TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2023-24 Tennessee  27-9 (0.750)  |  SEC
All-Play Percentage: 0.989 (5th)
Schedule Strength: 0.738 (6th)
Record Quality: 0.473 (6th)
Avg. Season Rank: 8.72 (5th)
Pace: 69.14 (89th)
Momentum: -1.08 (228th)
Off. Momentum: -0.97 (256th)
Def. Momentum: -0.12 (149th)
Consistency: -10.09 (278th)
Res. Consistency: -11.89 (165th)
Away From Home: -1.67 (318th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -2.44 (300th)
NOTE: All data below reflects predicted performance against the "AO" (average opponent), a fictitious opponent who represents the average in every stat category.
Hover over column headers or visit "ABOUT" page for an explanation of each measurement.
Includes games through April 8, 2024. Data shown on this page is based on time-dependent ratings.
OFFENSE Eff Upc FTAR FT% FGAR FGMR FG% 3PAR 3PMR 3P% MRAR MRMR MR% NPAR NPMR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
RATING: 117.13 29.80 74.74 89.10 45.77 36.49 36.44 20.69 39.17 31.92 60.71 16.66 15.70 6.05 40.95 23.22 35.83 2.05
RANK: 25th 55th 77th 32nd 93rd 39th 69th 249th 175th 134th 86th 9th 74th 124th 68th 273rd 190th 265th

DEFENSE Eff Upc FTAR FT% FGAR FGMR FG% 3PAR 3PMR 3P% MRAR MRMR MR% NPAR NPMR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
RATING: 88.90 25.20 -- 82.15 37.21 32.78 29.72 22.44 30.60 26.93 51.83 8.49 9.95 3.11 39.90 27.32 32.78 2.07
RANK: 4th 143rd -- 42nd 3rd 247th 6th 170th 1st 37th 22nd 11th 9th 2nd 302nd 209th 66th 55th

ANALYSIS:
There aren't many teams in the country that have been as strong as Tennessee this year. Their record this season is 27-9, and the club is ranked fifth overall (out of 362) in Haslametrics' most recent ratings. Of the 14 schools in the SEC (average ranking 60.4), they're currently ranked as our #2 team in the conference. With a strength-of-schedule rating of 0.738 (which ranks sixth nationally), Tennessee is one of the more battle-tested teams in the college game.

The Tennessee defense will be extremely problematic for most opposing offenses. Allowing about 89 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO, the club is ranked fourth overall in defensive efficiency. Tennessee will wreak havoc with many opponents' shooting percentages this year. And it doesn't really matter where the shots originate; the team ranks in the top-25 in each of the four major defensive shooting categories. Though they're most successful defending the mid-range jumper (allowing 30.6% shooting in that category vs. AO, first in the country), the team also hassles AO into converting just 29.7% of their three-pointers (sixth), 51.8% of their near-proximity chances (22nd), and 37.2% of their total shots from the field (third). Tennessee also does a fantastic job to prevent opposing teams from capitalizing on chances from offensive rebounds. The squad allows AO to convert only 3.1% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked second in the NCAA), and with a rating of 9.95, they're ninth in potential points allowed off of the offensive glass as well. Tennessee lastly thrives on scoring fast and easy points off of steals. They're ranked ninth in potential points off of breakaway steals vs. AO with a rating of 16.66.

Tennessee plays at about the same level on offense as they do on defense. The team ranks 25th nationally in offensive efficiency, scoring about 117 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Tennessee allows very few breakaway opportunities for the opposition, which typically translates to fewer turnovers. The team's rating vs. AO for potential breakaway points allowed off of steals is 8.49, which ranks #11 in the country. Tennessee also has one of the better squads in the college game when it comes to maximizing opportunities to score. The team is ranked 32nd in the NCAA in offensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 89.10 vs. AO. And when they do shoot, they make a fair portion of their shots. Ranked in the top-100 in field goal shooting percentage, the squad converts about 45.8% of their total attempts vs. AO.

When playing on the road, Tennessee performs somewhat worse than they normally do on their home court. The club is nationally ranked 318th in our site's away-from-home metric.
SORTABLE SCHEDULE / RESULTS:
Projections are based on present-day ratings. Stars indicate games played at a neutral location.
Game efficiencies only account for data before a contest has gone analytically final and are adjusted to extract home-court advantage.
CURIOUS TRENDS:
When facing teams that allow more chances at the line, Tennessee often performs better than normal. Tennessee is more efficient than usual 63% of the time when facing teams that have a defensive free throw attempt rate vs. AO greater than 23.29. In their other contests, Tennessee performs better than the norm 17% of the time.
Tennessee does worse vs. clubs that convert more frequently off of offensive rebounds. When playing squads that have an offensive second-chance conversion percentage vs. AO greater than 7.07%, Tennessee performs above average 25% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 58% of the time.
HASLAMETRICS ALL-PLAY PERCENTAGE RANKING BY DAY: Select data to plot:

HASLAMETRICS TEAM HISTORY: Select data to view:
SUMMARY Rk AP% Rec (WinPct) RQ Conference Pace Con SOS PTF AFH ASR
2024-255th5th18th8thSEC356th336th15th121st206th4th
2023-245th5th25th6thSEC89th278th6th300th318th5th
2022-237th7th56th24thSEC307th362nd36th359th359th3rd
2021-2212th12th21st12thSEC177th276th11th332nd275th12th
2020-2123rd23rd68th33rdSEC225th297th54th314th302nd10th
2019-2060th60th148th70thSEC319th326th44th301st79th51st
2018-1910th10th10th4thSEC208th157th27th39th288th6th
2017-1818th18th32nd9thSEC307th173rd6th210th97th13th
2016-1752nd52nd179th84thSEC110th301st17th8th137th52nd
2015-1699th99th221st139thSEC130th189th45th118th247th91st
2014-1584th84th179th89thSEC332nd42nd28th86th10th91st
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2517th14th99th65th48th55th122nd265th37th145th32nd122nd89th36th78th287th174th258th
2023-2425th55th77th32nd93rd39th69th249th175th134th86th9th74th124th68th273rd190th265th
2022-2342nd102nd221st16th112th55th144th94th243rd265th10th184th59th64th108th132nd315th308th
2021-2233rd90th169th22nd93rd114th32nd123rd215th149th112th14th51st90th170th173rd200th204th
2020-2163rd110th31st57th108th205th151st44th78th248th105th160th82nd71st249th56th281st193rd
2019-2071st54th62nd217th65th218th153rd77th35th292nd36th256th262nd188th217th66th282nd222nd
2018-194th84th31st26th2nd293rd9th23rd1st132nd20th225th194th63rd327th32nd183rd80th
2017-1837th36th56th73rd70th209th35th34th75th274th81st90th82nd62nd238th42nd284th195th
2016-1771st12th120th94th124th308th182nd18th80th243rd107th281st39th120th316th21st259th117th
2015-1691st169th82nd28th151st89th258th80th29th260th138th129th184th171st142nd99th304th267th
2014-1569th254th152nd20th101st102nd188th106th16th158th128th24th101st136th163rd144th229th207th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-254th32nd--263rd2nd305th2nd289th55th50th3rd8th5th3rd283rd271st36th53rd
2023-244th143rd--42nd3rd247th6th170th1st37th22nd11th9th2nd302nd209th66th55th
2022-233rd124th--27th6th259th2nd65th33rd41st27th22nd6th14th320th121st73rd40th
2021-223rd99th--16th12th225th60th86th65th29th9th144th22nd19th298th151st74th52nd
2020-215th80th--50th13th162nd75th162nd43rd84th11th69th96th32nd229th207th118th123rd
2019-2060th169th--179th34th139th203rd146th62nd258th5th282nd47th20th137th154th246th241st
2018-1935th126th--207th21st276th208th162nd27th119th4th121st309th158th271st142nd120th101st
2017-1810th178th--97th9th149th15th148th21st153rd17th77th248th169th192nd171st172nd157th
2016-1738th179th--54th44th79th165th203rd17th117th41st25th31st14th114th247th151st201st
2015-16113th161st--281st54th251st107th189th27th224th64th98th280th171st212th159th189th165th
2014-15114th220th--16th120th345th218th3rd91st29th172nd19th44th59th351st9th58th3rd