The Kim Caldwell System

#451
#451
RetroVol said:
Okay. I'm just having fun playing with LLMs. While walking today, I heard a youtuber make some claim about certain Tennessee players not producing well together because their styles conflict. It got me to thinking whether there might be a way to get an LLM to analyze that. Which led me to the play-by-play summaries on ESPN, and, voila!, they have time-stamped substitutions. it turns out copying those play-by-play summaries and pasting them into a Word document then saving as a pdf is fairly trivial. And LLMs read pdfs. And can analyze data. So... hours go by, playing around with feeding the summaries for the NC State, UCLA, Stanford, Louisville, and Florida games into the big 4. Some of the AI eccentricities showed up, like occasionally mis-counting things. (One AI caught another AI's error.) But overall, I think what I ended up with was accurate and significant enough to share this summary. (Again from Gemini. Don't know why. I use ChatGPT a lot, but for this, Gemini seemed better. I wasn't really going for a rigorous AI comparison!) So, for what it's worth:

Topic: Are We Seeing an Evolution in the "Hockey Line" Strategy?

After breaking down the play-by-play data from the NC State, UCLA, Stanford, Louisville, and Florida games, some distinct patterns are emerging regarding Coach Caldwell’s substitution philosophy. While the sample size is small (12 games total, 5 analyzed here), the data hints that the "system" is becoming less rigid and more situational, particularly in "winning time."

Here is a summary of the observable trends:

1. The Baseline: High-Volume "Platooning"​

In the early "stress test" games (NC State) and the recent loss to Louisville, the data shows a heavy reliance on swapping all 5 players at once (5-for-5).

  • vs. NC State: There were 11 separate 5-for-5 line changes.
  • vs. Louisville: There were 6 separate 5-for-5 line changes.
  • Observation: In both losses, the "Hockey Line" subs continued deep into the 4th Quarter regardless of the score or momentum.

2. The Adjustment: The Shift to 4-for-4​

In the road win at Stanford, we saw a noticeable behavior change. Instead of swapping everyone, Caldwell frequently kept one "anchor" player (often Talaysia Cooper) on the floor while swapping the other four.

  • vs. Stanford: There were only 3 5-for-5 swaps, but 11 4-for-4 swaps.
  • Significance: This suggests an attempt to maintain the "fresh legs" advantage of mass substitutions without completely resetting the lineup's chemistry.

3. The Closer: 4th Quarter Management​

This is where the biggest shift appears to be happening. We can contrast how the 4th Quarter was handled in close games:

  • NC State (Loss): Executed a full 5-for-5 swap with 3:36 remaining in a tight game.
  • Stanford (Win): Stopped all mass substitutions for the final 7 minutes.
  • Florida (Win): Stopped all mass substitutions for the entire 4th Quarter.

The Data: Mass Substitutions by Game​

GameResult5-for-5 Swaps4-for-4 Swaps4th Quarter Strategy
NC StateLoss116Rigid. Swapped 5 players with 3:36 left (game tied/close).
UCLALoss32Reactive. Abandoned system in Q2 & Q4 when trailing by double digits.
StanfordWin311Hybrid. Heavy use of 4-for-4. No mass subs in final 7 mins.
LouisvilleLoss62Rigid. Swapped 5 players with 7:05 left (down 18).
FloridaWin53Situational. Zero mass subs in Q4.

What the Hints Suggest​

The Louisville game appears to be an outlier where the "system" was applied strictly despite the deficit. However, the contrast between the NC State loss (rigid 4th quarter subs) and the Florida win (zero 4th quarter mass subs) suggests a potential calibration.

The Florida game may represent the "ideal" version of this strategy: use the platoon swaps for the first 30 minutes to wear the opponent down, then tighten the rotation to specific matchups to secure the win. We will need to see if this pattern holds in upcoming SEC games.
Click to expand...
Great info, very interesting. Thanks!

So we both said this is an all or nothing system that couldn’t be piecemealed. Were we wrong? I guess we’re about to find out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangeBeachVol, th2421 and chuckiepoo
#452
#452
RetroVol said:
Okay. I'm just having fun playing with LLMs. While walking today, I heard a youtuber make some claim about certain Tennessee players not producing well together because their styles conflict. It got me to thinking whether there might be a way to get an LLM to analyze that. Which led me to the play-by-play summaries on ESPN, and, voila!, they have time-stamped substitutions. it turns out copying those play-by-play summaries and pasting them into a Word document then saving as a pdf is fairly trivial. And LLMs read pdfs. And can analyze data. So... hours go by, playing around with feeding the summaries for the NC State, UCLA, Stanford, Louisville, and Florida games into the big 4. Some of the AI eccentricities showed up, like occasionally mis-counting things. (One AI caught another AI's error.) But overall, I think what I ended up with was accurate and significant enough to share this summary. (Again from Gemini. Don't know why. I use ChatGPT a lot, but for this, Gemini seemed better. I wasn't really going for a rigorous AI comparison!) So, for what it's worth:

Topic: Are We Seeing an Evolution in the "Hockey Line" Strategy?

After breaking down the play-by-play data from the NC State, UCLA, Stanford, Louisville, and Florida games, some distinct patterns are emerging regarding Coach Caldwell’s substitution philosophy. While the sample size is small (12 games total, 5 analyzed here), the data hints that the "system" is becoming less rigid and more situational, particularly in "winning time."

Here is a summary of the observable trends:

1. The Baseline: High-Volume "Platooning"​

In the early "stress test" games (NC State) and the recent loss to Louisville, the data shows a heavy reliance on swapping all 5 players at once (5-for-5).

  • vs. NC State: There were 11 separate 5-for-5 line changes.
  • vs. Louisville: There were 6 separate 5-for-5 line changes.
  • Observation: In both losses, the "Hockey Line" subs continued deep into the 4th Quarter regardless of the score or momentum.

2. The Adjustment: The Shift to 4-for-4​

In the road win at Stanford, we saw a noticeable behavior change. Instead of swapping everyone, Caldwell frequently kept one "anchor" player (often Talaysia Cooper) on the floor while swapping the other four.

  • vs. Stanford: There were only 3 5-for-5 swaps, but 11 4-for-4 swaps.
  • Significance: This suggests an attempt to maintain the "fresh legs" advantage of mass substitutions without completely resetting the lineup's chemistry.

3. The Closer: 4th Quarter Management​

This is where the biggest shift appears to be happening. We can contrast how the 4th Quarter was handled in close games:

  • NC State (Loss): Executed a full 5-for-5 swap with 3:36 remaining in a tight game.
  • Stanford (Win): Stopped all mass substitutions for the final 7 minutes.
  • Florida (Win): Stopped all mass substitutions for the entire 4th Quarter.

The Data: Mass Substitutions by Game​

GameResult5-for-5 Swaps4-for-4 Swaps4th Quarter Strategy
NC StateLoss116Rigid. Swapped 5 players with 3:36 left (game tied/close).
UCLALoss32Reactive. Abandoned system in Q2 & Q4 when trailing by double digits.
StanfordWin311Hybrid. Heavy use of 4-for-4. No mass subs in final 7 mins.
LouisvilleLoss62Rigid. Swapped 5 players with 7:05 left (down 18).
FloridaWin53Situational. Zero mass subs in Q4.

What the Hints Suggest​

The Louisville game appears to be an outlier where the "system" was applied strictly despite the deficit. However, the contrast between the NC State loss (rigid 4th quarter subs) and the Florida win (zero 4th quarter mass subs) suggests a potential calibration.

The Florida game may represent the "ideal" version of this strategy: use the platoon swaps for the first 30 minutes to wear the opponent down, then tighten the rotation to specific matchups to secure the win. We will need to see if this pattern holds in upcoming SEC games.
Click to expand...
My comments:
* Limited data set. Lots left to see.
* I do think the NC State game is a W in future years; Kim is learning and adjusting. She may still use cupcake games to test out line changes, different combinations, and such, but I bet she doesn't let an important win slip by in the future because of some dicey substitutions late in a close game. Remember, she wasn't advancing well in the Division II tournament much in her early years and she figured that out.
* Some of this may be affected by player availability. Until shown otherwise, I'm going to think Jersey's lack of minutes was all illness and she'll be getting some in the future. There may have been some player availability or reduced effectiveness issues for some of the other games that we just don't know about. Again, small data set. It'll average out over time.
* OVERALL: I see a marked reduction in mass substitutions in Louisville and Florida. UCLA was weird, but I'm guessing she had time to think and discuss with her assistant coaches between Stanford and Louisvlle and there has been some sort of policy change. This and the change in handling the fourth quarter are points to watch going forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Remy, th2421, LadyVolsDiehard and 2 others
#453
#453
RetroVol said:
Okay. I'm just having fun playing with LLMs. While walking today, I heard a youtuber make some claim about certain Tennessee players not producing well together because their styles conflict. It got me to thinking whether there might be a way to get an LLM to analyze that. Which led me to the play-by-play summaries on ESPN, and, voila!, they have time-stamped substitutions. it turns out copying those play-by-play summaries and pasting them into a Word document then saving as a pdf is fairly trivial. And LLMs read pdfs. And can analyze data. So... hours go by, playing around with feeding the summaries for the NC State, UCLA, Stanford, Louisville, and Florida games into the big 4. Some of the AI eccentricities showed up, like occasionally mis-counting things. (One AI caught another AI's error.) But overall, I think what I ended up with was accurate and significant enough to share this summary. (Again from Gemini. Don't know why. I use ChatGPT a lot, but for this, Gemini seemed better. I wasn't really going for a rigorous AI comparison!) So, for what it's worth:

Topic: Are We Seeing an Evolution in the "Hockey Line" Strategy?

After breaking down the play-by-play data from the NC State, UCLA, Stanford, Louisville, and Florida games, some distinct patterns are emerging regarding Coach Caldwell’s substitution philosophy. While the sample size is small (12 games total, 5 analyzed here), the data hints that the "system" is becoming less rigid and more situational, particularly in "winning time."

Here is a summary of the observable trends:

1. The Baseline: High-Volume "Platooning"​

In the early "stress test" games (NC State) and the recent loss to Louisville, the data shows a heavy reliance on swapping all 5 players at once (5-for-5).

  • vs. NC State: There were 11 separate 5-for-5 line changes.
  • vs. Louisville: There were 6 separate 5-for-5 line changes.
  • Observation: In both losses, the "Hockey Line" subs continued deep into the 4th Quarter regardless of the score or momentum.

2. The Adjustment: The Shift to 4-for-4​

In the road win at Stanford, we saw a noticeable behavior change. Instead of swapping everyone, Caldwell frequently kept one "anchor" player (often Talaysia Cooper) on the floor while swapping the other four.

  • vs. Stanford: There were only 3 5-for-5 swaps, but 11 4-for-4 swaps.
  • Significance: This suggests an attempt to maintain the "fresh legs" advantage of mass substitutions without completely resetting the lineup's chemistry.

3. The Closer: 4th Quarter Management​

This is where the biggest shift appears to be happening. We can contrast how the 4th Quarter was handled in close games:

  • NC State (Loss): Executed a full 5-for-5 swap with 3:36 remaining in a tight game.
  • Stanford (Win): Stopped all mass substitutions for the final 7 minutes.
  • Florida (Win): Stopped all mass substitutions for the entire 4th Quarter.

The Data: Mass Substitutions by Game​

GameResult5-for-5 Swaps4-for-4 Swaps4th Quarter Strategy
NC StateLoss116Rigid. Swapped 5 players with 3:36 left (game tied/close).
UCLALoss32Reactive. Abandoned system in Q2 & Q4 when trailing by double digits.
StanfordWin311Hybrid. Heavy use of 4-for-4. No mass subs in final 7 mins.
LouisvilleLoss62Rigid. Swapped 5 players with 7:05 left (down 18).
FloridaWin53Situational. Zero mass subs in Q4.

What the Hints Suggest​

The Louisville game appears to be an outlier where the "system" was applied strictly despite the deficit. However, the contrast between the NC State loss (rigid 4th quarter subs) and the Florida win (zero 4th quarter mass subs) suggests a potential calibration.

The Florida game may represent the "ideal" version of this strategy: use the platoon swaps for the first 30 minutes to wear the opponent down, then tighten the rotation to specific matchups to secure the win. We will need to see if this pattern holds in upcoming SEC games.
Click to expand...

Yum! I'll be gnawing on this hunk of info tenderloin for days! 😋
 
  • Like
Reactions: krichunaka, glv98 and chuckiepoo
#454
#454
glv98 said:
Great info, very interesting. Thanks!

So we both said this is an all or nothing system that couldn’t be piecemealed. Were we wrong? I guess we’re about to find out.
Click to expand...
We'll see. I don't think she can adjust the distribution of minutes as much as we saw against Florida and not also find some ways to let players ease off from what she has wanted in terms of effort. Does that mean "protecting" some players by where she plays them in the press? Is that even possible. Or just dialing the press up and down more? Don't know. I still think it's a system and requires systemic adjustments -- the knee bone is connected to the thigh bone, and so forth.

What I will say is I think she's extremely competitive and obsessed with basketball (though maybe a little less with Connor, and that may be good in the long run). I think she likes winning and hates losing more than she likes her system, although I think some principles in it -- pressure, players over plays, wanting her players to understand and adjust themselves and each other, delegating and relying on her assistant coaches, etc., -- will stay around in some form. It'll be interesting to see. And, golly, do I wish someone could ask better questions, maybe not in press briefings, but in interviews. The SI article was good, but there's a LOT more to ask about now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSanon, Momto2, 1reVOLver and 2 others
#455
#455
I think the fact that our players have been intentionally conditioned to play only a few consecutive minutes at a time could take quite a while (IMO) to re-condition them into playing more. It's the ol' battery memory thing. If I only ever discharge the battery by 10% before sticking it back on the charger every time, eventually it may completely lose power after only brief usage.

At one point last night Janiah Barker's battery went dead way before Kim wanted it to, but it really wasn't her fault. Her heart and lungs are conditioned to expect rest after only a few minutes.

We'll see what happens, but it's going to be stressful on the players either way I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Remy, volfan102455, LadyVolsDiehard and 6 others
#457
#457
I think what this system does bring is that it is really hard for the players to maintain effort. Tremendous effort in the first quarter and way less effort in the second quarter. I see some of the players that look like they could go forty minutes at a strong pace and others that can't manage to do it.

Going to be hard in this system to play 30 plus minutes twice a week and maintain a high level of effort. You really need to have 10 in this system and were still playing that many just six are now going longer at least that is what happened Thursday. I tried to see what was happening on the replay really hard to keep up, but looked like the rest were one minute or so after a three minute court time. It wasn't that way all the time, but you could basically play 30 minutes with ten one minute rest periods if that is the way you wanted to go. We were still subbing quite often just not keeping the top six off the court very long.

Something to think about is maybe the system works if you have a team that can maintain effort for forty minutes every night. That may be the flaw in the system if you don't have 10 players of equal ability which is something we do not have this season. So she is going big on six players see if they can keep that effort going with the increased minutes they are playing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo, th2421 and LadyVolsDiehard
#460
#460
RetroVol said:
My comments:
* Limited data set. Lots left to see.
* I do think the NC State game is a W in future years; Kim is learning and adjusting. She may still use cupcake games to test out line changes, different combinations, and such, but I bet she doesn't let an important win slip by in the future because of some dicey substitutions late in a close game. Remember, she wasn't advancing well in the Division II tournament much in her early years and she figured that out.
* Some of this may be affected by player availability. Until shown otherwise, I'm going to think Jersey's lack of minutes was all illness and she'll be getting some in the future. There may have been some player availability or reduced effectiveness issues for some of the other games that we just don't know about. Again, small data set. It'll average out over time.
* OVERALL: I see a marked reduction in mass substitutions in Louisville and Florida. UCLA was weird, but I'm guessing she had time to think and discuss with her assistant coaches between Stanford and Louisvlle and there has been some sort of policy change. This and the change in handling the fourth quarter are points to watch going forward.
Click to expand...
On subs and post game questions, I'd like to see this question asked to Kim. Scenario, if its say close to halftime, say 2 1/2 minutes and something like a review or tech has put the game to a 5 minute plus or so halt. Do you have someone looking at +/_ and just put the top 5 back in whether they were due to play the last 2 or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#463
#463
KTrain said:
On subs and post game questions, I'd like to see this question asked to Kim. Scenario, if its say close to halftime, say 2 1/2 minutes and something like a review or tech has put the game to a 5 minute plus or so halt. Do you have someone looking at +/_ and just put the top 5 back in whether they were due to play the last 2 or not.
Click to expand...
I have wondered about whether TV timeouts, and perhaps more and longer reviews, have an effect on the "wear them out" aspect of the press. Lots of breaks built into D1 games that a coach can't control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSanon, chuckiepoo, volsagain and 3 others
#464
#464
KTrain said:
On subs and post game questions, I'd like to see this question asked to Kim. Scenario, if its say close to halftime, say 2 1/2 minutes and something like a review or tech has put the game to a 5 minute plus or so halt. Do you have someone looking at +/_ and just put the top 5 back in whether they were due to play the last 2 or not.
Click to expand...
Are +/- stats calculated on an ongoing, in-game timeline, or is that something calculated in the aftermath of a game? I genuinely don't know so I'm asking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#466
#466
KTrain said:
On subs and post game questions, I'd like to see this question asked to Kim. Scenario, if its say close to halftime, say 2 1/2 minutes and something like a review or tech has put the game to a 5 minute plus or so halt. Do you have someone looking at +/_ and just put the top 5 back in whether they were due to play the last 2 or not.
Click to expand...
Great question. 🙋‍♂️ Definitely something we can watch for during he games.
 
#468
#468
RetroVol said:
I have wondered about whether TV timeouts, and perhaps more and longer reviews, have an effect on the "wear them out" aspect of the press. Lots of breaks built into D1 games that a coach can't control.
Click to expand...
Biggest difference moving up a Division, imo. Probably why its not as effective. Still has it’s potential, sprinkled cautiously into concepts and philisophy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Remy, 1reVOLver, sechamp2012 and 3 others
#469
#469
I asked the major LLMS to take a look at the play-by-play summaries for Tennessee's five big games so far this year: NCST, UCLA, Stanford, Louisville, and Florida. I wanted to know what happens when Tennessee takes a 3pt shot. Claude refused to look at that many images (5 multi-page pdfs). Grok pretended they only covered the first few minutes of each game (sheesh!). Gemini and ChatGPT both did the work. Gemini was faster, but in this case, I think I like ChatGPT's report better:


Game3PAMade 3Miss → Opp reboundMiss → OReb → scoredMiss → OReb → no score
NC State339 (27.3%)13 (39.4%)6 (18.2%)5 (15.2%)
UCLA3011 (36.7%)10 (33.3%)6 (20.0%)3 (10.0%)
Stanford265 (19.2%)12 (46.2%)5 (19.2%)4 (15.4%)
Louisville256 (24.0%)14 (56.0%)2 (8.0%)3 (12.0%)
Florida255 (20.0%)10 (40.0%)5 (20.0%)5 (20.0%)
TOTAL13936 (25.9%)59 (42.4%)24 (17.3%)20 (14.4%)

A couple of “so what?” rollups (useful context)

Across all missed Tennessee threes (103 misses total):
  • Offensive rebound rate on missed 3s: 44/103 = 42.7%
  • When they got the OReb, they scored on that extended possession: 24/44 = 54.5%
```
 
  • Like
Reactions: Remy, volsagain, chuckiepoo and 1 other person
#470
#470
RetroVol said:
I asked the major LLMS to take a look at the play-by-play summaries for Tennessee's five big games so far this year: NCST, UCLA, Stanford, Louisville, and Florida. I wanted to know what happens when Tennessee takes a 3pt shot. Claude refused to look at that many images (5 multi-page pdfs). Grok pretended they only covered the first few minutes of each game (sheesh!). Gemini and ChatGPT both did the work. Gemini was faster, but in this case, I think I like ChatGPT's report better:


Game3PAMade 3Miss → Opp reboundMiss → OReb → scoredMiss → OReb → no score
NC State339 (27.3%)13 (39.4%)6 (18.2%)5 (15.2%)
UCLA3011 (36.7%)10 (33.3%)6 (20.0%)3 (10.0%)
Stanford265 (19.2%)12 (46.2%)5 (19.2%)4 (15.4%)
Louisville256 (24.0%)14 (56.0%)2 (8.0%)3 (12.0%)
Florida255 (20.0%)10 (40.0%)5 (20.0%)5 (20.0%)
TOTAL13936 (25.9%)59 (42.4%)24 (17.3%)20 (14.4%)

A couple of “so what?” rollups (useful context)

Across all missed Tennessee threes (103 misses total):
  • Offensive rebound rate on missed 3s: 44/103 = 42.7%
  • When they got the OReb, they scored on that extended possession: 24/44 = 54.5%
```
Click to expand...
The System

…nice work. 😉🤙🏼🧡
 
#471
#471
Volfan2012 said:
I think what this system does bring is that it is really hard for the players to maintain effort. Tremendous effort in the first quarter and way less effort in the second quarter. I see some of the players that look like they could go forty minutes at a strong pace and others that can't manage to do it.

Going to be hard in this system to play 30 plus minutes twice a week and maintain a high level of effort. You really need to have 10 in this system and were still playing that many just six are now going longer at least that is what happened Thursday. I tried to see what was happening on the replay really hard to keep up, but looked like the rest were one minute or so after a three minute court time. It wasn't that way all the time, but you could basically play 30 minutes with ten one minute rest periods if that is the way you wanted to go. We were still subbing quite often just not keeping the top six off the court very long.

Something to think about is maybe the system works if you have a team that can maintain effort for forty minutes every night. That may be the flaw in the system if you don't have 10 players of equal ability which is something we do not have this season. So she is going big on six players see if they can keep that effort going with the increased minutes they are playing.
Click to expand...
What a gamble it would be to try to wring double the amount of continuous court time out of these players with the same or less amount of rest. A decade of experience and countless analytics have told Kim it’s two minutes max in this system before rest and recovery is needed. Were they wrong all that time? Probably not.

They wore legs out with the 2/2 system last year. What would we expect to happen if they’re playing three or four minute stints with heavy pressing? Especially when they haven’t trained for it.If she plays them longer, I think she just has to back off the press and use it strategically.

Im really tired of hearing the word “effort” It’s a sports cliché and easy solution, but doesn’t address the actual problem. The problem is the players, but not our players. It’s the opponents players and coaches that are the problem with this system. At the higher levels, they’re simply too good to consistently lose to this press and there’s no amount of “effort” or execution on the part of our players that is going to change that. Unfair to imply otherwise.

I do appreciate any attempts by CKC to be flexible and I think she will continue to do that to win games. I think we’ll see the system be much more intact tomorrow because Auburn is not very good. But I think we’ll see system-lite or system not really at all against the better teams.
RetroVol said:
pressure, players over plays, wanting her players to understand and adjust themselves and each other, delegating and relying on her assistant coaches, etc., -- will stay around in some form
Click to expand...
I think every coach in the world wants those things so yes, those general basic principles I’m sure will stay around longer than the press and mass subbing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarkPhoenix, lvocd and brittannica
#472
#472
glv98 said:
What a gamble it would be to try to wring double the amount of continuous court time out of these players with the same or less amount of rest. A decade of experience and countless analytics have told Kim it’s two minutes max in this system before rest and recovery is needed. Were they wrong all that time? Probably not.

They wore legs out with the 2/2 system last year. What would we expect to happen if they’re playing three or four minute stints with heavy pressing? Especially when they haven’t trained for it.If she plays them longer, I think she just has to back off the press and use it strategically.

Im really tired of hearing the word “effort” It’s a sports cliché and easy solution, but doesn’t address the actual problem. The problem is the players, but not our players. It’s the opponents players and coaches that are the problem with this system. At the higher levels, they’re simply too good to consistently lose to this press and there’s no amount of “effort” or execution on the part of our players that is going to change that. Unfair to imply otherwise.

I do appreciate any attempts by CKC to be flexible and I think she will continue to do that to win games. I think we’ll see the system be much more intact tomorrow because Auburn is not very good. But I think we’ll see system-lite or system not really at all against the better teams.

I think every coach in the world wants those things so yes, those general basic principles I’m sure will stay around longer than the press and mass subbing.
Click to expand...
I don't think six players can play all season and press like we do. She is going to need to use it less for sure if were going to six playing big minutes and four subbing them occasionally. What it does to teams with efficient ball handlers and teams with very efficient ball handlers we have all witnessed. So you have to determine the teams personnel and decide what type of game plan you want to follow.

Just me I would say fairly straight up against teams like Texas, Kentucky, SC, and LSU maybe even Vandy and Oklahoma. I think you can press Auburn quite a bit and use a lot of players. Same for Missouri some of the others.
Regardless of who your pressing or how much JMO I believe you have to stay away from the all out press of any SEC team and cover the back end. You have to always guard the rim just can't give up uncontested layups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: glv98, th2421, volsagain and 3 others
#473
#473
Volfan2012 said:
I don't think six players can play all season and press like we do. She is going to need to use it less for sure if were going to six playing big minutes and four subbing them occasionally. What it does to teams with efficient ball handlers and teams with very efficient ball handlers we have all witnessed. So you have to determine the teams personnel and decide what type of game plan you want to follow.

Just me I would say fairly straight up against teams like Texas, Kentucky, SC, and LSU maybe even Vandy and Oklahoma. I think you can press Auburn quite a bit and use a lot of players. Same for Missouri some of the others.
Regardless of who your pressing or how much JMO I believe you have to stay away from the all out press of any SEC team and cover the back end. You have to always guard the rim just can't give up uncontested layups.
Click to expand...
I think if you're pretty confident you can beat a team WITHOUT having to press tge whole game, why in the world would you have your team expend so much energy you need to conserve for when the opponents are even stronger?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSanon, krichunaka, glv98 and 4 others
#474
#474
lvocd said:
I think if you're pretty confident you can beat a team WITHOUT having to press tge whole game, why in the world would you have your team expend so much energy you need to conserve for when the opponents are even stronger?
Click to expand...

i asked myself this same question. why not implore it differently. And when we can call it off why not call it off. We don’t always need to call it off with 90 seconds left in the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: glv98
#475
#475
I think this discussion may beg a rethink from those saying there have not been any adjustments between or during games. Sometimes the adjustments are not as evident as switching from man to zone or calling off the press.
I also think that the fact that the team plays really well in spurts and really poorly in spurts indicates it's not the system causing the meltdowns. The problem may be in chemistry, buy-in, or something else, but, at times, the intensity seems to be lacking. Intensity is not the same as effort. You can put out effort but if your heart is not in it you won't perform s well as you do when it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo, LadyVolsDiehard, lvocd and 2 others
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top