Author Archives: Joel Hollingsworth

Full disclosure: I grew up 60 miles from Iowa City, so I have a fondness for these people. Admiral Schofield may not like them, but I do. Of course, that doesn’t mean I don’t desperately want to beat the shorts off ’em tomorrow. Go get ’em, Admiral.

Here’s a look at the teams’ respective four factors numbers and what they have to say about what the Vols need to do to advance. Because this post is long and full of numbers, I’m posting the conclusions up front, details to follow:

Summary and Score Prediction

The goals for the Vols:

1. Shoot well. Play inside-out. Only take threes if they are wide open or if your name is Admiral Schofield and there’s less than three minutes on the clock in a close game. Or if it’s the last possession and your name is Lamonte Turner.
2. Defend.
3. Don’t foul. Kyle Alexander, you’re going to have to block those shots from a different zip code, son. We believe in you.

Four Factors: Straight-Up

Effective FG%

• Tennessee 55.2 (No. 21)
• Iowa 52.9 (No. 77)

Prior opponents:

• Colgate 55.9 (No. 14)
• Auburn 53.9 (No. 51)
• Mississippi State 54.6 (No. 36)
• Kentucky 53.6 (No. 59)
• Ole Miss 53.5 (No. 64)
• LSU: 52.7 (No. 93)
• Vanderbilt: 50.3 (No. 198)
• Kentucky: 52.8 (No. 93)

Conclusions: So, a little better than LSU and a little worse than Kentucky and Ole Miss shooting the ball. Good to know.

Turnover %

• Tennessee 15.8 (No. 25)
• Iowa 17.2 (No. 83)

Prior opponents:

• Colgate 19.3 (No. 232)
• Auburn 18.3 (No. 151)
• Mississippi State 19.1 (No. 220)
• Kentucky 18.7 (No. 185)
• Ole Miss 18.7 (No. 172)
• LSU 19.0 (No. 196)
• Vanderbilt: 19.9 (No. 255)
• Kentucky: 18.5 (No. 158)

Conclusions: Wow, we’ve played some teams that are terrible at protecting the ball. That thing’s valuable, y’all. Anyway, the Hawkeyes have figured out that you need the ball in order to score points.

Offensive Rebound %

• Tennessee 31.7 (No. 74)
• Iowa 29.8 (No. 114)

Prior opponents:

• Colgate 30.3 (No. 103)
• Auburn 33.5 (No. 39)
• Mississippi State 34.6 (No. 23)
• Kentucky 37.9 (No. 4)
• Ole Miss 31.9 (No. 64)
• LSU 37.4 (No. 6)
• Vanderbilt: 28.6 (No. 178)
• Kentucky: 38.3 (No. 3)

Conclusions: Wow, we’ve played some teams that are really good at offensive rebounding. Fortunately for us, Iowa is not one of those teams. Then again, neither was Colgate. Never mind.

Free Throw Rate

• Tennessee 32.9 (No. 184)
• Iowa 42.0 (No. 16)

Prior opponents:

• Colgate 28.9 (No. 285)
• Auburn 30.9 (No. 245)
• Mississippi State 33.0 (No. 188)
• Kentucky 42.2 (No. 14)
• Ole Miss 32.8 (No. 200)
• LSU 39.8 (No. 29)
• Vanderbilt: 44.8 (No. 7)
• Kentucky: 41 (No. 22)

Conclusions: Uh-oh. Somebody figure out what we did right against Vanderbilt to hold them to only six free throw attempts and push repeat, stat.

Those are the straight-up comparisons of the teams’ respective averages in the four factors, but what about the fact that those numbers are impacted in any given game by the opponent?

Four Factors: Opponent impact

Effective FG%

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s EFG% is 55.2 (No. 21), while Iowa’s defense against that is 51.4 (No. 204). This appears to be the biggest advantage for the Vols. Good news, although I will point out once again that our good EFG% is due more to two-pointers than threes. Working inside-out is especially important tomorrow, as Will points out that not only is Tennessee’s offense better inside the arc than outside it, Iowa’s defense is better outside it than in it.

When Iowa has the ball

The Hawkeyes’ EFG% is 52.9 (No. 77), which means they generally don’t shoot as well as Colgate. Tennessee’s shooting defense is 47.7 (No. 39), so as long as the guys can do so without getting into foul trouble, they should be able to defend.

Conclusions

Tennessee generally shoots well, and Iowa generally doesn’t defend well. On the other end, Iowa is merely okay at shooting the ball, while Tennessee is mostly good at defense. If language was math, this would be the formula:

uT(gsw) – uI(gddw) >= uI(mOk) – uT(mG)

To me, that looks like a positive result. For any Iowa Hawkeyes fans that have found their way here, this is a joke. But if you want to post it all over the Iowa boards as an example of redneck ignorance, feel free. Just as long as you click on an ad while you’re here. They’re contextual, so I’m sure you can find a tractor you like at a nice discount.

Turnover %

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s turnover % is 15.8 (No. 25), while Iowa’s defensive counterpart to this category is 18.2 (No. 189).

When Iowa has the ball

Iowa’s turnover % is 17.2 (No. 83), while’s Tennessee’s ability to force turnovers is 18.3 (No. 181).

Conclusions

We should protect the ball fine in this game, but so should they.

Offensive Rebounding %

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s OR% is 31.7 (No. 74), while Iowa’s defense in that category is 29.1 (No. 222).

When Iowa has the ball

The Hawkeyes’ OR% is 29.8 (No. 114), while the Vols’ defense in that category is 30.2 (No. 259).

Conclusions

It appears from these numbers alone that neither team rebounds the ball particularly well. Expect all missed shots to just go out of bounds. Hawkeyes fans: This is also a joke. Ads are over there.

Free Throw Rate

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s FT Rate is 32.9 (No. 184), while Iowa’s defense against that is 28.5 (No. 64). Like Colgate, to the extent they defend, they do it without fouling much.

When Iowa has the ball

The Hawkeyes’ FT Rate is 42.0 (No. 16), while Tennessee’s defense against that is 33.8 (No. 209). This appears to be the biggest advantage for Iowa.

Conclusions

It does not appear that turnovers or rebounding will have much impact on the outcome of this game. I’d expect both teams to just sort of do what they do in those categories and end up at something approximating a stalemate.

But each team has an apparent advantage over the other in the other two categories that matter most. The Vols look better-positioned in EFG% on both sides of the ball. Hopefully, that translates into a better shooting percentage than the Hawkeyes and that in turn translates into more points than them from the field.

On the other hand, the Hawkeyes appear to have an advantage at getting to the free throw line. We don’t know how to get there (Grant Williams is really the only exception), and the Hawkeyes are not going to show us even if we stop and ask for directions. They have a renewable FastPass, and they’re keeping it in their own greedy little corn-calloused hands.

The problem with the Hawkeyes possibly getting to the foul line much more often isn’t just the free points for them but the foul trouble for us.

Can Kyle Alexander stay off the bench and on the floor?

Will our shorter-than-most rotation bite us in the behind?

Will John Fulkerson and Derrick Walker save the day?

Intrigue!

Summary and Score Prediction

The goals for the Vols:

1. Shoot well. Play inside-out. Only take threes if they are wide open or if your name is Admiral Schofield and there’s less than three minutes on the clock in a close game. Or if it’s the last possession and your name is Lamonte Turner.
2. Defend.
3. Don’t foul. Kyle Alexander, you’re going to have to block those shots from a different zip code, son. We believe in you.

KenPom gives Tennessee a 74% chance of winning this one and puts the score at Tennessee 83, Iowa 76.

Go Vols.

March Madness is officially here. Here’s our list of games today and tomorrow for Round 1 of the NCAA Tournament. The following are the games in the Vols’ region.

Of the eight games in the Vols’ region, two of them are tonight, and the rest are tomorrow. The two most important are Tennessee-Colgate tomorrow at 2:45 on CBS and the next game up for the Vols (assuming they win) between Iowa and Cincinnati. That one’s on CBS at 12:15 tomorrow.

The rest of the bracket

Much of the fun this time of year, of course, is rooting for your bracket, so we’ve included a full schedule of all Round 1 games below. And if you just want to root for upsets to clear the path for Tennessee, hey, your prerogative.

If you’re reading this before the games tip, be sure to enter your bracket into our GRT group.

The 2-seed Tennessee Volunteers take on the 15-seed Colgate Raiders Friday at 2:45 ET in the first round of the 2019 NCAA Tournament, and the winner advances to meet either Cincinnati or Iowa sometime Sunday.

In the history of 2/15 matchups, the 2-seeds hold a 128-8 (94%) record, so it’s not unreasonable to expect the Vols to advance. But here’s the thing. The NCAA Tournament is designed not only to funnel the best teams to each other in the late rounds, match them up head-to-head, and see who survives. It’s also designed to give a ton of lower-seeded teams the opportunity to avdance by upsetting better teams. So the goal for good teams isn’t just to coast to the second weekend and then see what you can do. You also have to avoid upsets to lower-seeded teams along the way.

Those upsets often come in the form of bad matchups, so let’s take a look at the teams’ respective four factors numbers to see if there’s any reason to be worried.

Four Factors: Straight-Up

Effective FG%

• Tennessee 55.3 (No. 20)
• Colgate 55.9 (No. 14)

Prior opponents:

• Auburn 53.9 (No. 51)
• Mississippi State 54.6 (No. 36)
• Kentucky 53.6 (No. 59)
• Ole Miss 53.5 (No. 64)
• LSU: 52.7 (No. 93)
• Vanderbilt: 50.3 (No. 198)
• Kentucky: 52.8 (No. 93)

Conclusions: Watch out. These guys can shoot, and they’re better from the arc than from the field. The good news is that they don’t take an Auburn-ton of three-pointers, so this doesn’t appear to be Vols kryptonite. They average 9 made threes per game, so they’re not likely to hit 15 of them like we saw in the SEC Tournament championship game, but still, it’s a danger to avoid.

Turnover %

• Tennessee 15.9 (No. 25)
• Colgate 19.3 (No. 232)

Prior opponents:

• Auburn 18.3 (No. 151)
• Mississippi State 19.1 (No. 220)
• Kentucky 18.7 (No. 185)
• Ole Miss 18.7 (No. 172)
• LSU 19.0 (No. 196)
• Vanderbilt: 19.9 (No. 255)
• Kentucky: 18.5 (No. 158)

Conclusions: Different game, same story. The paper says Tennessee protects the ball, and its opponent does not. That same story has recently too often ended with the Vols giving way too many turnovers, though, so . . . twist!

Offensive Rebound %

• Tennessee 31.6 (No. 75) (Vols have been trending the right direction in this category)
• Colgate 30.3 (No. 103)

Prior opponents:

• Auburn 33.5 (No. 39)
• Mississippi State 34.6 (No. 23)
• Kentucky 37.9 (No. 4)
• Ole Miss 31.9 (No. 64)
• LSU 37.4 (No. 6)
• Vanderbilt: 28.6 (No. 178)
• Kentucky: 38.3 (No. 3)

Conclusions: Good news for the Vols here, as Colgate is not nearly as good at getting their own misses as Tennessee’s recent competition.

Free Throw Rate

• Tennessee 33.4 (No. 175)
• Colgate 28.9 (No. 285)

Prior opponents:

• Auburn 30.9 (No. 245)
• Mississippi State 33.0 (No. 188)
• Kentucky 42.2 (No. 14)
• Ole Miss 32.8 (No. 200)
• LSU 39.8 (No. 29)
• Vanderbilt: 44.8 (No. 7)
• Kentucky: 41 (No. 22)

Conclusions: The good news here is that Colgate is, as you’d guess, neither Kentucky nor LSU. The bad news is that Auburn wasn’t, either.

Those are the straight-up comparisons of the teams’ respective averages in the four factors, but what about the fact that those numbers are impacted in any given game by the opponent?

Four Factors: Opponent impact

Effective FG%

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s EFG% is 55.3 (No. 20), while Colgate’s defense against that is 50.6 (No. 162). That’s about like Auburn. The Vols’ excellent EFG%, by the way, is built on two-pointers, not three-pointers.

When Colgate has the ball

The Raiders’ EFG% is 55.9 (No. 14), which makes them even better than Auburn in this category. Tennessee’s shooting defense is 47.4 (No. 35).

Conclusions

I know this is Colgate. I know this is a 2/15 matchup. And I know that Tennessee is like a 15-point favorite. But I don’t like this. At all.

Turnover %

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s turnover % is 15.9 (No. 25), while Colgate’s defensive counterpart to this category is 18.0 (No. 212).

When Colgate has the ball

Colgate’s turnover % is terrible at 19.3 (No. 232), but as we’ve been saying all year, Tennessee’s not especially good at forcing turnovers, either. The Vols’ number here is 18.2 (No. 188).

Conclusions

My new favorite soapbox is reminding folks that basketball is not bowling or golf. It’s not just you against you, it’s you against you and an opponent actively engaged in attempting to make you look bad. Tennessee failed on both counts last Sunday. They weren’t their best selves. But Auburn also had something to do with how poorly Tennessee played. The Tigers are especially good at creating turnovers, and that made the Vols look like they couldn’t even accomplish the most fundamental goals of basketball, like dribbling or passing to teammates.

All of that is to say this: If and when Tennessee gets beat in this year’s tournament, it’s going to fall to either (1) a great team, or (2) a team with the kryptonite composed of both terrific and abundant three-point shooting and an ability to create extra possessions through turnovers (and/or offensive rebounds). Colgate has the shooting ingredient, but without the ability to create turnovers, they don’t have the kryptonite.

Offensive Rebounding %

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s OR% is 31.6 (No. 75), while Colgate’s defense in that category is 26.9 (No. 113).

When Colgate has the ball

The Raiders’ OR% is 30.3 (No. 103), while the Vols’ defense in that category is 30.3 (No. 266).

Conclusions

From these numbers, I wouldn’t expect offensive rebounding to have much to say about the final outcome of this game.

Free Throw Rate

When Tennessee has the ball

Tennessee’s FT Rate is 33.4 (No. 175), while Colgate’s defense against that is 28.6 (No. 65). To the extent they defend, they do it without fouling much.

When Colgate has the ball

The Raiders’ FT Rate is 28.9 (No. 284), while Tennessee’s defense against that is 34.4 (No. 223).

Conclusions

This looks like a jump-shooting game to me.

Summary and Score Prediction

All signs point toward a game decided by shooting percentage. I’d be surprised if either offensive rebounding or free throw rate impacts the game very much on either side. Instead, this one looks like a game between two teams that can really shoot the ball well. While that’s disconcerting coming off two recent losses to a hot-shooting Auburn squad, the good news for the Vols is twofold: (1) Tennessee defends better than Colgate; and (2) unlike Auburn, Colgate doesn’t appear to have anything else (such as the ability to walk away with Sams Club-sized box of turnovers) to go along with their excellent shooting.

The goals for the Vols:

1. Shoot as well as they usually do, which means shooting much more from the field than from the arc.
2. Keep Colgate below its usual shooting efficiency by tightly defending all jump-shooters, especially those behind the arc.
3. Don’t do anything uncharacteristic in any of the other categories.

KenPom gives Tennessee a 92% chance of winning this one and puts the score at Tennessee 83, Colgate 68.

Go Vols.

Auburn is the only team to beat Tennessee twice this season, and both times, the Tigers did it by hitting double digit threes and forcing double digit turnovers. We know that allowing the opponent to get to the free throw line an inordinate number of times was also a problem against Kentucky once and the LSU Tigers the only time we played them, but if there’s a blueprint for beating the Vols in the Big Dance, I’d look first for teams that check the same boxes Auburn does.

Three-pointers per game

We won’t know the Vols’ possible opponents until the official bracket is unveiled tonight at 6:00, but here is a list of teams that are similar to or better than Auburn at hitting a plethora of three-pointers per game:

Auburn’s 5th in the nation in three-pointers made per game, and the table above includes the Top 20 teams in that category. Most of those won’t make the tournament, but some of them will. Wofford, Villanova, Belmont, or Furman could spell trouble when it comes to having to defend three-pointers.

Forced turnovers

Here’s a list of teams that are similar to or better than Auburn at forcing turnovers:

Auburn is 6th in the nation in forced turnovers per game, and the above table includes the Top 20 in that category. Again, most of those won’t actually be in the tournament, but some may have or still may earn automatic bids by winning their conference tournaments, and some have NET ratings strong enough to get at-large bids. Buffalo, N.C. State, VCU, and a couple of others could give Tennessee problems if they end up in the same region.

The deadly combo

The good news is that there doesn’t appear to be, apart from the Auburn Tigers themselves, a team that presents the same lethal combination that killed Tennessee’s two chances at SEC titles this season.

Maybe Tennessee’s performance today was more about playing the day after a game that felt like a national semi-final. There’s a reason they don’t play the title game without a day of rest between that and the Final Four games. And maybe Bruce Pearl is the sole caretaker of that pocketful of kryptonite and his team will get bounced by someone else before they can advance to face the Vols again.

But if the magic formula is great three-point shooting and an ability to force a lot of turnovers, then the Vols are going to want to give a wide berth to any team that does well at both.