(Click to enlarge)

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

More Columns

• Adams: Tony P's is SEC of West
• Strange: UT 0-3 in SEC by mid-October?
• Adams: Hangover from UCLA loss will linger

Share and Enjoy [?]

Get Reprints

Want to use this article? Click here for options!

There are two questions that I’ve heard again and again since Tennessee’s Sweet 16 loss to Louisville on Thursday night:

“How can a team without a pure point guard win 31 games,” and “What happened to this team after the Memphis game?”

Scouring the boxscores and stat sheets from a season’s worth of basketball, I’ve found that both questions can be answered in a single word: turnovers.

Let’s start with the basics. There are flaws to be found with every team in America. Each system, each style of play has strengths and weaknesses. UT coach Bruce Pearl’s system is designed to mask many possible flaws. And at Tennessee, the Pearl style has turned basketball from an also-ran to an SEC champion in just three short years.

But this year, there were several issues that the system had to try to cover up. First, the Vols lacked consistent point guard play all season. The situation seemed to get worse late, forcing Pearl to tinker with small forward J.P. Prince at point guard on four occasions in the last eight games.

Second, Tennessee lacked dominating big men inside. Wayne Chism can play at a very high level for stretches, but he is not a shot-blocking, rebounding tower of power in the old school mold. That’s simply not his game. He’s just as happy to pop a three from outside as he is to bang for a lay-up inside.

Tyler Smith, the Vols’ most-talented player, proved his unselfishness on numerous occasions, passing up shots in the paint to get the ball to teammates on the perimeter. That’s a great attitude, but there were times that the Vols sure could have used a go-to guy from twelve feet and in.

So with no real distributor and with no dominant giants inside, it’s no secret that Tennessee’s half-court offense was a problem on many occasions (last year’s team, with better guard play, didn’t suffer that woe).

In 2007-08, the Vols had the ultimate “SportsCenter” offense. Lots of highlight threes and dunks, but very few “run of the mill” plays that bring consistent two-point scoring.

So how did Tennessee reach the heights they reached with an inconsistent half-court offense? Turnovers.

When the Vols were forcing turnovers, swiping possessions and creating easy buckets, the alley-oops, no-look passes and pull-up 3-pointers were Globetrotter-esque. But when turnovers didn’t come, the Vols often looked out of control and lost.

Turnovers masked UT’s weaknesses in the half-court game. Because of that, the Vols couldn’t afford to waste their own possessions, and it was imperative that they create “extra” possessions with their defense.

Here’s an oversimplification of the value of turnovers. With the clock rolling, there are only so many possessions in a game. If a Vol opponent has the ball, they can, at best, knock down a three-pointer. But if UT forces a turnover, brings the ball down and hits a three of their own, that’s a six-point possible swing off of one turnover.

Now, let’s look at UT’s turnover margin up to and through the Memphis game. In those first 27 games, UT devastated their opponents by forcing 525 turnovers. That’s a whopping 19.4 turnovers per game average.

Over that same 27-game span, UT also took care of the ball, turning it over on the offensive end just 355 times (13.1 turnovers per game). That’s a plus-6 turnover margin per game. That’s a possible 36-point swing in every game in favor of the Vols. That’s taking it to the extreme, but you get the point.

Even if UT made just two lay-ups, hit two 3-pointers and missed two shots off of those six “stolen” possessions, they were still tallying an extra 10 offensive points per game off of turnovers.

With the advantage created by that kind of effort, it’s no wonder that the Vols ascended to number one in the nation. UT was the best in the business at creating possessions for themselves and taking them away from their opponents.

But then … things changed. In the Vols’ nine games after Memphis, Tennessee forced just 132 turnovers. That was a huge drop, down from 19.4 to 14.6 per game.

On offense, the Vols’ own number of hiccups climbed by a hair to 119 (13.2 per game). In other words, Tennessee went from plus-6 in turnover margin to plus-1. That’s a lot fewer easy baskets. And more pressure on a limited half-court offense.

Not surprisingly, the average score in UT’s games went from about 83-69 through Memphis to 77-73 after Memphis. Fewer swiped possessions equaled much tighter games.

Things only got worse when tournament play began. The Vol defense forced just 77 turnovers (down to 15.4 per game) in their five SEC and NCAA tournament games.

To make matters worse, the Vols turned the ball over 79 times (15.8 per game) in that stretch. You read that right. A team that was plus-6 in turnover margin for 27 games had a MINUS turnover margin during tourney play.

For those wondering what caused the Vols to become more careless on the offensive end and less tenacious on the defensive end post-Memphis, well, that’s anybody’s guess. With no major injuries to speak of and a schedule that was murder from start to finish, it would appear that the problem could have been mental.

Perhaps UT reached too many goals too soon. Perhaps, like so many teams before them, they celebrated their achievements a bit too much. It’s hard to maintain your drive when nets are being cut down and everyone’s telling you you’re the greatest.

Whatever the cause, turnovers are the fuel that make Tennessee go. And the Vols’ big turnover advantage disappeared as the regular season wound down and the post-season cranked up.

For those still asking the question, “What happened to the Vols after Memphis,” there’s your answer.

John Pennington hosts the Hall’s Salvage Sports Source on Sunday at 11 a.m. on WATE.

© 2008, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.