OFFENSE

What were Tennessee’s best lineups in 2019-20?

Believe it or not, there were a few times last year where Tennessee’s offense buzzed at a high efficiency and showed signs of being very fun to watch. They were few and far between, of course, but they did exist. Last year’s Tennessee offense posted six outings of 1.1 PPP or better, with a season high of 1.245 PPP against Murray State in the season’s second game. As the season wore on, Rick Barnes appeared to find a lineup here and there that worked for stretches of time. With so many new parts and old players stepping into new roles, it’s hard to fault Tennessee for struggling offensively. That said, it was uglier more often than not.

In SEC play, Tennessee fell under a point per possession in nine of their 18 conference games, the worst rate since the 2009-10 team. (That team did go to the Elite Eight, but I feel like I have to bring up the point every few weeks that they were largely unimpressive for most of the regular season.) For the first time under Barnes, Tennessee turned it over with high frequency, giving it up on 20.8% of possessions in conference play (second-worst). The Vescovi midseason addition certainly didn’t help, but the numbers were only slightly better before his arrival.

Still, Tennessee did find occasional success, and per Hoop-Explorer.com, a lot of it came with the same core four members of the offensive lineup: Jordan Bowden, Jalen Johnson, Yves Pons, and John Fulkerson. In 256 non-garbage-time possessions, this four-man lineup produced an adjusted Offensive Rating of 1.155 PPP, easily Tennessee’s best four-man grouping in 2019-20. As unexciting as the Bowden/Johnson combo probably appeared to most of us, it helped space the floor far more than other lineups, simply because both Bowden and Johnson were very happy to take threes. Add in Santiago Vescovi, and you can understand where, at minimum, a 3.5-shooter lineup really worked for Tennessee.

In 881 other non-garbage-time SEC possessions without that combo of four on the floor, Tennessee’s offense was nearly 12 points worse per 100 possessions, with an adjusted Offensive Rating of 1.039 PPP. Tennessee shot almost the exact same from three in both sets – 32.9% with the main four, 32.8% without – but it was a much greater rim efficiency that led to the offensive success. With the main four, Tennessee converted 71% of attempts at the rim, got about 7 more free throws per 100 possessions, and took nearly 6% fewer mid-range twos. It’s fascinating what a more open offense can do for your team, isn’t it?

When any other lineup was on the floor, Tennessee turned it over on 21.6% of possessions (19.1% with the main four), had a 6% lower offensive rebounding rate, and struggled far more to get easy buckets. The double non-shooter lineups – meaning John Fulkerson plus any of Olivier Nkamhoua, Davonte Gaines, Drew Pember, and Uros Plavsic – had great success at getting offensive rebounds, but converted a ghastly 54.9% of attempts at the rim and shot 3.5% worse from three. If your offensive spacing is clogged and you don’t have a consistently scary shooter to compensate, the results are gross.

In 2020-21, Barnes will have far more options than he did last year. Tennessee can run out a wide variety of lineups where at least four members hit 29 or more threes in their most recent season of basketball, including a four-man lineup of Vescovi, Bailey, Josiah Jordan-James, and Yves Pons. (The three-man Vescovi/JJJ/Pons lineup was one of Tennessee’s better shooting lineups a season ago.) Tennessee’s two five-star newcomers are not yet known for perimeter shooting prowess, but both are unafraid to shoot and will add a lot to the on-court spacing. Therefore, think about lineups like these:

• Vescovi, Bailey, Johnson/Springer, Pons, Fulkerson
• Vescovi, Johnson, Springer, Pons, Fulkerson
• James, Johnson, Springer, Pons, Fulkerson
• Vescovi, Johnson, Springer, James, Fulkerson

Or my personal favorite, an insane one that I am desperate to see played: Vescovi, Bailey, Johnson/Springer, Pons, Anosike. I went over him in great detail after his transfer was announced, but E.J. Anosike has 39 made threes in his career and, if he improves his efficiency, could legitimize a terrifying 4.5-shooter lineup that Tennessee hasn’t really had to date.

Any lineup with Vescovi and Bailey in it is perhaps the one I’m most excited to see. Everyone knows about Vescovi’s shooting prowess, but Bailey closed his two-year run at Oregon with 79 made threes at a 38.3% hit rate. Tennessee’s got systematic questions to answer, which we’ll explore shortly, but you have as much reason as you desire to show serious excitement about Tennessee’s offensive potential.

What defines a good shot in the Tennessee offense?

Generally, we’ve been able to define the Rick Barnes offense through five years by its surprising consistency, at least in terms of structure. For three straight seasons, Tennessee has had a top-25 Assist Rate, meaning they get a lot of points directly after a pass and share the ball well. They’ve shot 75% or better from the free throw line three straight seasons. For four straight years, Tennessee has taken a lower-than-average amount of threes, and Barnes’ teams have always ranked highly in terms of their share of mid-range attempts. While it’s not always a perfect split, the Barnes philosophy is roughly to get 35% of shots at the rim, 35% from three, and the remaining 30% somewhere in between. Unsurprisingly, it is very similar to what Barnes pal Bob McKillop runs at Davidson, though with far fewer threes.

As someone who generally prefers shots that aren’t 14-foot jumpers, this offense can be a very frustrating watch at times. While Tennessee did make 39.1% of non-rim two-pointers last year, the 62nd-best rate in basketball, only three players hit these shots at any useful rate: Jordan Bowden (46.8% on 109 attempts), Yves Pons (46.2% on 117), and John Fulkerson (44% on 116). The rest of the Tennessee roster – literally every other player! – shot 28% on 200 non-rim two-point attempts. Emphasizing better shots is key, and I think we know Pons, Fulkerson, and both of the five-star freshmen are likely going to take and make quite a few non-rim twos. But what defines a truly ideal shot for Tennessee?

To answer this question, I turned to a subject matter expert whose work is almost exclusively in shot selection and shot quality, which makes sense, as his site is called Shot Quality. Simon Gerszberg is a student at Colgate University who spent the last two seasons as a data analyst for their basketball team. (Probably worth noting that I talked to Matt Langel, Colgate’s head coach, this offseason.) Recently, Gerszberg started a data project called Shot Quality, a site that aims to give college basketball fans a more defined answer to what makes a good shot.

“The goal of ShotQuality is to provide expected percentages for every single shot attempt in a game,” Gerszberg shared. “In this calculation, the expected offensive rebound percentage, make probability, foul probability are all included.” Essentially, what this does is show readers if a team is taking the right shots on one side and forcing tough shots on the other. Per Gerszberg’s research, teams that win the Shot Quality battle win about 79% of the time on average, and if you win it by 15 points or more, you have a 96% likelihood of winning the game. Beating your opponent in something as simple as shot selection is huge.

Obviously, you have to note that 79% and even 96% isn’t 100%. Gerszberg covers this on his site using the Record Luck metric, which shows how much a team’s actual win percentage deviated from what was expected of them. For instance, Tennessee won the Shot Quality battle in 21 of 31 games last season, but only won 17. “Every team can win or lose a game they weren’t supposed to,” notes Gerszberg. As an example, Tennessee played Texas A&M last season in a game where Tennessee beat the Aggies in both eFG% (nearly 17%) and Shot Quality with fair ease. And yet: because Tennessee shot just 6-for-22 on largely wide-open threes and got demolished on the boards, they lost a very winnable game.

To tie into this, I followed up on a project request from Reed’s Ranch Patron, Chris Kilby. Chris asked me in October if I had any numbers on how Tennessee shooters fared after Santiago Vescovi created a three-point opportunity for them, wondering if a deeper, better backcourt could help improve these numbers. After forcing myself to watch each of Vescovi’s 19 games in a Tennessee uniform – yes, even the blowouts – I found that Vescovi created 63 potential three-point assist opportunities. Tennessee converted 19 of these for a 30.2% hit rate, 3.1% below the shooting average last season. While that may not seem like much, if you even just add two made threes to that total to hit the national average, it’s six key points Tennessee could have used anywhere in the season. Like here, in a game they lost by two points:

Or here, in that Texas A&M game, where they were tied 53-53 with a minute to play:

Or this shot, which would have cut Kentucky’s lead to 4, but was missed and led to a Kentucky three on the other end – a ten-point swing:

Or this one, which was meaningless but the pass itself made me jump out of my seat:

You get the point. Says Gerszberg: “One heavily contested three from an inefficient shooter that has less than a 20% chance of going in at the 3:12 mark in the first half could be the difference in the game.” We focus heavily on end-of-game actions, of course, but that ignores the 39-plus minutes that came before it. Collectively, Jordan Bowden and Yves Pons made just 12 of their 44 three-point attempts created by Vescovi for a 27.2% hit rate; Jalen Johnson, who is no longer on the team, single-handedly saved it from Mendoza Line territory by going 5-for-12.

With that in mind, I want to note three things: the team gets to add a very good three-point shooter in Victor Bailey, both of the new five-star recruits should add threes of their own, and three-point shooting as a whole hit a historic low last season. Still, the point of our exercise here is to look for the best shots in the Tennessee offense. Gerszberg provided two he’d look for more of and one he’d avoid.

Tennessee should get more catch-and-shoot opportunities for Santiago Vescovi. Well, duh. Vescovi shot 29-for-72 on these three-point attempts last season for an excellent 40.2% hit rate; on all other three-point attempts, like his beloved pull-ups off of a screen, he converted just 7 of 28. “The offense would be better as a whole if they got him to at least 100 of these attempts,” notes Gerszberg. That seems like a fairly easy thing to do when you give him eight additional games to work with.

They should also find Josiah-Jordan James more catch-and-shoot looks. This one may come as a surprise, seeing as it felt like half the time, James was about as likely to make a jump shot as I would be. And yet: James hit 17 of his 43 catch-and-shoot threes, making 12 of his 36 other attempts.

Tennessee should….avoid Yves Pons post-ups?!? This one could throw the average fan for a loop. Pons did rank in the 68th-percentile in the post last year. However, this doesn’t mean what it used to. Per Synergy, when including passes out of the post, Pons post-ups resulted in just 87 points over 102 possessions, which ranked in the 49th-percentile nationally. 

“These are just not efficient shots compared to the rest of college basketball,” says Gerszberg. Some actions to try instead: Pons as the roll man in ball-screen sets, where he ranked in the 71st-percentile offensively, especially in pick-and-pop actions.

Essentially, if Tennessee continues to work to find their best shots and avoid actions that simply aren’t working, they’ll win the Shot Quality battle most nights. This is easier said than done, but data similar to this is used with fair frequency in the program. (Another pair of shots recommended to be excised: Davonte Gaines’ threes and Josiah-Jordan James mid-range pull-ups.) Hopefully, you’ll see a lot more of what makes each Tennessee player fit in the Barnes offense.

How will the new recruits and transfers fit in?

As much as I’d like to be able to answer this for you on my own, I can’t. I’m not a professional scout, and the most I have to go off of on Tennessee’s three newcomers are YouTube highlight videos that take all the bad stuff out. For instance, I don’t think they’ll be featuring the fact that both Keon Johnson and Jaden Springer have work to do on three-point shooting in these videos. I doubt they’ll share that Corey Walker likely has to improve a lot to see the court more than 10 minutes a game in year one. For the transfers, they probably won’t show off Victor Bailey or E.J. Anosike’s one-on-one defensive skills.

And yet: I think based on scouting and on the stats of the transfers, we can give you at least an inkling of what’s to come for each new entry onto the Tennessee roster and rotation. I want to explore them, one-by-one.

Jaden Springer: By virtue of being ranked three spots higher in the 247 Composite than Keon Johnson, he gets to go first. Springer enters as a 6’4” score-first combo guard, a type of player that Tennessee hasn’t really had since senior year Kevin Punter, Jr. Really, Tennessee hasn’t had a score-first guard period since Punter, and before that, it was…Jordan McRae? The point is that Springer (and by extension, Johnson) are relatively unique additions to the Tennessee roster.

As will be frequent in this section, I’m going to defer to the scouts on likely rotation players. NBA Draft Room notes that Springer “gets it done from 3 levels” and “wants the ball in his hands with the game on the line,” which seems quite important. Jerry Meyer of 247 feels similarly, noting that Springer “has great potential defensively.” Most every scouting report I read writes that Springer is a fantastic mid-range shooter and loves attacking the rim, which, again, Tennessee hasn’t had in some time.

Obviously, there’s going to be drawbacks to playing a likely one-and-done who’s only 18 years old and has real flaws. Springer appears to not be all that comfortable taking threes, which is fine but does present potential spacing limitations on defense. ESPN’s report on Springer specifically points out that he has a strange glitch in his shot form relating to a dip in his shoulder when he pulls up, which is something to watch for. Lastly, while Springer is insanely athletic, you can’t rely on athleticism and strength alone; a few reports want him to add a little finesse on both ends of the court.

Still: what you have here is a legitimate potential 2021 lottery pick on your roster. Tennessee hasn’t had that since Tobias Harris, and Springer (along with Johnson) is talented and strong enough to make it happen. I expect at least one, if not both, of Springer and Johnson to start right away. If their defensive potential is realized, both will play a ton of minutes. Barnes has shown a favoritism towards guards and wings that are able to consistently stay in front of their man on defense (this is why Jordan Bowden played so much last season despite poor shooting), and both will add serious length and depth to a Tennessee roster desperately needing it.

Keon Johnson: Similarly to Springer, Tennessee has managed to draw in a uniquely strong, agile guard for his age. Every report about Johnson (#19 in the 247 Composite) notes that he may be the best athlete in the class, a thoroughbred that jumps higher than most guards and his elite finishing rate at the rim. Again, that’s not something Tennessee has really had in a while from the perimeter, and it’s probably the first time Barnes will have had this feature as the Tennessee head coach.

Ross Homan at the Stepien wrote a fantastic article about Johnson and why he thinks he may be an underrated prospect. To quote Ross: “with Keon Johnson, we are looking at an elite athlete who has been statistically elite, or near elite, versus good to great competition over the last 16 months while continuing to show what can be considered elite or at the minimum very good skill growth.” Uh, sounds fantastic! Did I mention how nice it’ll be to have two potential lottery picks on the roster at the same time?

Like Springer, though, Johnson will have flaws, and it’s okay to point them out. Jerry Meyer notes that he needs improvement as a primary or secondary ball-handler. Alan Lu at nbascoutinglive.com says Johnson is prone to having a questionable shot selection, which is somewhat normal for younger players now but does need to be corrected. Even Ross Homan notes that “it’s not a sure thing the growth continues” for Johnson, which would be a tough thing to take in. That said, seemingly everyone agrees he’s got gigantic potential.

I don’t know if both Springer and Johnson will start against Charlotte next week, but both will play 20+ minutes and likely gradually increase their time on the court. They don’t really need to play big minutes until the SEC schedule, anyway. We’ll get to it shortly, but Tennessee will have to resolve the question of if the two can play together. I think they can, but one of the two will have to make a leap on outside shooting. If I had to take a guess here on which player ends up with the better three-point shooting percentage at season’s end, I’d go with Johnson, simply because I’m relying on the fact I haven’t seen a report about a flawed shooting form from deep.

Corey Walker: I don’t think Walker is going to play much, as he’s had the misfortune of popping onto a roster with tons of talent already. Still, I’d like to preview him, as at minimum, he’ll get much more playing time in Years 2-4 if he chooses to stay that long. Walker is a 6’8” forward that many think can play anywhere from the 3 to the 5, which adds more positional versatility to a largely positionless Tennessee roster.

Per the scouts: Brian Snow of 247 notes that Walker “can play on the wing and also take advantage of mismatches down low.” Along with that, Walker’s a much better rebounder than most power forwards and can add some extra strength down low. To be honest, it sounds like he doesn’t have much of an offensive game to show off yet, but one hopes that’ll come along down the road.

E.J. Anosike: Already covered during lockdown. Nothing’s changed here, as far as I know.

Victor Bailey, Jr.: Bailey comes from Oregon and brings two very useful capabilities to the table: he’s instantly Tennessee’s best three-point shooter and he keeps turnovers low. Bailey shot 38.3% from downtown on 206 attempts at Oregon, mostly playing around 17-ish minutes a night. He didn’t play more because he appears to have pretty real defensive flaws, but I’m thinking about him in the same way I thought about James Daniel: these flaws exist because he may have not had the right fit in the system he played in.

Bailey is likely to slide in as an option at the 2-guard; he didn’t really play much at point at Oregon and the stats suggest he doesn’t belong there. If Tennessee can make him a three-point specialist and find a way to turn him into an acceptable defender, he’s going to be a key piece for this year’s team and next. As I’ve mentioned previously, I adore the idea of he and Vescovi playing at the same time in shorter lineups, simply because the offensive upside is sky-high.

What are the most important questions Tennessee has to resolve offensively?

As much excitement as there is around this Tennessee roster, they aren’t going to be a perfect team. No one should expect them to be! It’s college basketball, after all, a relatively high-variance sport with a wide range of outcomes. With that in mind, Tennessee, like all teams, will have some questions to answer if they’re interested in making a deep NCAA Tournament run and racking up accolades that teams at Tennessee rarely get. Let’s explore some of the most pertinent ones.

1. Who has the ball in their hands with the game on the line? Perhaps the most important question. Like all teams, Tennessee will have numerous close games to play this year, and someone on this roster will be asked to step up and get a bucket to either push Tennessee over the top or draw them back in. So who’s it gonna be? You have a few options here:

• Santiago Vescovi. Of the returning players, he took the highest percentage of shots while he was on the floor. Vescovi was not one to drive to the basket for his own points all that much last season; only 23% of his shots were at the rim, and a good percentage of his turnovers were committed on fruitless drives. That said, you would be hard-pressed to name a more fearless player on the Tennessee roster. Vescovi is purely unafraid to take a three at any time, and there’s a good chance Barnes can set up a variety of catch-and-shoot looks for him in a close game. 
• John Fulkerson. All-SEC John Fulkerson, mind you. Down the stretch last season, it was generally Fulkerson who the team relied on to push them over the top to a victory. Fulkerson single-handedly carried Tennessee to a win over Kentucky, the team’s signature moment and win. Fulkerson’s post-ups worked extremely well, and when Tennessee needs two, they could do far worse than getting the ball to him down low.
• Jaden Springer. Supposedly is automatic from mid-range, which is the preferred closeout shot of many. While it’s still generally a good idea to limit your mid-range attempts, if you have a guy that’s likely to hit 40% or more of his, you should take those shots. I like the idea of giving Springer a chance to close one out.
• Keon Johnson. Same-ish as above, though Johnson is who I want to have the ball when Tennessee has an advantage at the rim. He’ll draw a ton of fouls.
• Uh…Josiah-Jordan James? Yves Pons? Victor Bailey, Jr.? Any of these could end up taking a shot to close out a game, but based on previous performances, none of these three have ever really been a featured part of a high-scoring offense. Willing to be wrong here. If Tennessee needs to score, I definitely want Bailey or Pons out there as the fifth in this lineup, but I’m definitely willing to give JJJ a chance, too.

2. Can Tennessee limit their turnovers consistently? Last year’s squad ranked 280th in the nation in offensive TO%, their worst ranking since 1996-97’s horrendous group. It torpedoed Tennessee’s chances in several games, most notably a 29.5% TO% in a three-point loss to Florida State. If Tennessee even gets back into the top 100, it greatly expands the upper range of offensive success.

3. Besides Vescovi and Bailey, who’s going to step up from the three-point arc? We know these two are very good shooters from downtown, but we don’t know much else about the rest of the Tennessee roster. Pons shot 35% last season but missed 11 threes in a row at one point of SEC play; JJJ shot 36.7% and got much better as the season went on, but his unusually flat shot does present possible limitations; both Johnson and Springer have not exactly been known for outside shooting in their high school careers. At least one of these four players needs to step up and be the consistent threat from outside that Tennessee needs to spread the floor.

4. Can Tennessee’s shot selection improve? This is covered above in the Shot Quality section, but as noted by Simon, Tennessee likely cost themselves a couple key wins last season by taking the wrong shots at the wrong time.

5. How frequently will Barnes limit the multiple non-shooter lineups? (For the purposes of our study here, these are any two of Fulkerson, Plavsic, Nkamhoua, Gaines, and Pember.) Tennessee gave an alarming amount of time in SEC play to these lineups – nearly 38.6% of all on-court time, in fact, for lineups that didn’t crack a point per possession in conference play. Tennessee simply cannot do this again, though it obviously helps that the team simply has quite a bit more to work with than last season. At minimum, the number of double non-shooter lineups needs to be reduced to 12.5% or lower, or five minutes a night. The game is not played the same way it was in 2008 or even 2003 (Barnes’ last Elite Eight and Final Four visits, respectively), and Tennessee needs to push themselves forward.