty good and if this holds it will help UT. Pomeroy predicts Temple to finish 15-15.
• WVU: This continues to be a good win and the pollsters continue to ignore a very solid Mountaineer team. They briefly appeared at the bottom of both polls, only to be pushed out after losing to a good Oklahoma team in double OT. WVU is 10-2 and Pomeroy projects a 26-5 finish. I don’t see WVU finishing quite that strong, but they look like a 20-win NCAA tourney team to me.
• Texas: Since beating the Vols like a drum, Texas has shown some weakness against strong teams. Depth, which didn’t matter against Tennessee, has cost them in back-to-back losses to deep Michigan State and Wisconsin teams. Still, Texas will be a very good team through March unless they sustain an injury to a key player. Pomeroy projects a 23-8 finish for Texas, which would easily get them in the NCAA tournament.
• Western Kentucky: We all know that the Hilltoppers are a decent mid-major team, and the Vols really need them to prove it down the stretch. WKU currently has no quality wins to speak of and will certainly need to win their conference tourney to get into March Madness. Pomeroy projects them to do just that, and to finish 23-7.
• Xavier: This team is still playing at a very high level. They lost an ugly game to Arizona State before losing to Tennessee, which knocked a little luster off, but they picked up a big win over Kansas State to rebound well from the back-to-back losses. They continue to be ranked ahead of Tennessee in pythag, so they’re playing very good basketball. They have several good wins already and are the favorites to win a resurgent A-10. Pomeroy projects a 26-5 record.
• Gonzaga: The Zags need to be careful. Scheduling up has been a great way for them to get into the spotlight and gain NCAA tourney bids, but this year they missed several opportunities (Texas Tech, Wazzou, Oklahoma, Tennessee) to notch attention-grabbing wins. They still have some decent ones (Virginia Tech, UConn) but their RPI has peaked at #24 and is likely to be falling from here on out with primarily WCC play remaining (and only Memphis left to help prop it up). Pomeroy projects the Zags to finish 24-6, but they’d better win the WCC (or perhaps beat Memphis) if they want to be assured of an NCAA slot. St. Mary’s will have a lot to say about this.

A quick mid-season evaluation

This Tennessee team has been a little hard to predict. With bad games against Texas, PVAMU, Chattanooga, and UNC-A and great games against MTSU, WVU, Xavier, and Gonzaga, we’ve seen a little of everything from the Vols. They still have not really hit their shooting stride, canning just 35% of three-pointers, and yet they’ve put up big wins and a nice 12-1 record. It seems like Xavier was a turning point for Bruce’s boys and especially for J.P. Prince. I’ve been impressed with Tyler Smith all season, and J.P. Prince may be a more aggressive-minded version of Tyler. This mid-season addition has made the Vols considerably more formidable than they were just a few weeks ago, and Tennessee now has several legitimate threats to get to the hole and finish, something it has lacked under Bruce Pearl in the past.

Defensively the Vols are getting better and seem to be finding themselves. They continue to turn over opponents at a very high rate and more often than not, this leads to a Tennessee break and easy points. That’s a recipe for success for Bruce Pearl and if the defense continues to wreak this much havoc, Tennessee may well achieve Pomeroy’s prediction of 26-5. I think the Vols could lose 3 or 4 conference games, drop the road game to Memphis, and still earn a #1 or #2 seed in March. And honestly, I don’t see them dropping 4 SEC games.

At the halfway point, Vol fans are really looking for two things: for Chris Lofton to hit his stride and for the Vols to show consistent play from game-to-game. If those things happen, Tennessee has set itself up for a great season and run in the NCAA tournament.

I look forward to a great SEC slate and a big second half for BruceBall. Stay tuned.

Vols slipping statistically

On November 28th, when I introduced the pythag statistic, Tennessee was rated 0.980, good for #13 in the country. In the two weeks since, our pythag rating has slipped to 0.951, which ranks 28th nationally. What has happened in that time?

Well, BruceBall has played two games in that stretch– La La and UTC. Against La La the offense was very efficient (133.3 pp100) and the defense struggled (95.2 pp100). The final margin looked good, so nobody worried too terribly much. When the Vols played UTC, the defense was a little better (89.7 pp100) but the offense went into the crapper (97.4 pp100) and consequently we saw a very tight game, which has caused concern among UT fans. Together, those two games (along with the ever-fluctuating effect of schedule on the adjusted efficiency numbers) revealed Tennessee to be considerably more vulnerable than previous games had indicated.

One stat that continues to improve is defensive turnover percentage. Tennessee leads the nation by forcing turnovers in 31.7% of opponents’ possessions (note that this is not schedule-adjusted). That means that we have been struggling in other areas defensively– particularly rebounding, but also in eFG%. Offensively we just didn’t knock down shots against UTC, and hopefully that game will prove to be the exception and not the rule.

What does all this say about Tennessee’s basketball team? One word comes to mind– inconsistency. The effort has been there in nearly every game (though some could question our desire to rebound vs. UTC), but the playmaking has been spotty. We have defensive lapses and stretches where the offense just can’t get it done, and often these occur in the same game. Then again, we have some games (MTSU, for example) where we simply do everything right. The win over West Virginia is looking stronger all the time (they are still #1 in pythag) and the loss to Texas, ugly though it was, seems at least to be a quality loss.

With some very difficult challenges in the next few weeks, Tennessee is going to have to find itself on both ends and be significantly more consistent. Western Kentucky can beat Tennessee if Bruce doesn’t have his boys playing at their best. Xavier and Gonzaga look like they can beat Tennessee even if Tennessee is at its best– they are just very solid teams. It’s early enough in the season that a good 3-4 game stretch could catapult Tennessee from Top 30 to Top 10 in pythag, but it could just as easily force Tennessee out of the top 50.

The bottom line is that Tennessee has not been playing Top 10 basketball for the most part, and certainly doesn’t have Top 10 consistency. With the addition of J.P. Prince and the resulting changes in the playing rotation, Tennessee could struggle to find itself– or it could find that it simply had a piece missing. Either way, the picture is going to need to become clear in a hurry if Tennessee is to become the Top 10, Final Four-type team that we believe it can be.

Random thoughts and stats

• This should surprise nobody: Ken Pomeroy’s consistency statistic, which is basically a standard deviation of a team’s performance in its games, shows Tennessee to be #332 out of 341 teams in consistency of play. I think any Tennessee fan paying attention could have bet it would be pretty low.
• West Virginia continues to kill people. They dismantled Auburn last night in the SEC/Big East Invitational and remain #1 in pythag. They have the #6 offense and the #3 defense in the country. If you ask me, the coaches and writers that picked WVU 10th in the Big East are going to look silly by March.
• Gonzaga lost a tight one to Wazzou last night. Folks, if you weren’t worried about the Zags, you should be. I’ve seen them play a little here and there this year, and they are going to be a very good team. They’ve been inconsistent, just as Tennessee has, but the talent and coaching are excellent. They are currently #20 in pythag.
• Repeat the last bullet for Xavier, except they haven’t lost and they’ve been remarkably consistent. They are #3 in pythag, behind only WVU and Duke, and have the #4 offense in the nation.
• Western Kentucky is no joke either (pythag #68). If you haven’t already, look at our December schedule. We play WKU (neutral), Xavier (away), and Gonzaga (semi-neutral– Seattle) in a two week span to close out the calendar year. That is brutal.
• The SEC is going to be impossible to predict this year. Vanderbilt has been pretty consistent. Ole Miss is off to a good start. Tennessee, Florida, Alabama, and just about everyone else in the league has been very inconsistent. This is a great opportunity for Tennessee to win a league title, but we’re going to have to find our game between now and January.
• If I had a vote, the Death Star would be the first big man off the bench against WKU. I don’t have a vote, but I can bet Bruce is strongly considering this and will give it a lot of thought in the next week or so as the Vols wrap up the semester and prepare for WKU. J.P. Prince can potentially join the wing/guard rotation as well, if he’s ready to play after shoulder surgery.
• I’m excited that Renaldo Woolridge is going to be a Vol. He’ll play the 3, most likely, despite being in the 6′8″-6′10″ range. An astute poster on the Hooopsville forum compared his game and body to Corey Brewer. Boy, wouldn’t that be nice. Check out a great video of him here.

Individual geek stats are now up

Ken Pomeroy now has enough data to publish stats for individual players for the 2007-2008 season, so I thought I’d give a quick rundown of how our players are doing.

Good

• Offensive efficiency is high for six UT players. Tyler Smith (130.9, #59 nationally), JaJuan Smith (127.2, #99), Chris Lofton (117.9, #310), and Jordan Howell (115.4, #403) are all ranked among the nation’s top 500 players. Ryan Childress (117. and Brian Williams (127. would be in this group if they had played enough minutes.
• Brian Williams’s eFG is 87.5%. That’d be wonderful if he took more shots (takes only 7.5% of team’s shots when he’s in the game) and to do that he needs more minutes. Bruce is not yet comfortable with his contributions and I’m not either, but I think this bodes well for the future.
• Wayne Chism (#17 and Tyler Smith (#361) are ranked as offensive rebounders. Chism is also ranked in defensive rebounding (#248).
• Crews is rated higher in offensive rebounding than Smith but doesn’t have enough minutes to be ranked. Childress would also be ranked, likely in both rebounding stats, if he had more minutes.
• Four Vols are ranked in assist rate: Tyler Smith (#220), Ramar Smith (#320), Jordan Howell (#333), and Josh Tabb (#468).
• Four more Vols are ranked in turnover rate: JaJuan Smith (#54), Wayne Chism (#112), Chris Lofton (#137), and Tyler Smith (#345).
• One Vol ranks in blocks (Chism, #164).
• Five Vols rank in steal percentage: JaJuan Smith (#34), Tyler Smith (#103), Josh Tabb (#138), Ramar Smith (#323), and Chris Lofton (#390). Cameron Tatum doesn’t have enough minutes but his steal rate is higher than any of these five.
• Four Vols are above 33% on three-point shooting: Tyler Smith (44.4%), Jordan Howell (41.5%), JaJuan Smith 37.3%), and Chris Lofton (36.4%).

If it seems like I’m mentioning Tyler Smith a lot, it’s because he pops up in so many categories as a positive for this team. Pomeroy has 8 stats that are rankable nationwide: O-rating, eFG%, O-rebounding, D-rebounding, assists, TOs, blocks, steals. Tyler Smith is ranked top 500 in 5 of the 8, and if he played more minutes (60% required and he’s played 59.1%) he’d be in the top 100 in eFG% as well. He’s done a little of everything for UT and done it all remarkably well so far.

Bad

• Chris Lofton needs to be better than 117.9 in O-rating. Last year was his lowest rating in his time at UT at 125.5. He should improve to at least that, I’d suspect, as the season goes along. At least we all hope so.
• Ramar Smith is a ball hog to some degree (180th in possessions used) and has been inefficient (98.2). If he’s going to end a lot of possessions he needs to end them with the ball in the basket more often. His TO% is 24.2– that’s lousy and is worse than he was as a freshman (21.9%).
• Tyler is very unselfish, maybe to a fault. He uses less than 20% of UT’s possessions when he’s in the game, and he’s arguably the best player right now. He needs to drive or shoot more unless it hurts his efficiency too much.
• As exciting as Tatum can be, he’s been the least efficient offensive player on the team (94.0). He definitely needs polish. He and Brian Williams turn the ball over about 25% each, which is probably typical this early for freshmen.
• Only three Vols– JaJuan Smith, Chris Lofton, and Jordan Howell– are above 70% on free throws. Tyler is getting closer after a really bad start, and should eclipse 70% soon. Wayne Chism has been horrible at the line (6-17, 35.3%). This was an area that hurt us last year and at this rate, it will again.

It’s clear from watching and from looking at stats that Tennessee has a deep, talented team, but it’s going to have to find better defensive consistency, better post play, and better free throw shooting if it’s going to seriously challenge for a Final Four run. With only 7 games under our belt, it’s hard to know too much, but we have a good idea what to keep an eye on as the season progresses.