The Kim Caldwell System

[RetroVol]

Umm... okay, a lot to look at here, but ChatGPT's analysis of substitution patterns in the Kentucky game is startling, and suggests Kim may not be as far away from her system, at least in terms of frequent substitutions, if not wave substitutions as we thought. Keep going until you get to the analysis of Kentucky's substitution pattern to get the real impact.

TL/DR: KY's starting lineup played together for 22:51 and was +10. KY played 7 lineups. TN's longest lineup was 7:42 and -1. We played 21 different lineups - and won with the one-offs.

Here are minutes played (team-clock minutes) for each lineup code I used in the Kentucky wave report, plus each lineup’s cumulative +/- from Tennessee’s perspective (i.e., change in TENN–UK margin while that lineup was on the floor). Totals reconcile to a 40:00 game and a +2 final margin (60–58).

Named lineup codes​

Code	Minutes​	+/-​	Lineup
B	7:42​	-1​	Alyssa Latham, Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Mia Pauldo, Nya Robertson
C	4:40​	+5​	Alyssa Latham, Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper
A	3:08​	-3​	Kaniya Boyd, Lauren Hurst, Mya Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper, Zee Spearman
S	2:55​	0​	Alyssa Latham, Deniya Prawl, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper, Zee Spearman
D	2:52​	+2​	Alyssa Latham, Kaniya Boyd, Mia Pauldo, Nya Robertson, Zee Spearman
CL	2:24​	0​	Alyssa Latham, Mia Pauldo, Nya Robertson, Talaysia Cooper, Zee Spearman
W	1:29​	-1​	Jersey Wolfenbarger, Kaniya Boyd, Lauren Hurst, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper
E	0:58​	-2​	Alyssa Latham, Jaida Civil, Mia Pauldo, Nya Robertson, Zee Spearman
A′	0:28​	0​	Kaniya Boyd, Lauren Hurst, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper, Zee Spearman

Named-code total: 26:36 of game time, net +/- = 0

One-off lineups (X codes)​

These are the “uncoded” combinations that showed up in the substitution log but weren’t part of the main code set.

Code	Minutes​	+/-​	Lineup
X10	3:53​	0​	Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Mia Pauldo, Nya Robertson, Zee Spearman
X11	3:08​	+2​	Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper, Zee Spearman
X8	1:05​	-1​	Alyssa Latham, Kaniya Boyd, Mia Pauldo, Mya Pauldo, Zee Spearman
X1	0:58​	+1​	Alyssa Latham, Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Kaniya Boyd, Nya Robertson
X7	0:57​	0​	Alyssa Latham, Jaida Civil, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper, Zee Spearman
X4	0:56​	0​	Alyssa Latham, Deniya Prawl, Mia Pauldo, Nya Robertson, Talaysia Cooper
X5	0:51​	-3​	Alyssa Latham, Jaida Civil, Jersey Wolfenbarger, Mia Pauldo, Nya Robertson
X12	0:45​	+2​	Deniya Prawl, Jersey Wolfenbarger, Kaniya Boyd, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper
X2	0:19​	+1​	Alyssa Latham, Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Mia Pauldo, Zee Spearman
X3	0:14​	0​	Alyssa Latham, Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Nya Robertson, Talaysia Cooper
X9	0:10​	0​	Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Jersey Wolfenbarger, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper
X6	0:08​	0​	Alyssa Latham, Jaida Civil, Jersey Wolfenbarger, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper

X-lineups total: 13:24, net +/- = +2

What this says (no sugar-coating)​

• Tennessee won this game (+2) entirely in the “mixed/one-off” space: the X lineups were +2, while your “main code” lineups netted 0.
• The best sustained coded unit was C at +5 in 4:40.
• The biggest coded drag was A at -3 in 3:08.

Here’s the Kentucky lineup unit breakdown (minutes + cumulative +/-) for the 1/22/2026 Tennessee–Kentucky game, computed from the Kentucky “subbing in/out” lines in your play-by-play.

Sign convention: +/- is from Kentucky’s perspective = change in UK − TENN margin while that 5-player unit was on the floor.
So positive = Kentucky won that stretch, negative = Tennessee won it.

Kentucky lineup codes​

• K0 (Starters): Tonie Morgan, Asia Boone, Amelia Hassett, Jordan Obi, Clara Strack
• K1: Tonie Morgan, Lexi Blue, Amelia Hassett, Jordan Obi, Clara Strack
• K2: Tonie Morgan, Lexi Blue, Asia Boone, Amelia Hassett, Jordan Obi
• K3: Tonie Morgan, Lexi Blue, Kaelyn Carroll, Amelia Hassett, Clara Strack
• K4: Tonie Morgan, Lexi Blue, Asia Boone, Amelia Hassett, Clara Strack
• K5: Tonie Morgan, Lexi Blue, Asia Boone, Jordan Obi, Clara Strack
• K6: Lexi Blue, Kaelyn Carroll, Asia Boone, Amelia Hassett, Jordan Obi (no Morgan, no Strack)

Minutes played + cumulative +/-​

Code	Minutes​	KY +/-​
K0	22:51​	+10​
K1	6:51​	-2​
K2	4:31​	-5​
K3	2:09​	-3​
K4	1:36​	-2​
K5	1:17​	+2​
K6	0:45​	-2​

What it says (bluntly)​

• Kentucky’s starters (K0) were +10 in 22:51.
• Every other Kentucky unit combined was -12 in 17:09.
• Net: -2 overall, which matches the final (UK 58, TENN 60).

If you want, I can also list every Kentucky stint (start time → end time, score/margin change) so you can see exactly where those -12 bench minutes happened.

 

[RetroVol]

Claude, analyzing ESPN play-by-play summaries:

Tennessee 3-Point Possession Outcomes (2024-25 Season)
1,054 total possessions with a 3-point attempt

Outcome	Count	Percentage
Made 3-pointer	343	32.5%
Missed 3, opponent rebounded	397	37.7%
Missed 3 → OREB → scored	135	12.8%
Missed 3 → OREB → drew foul	57	5.4%
Missed 3 → OREB → did not score	122	11.6%

Key Metrics:

• 3-Point Shooting %: 32.5% (343-1054)
• Offensive Rebound Rate on Missed 3s: 44.2%
• Scoring Rate on OREB Possessions: 43.0%

---

Year-Over-Year Comparison: 2024-25 vs 2025-26

Metric	2024-25	2025-26	Change
Total 3PA	1,054	564	-490*
3-Point %	32.5%	30.0%	-2.5%
Missed, opponent rebounded	37.7%	41.5%	+3.8%
OREB → scored	12.8%	11.2%	-1.6%
OREB → drew foul	5.4%	6.2%	+0.8%
OREB → did not score	11.6%	11.2%	-0.4%
OREB Rate on Missed 3s	44.2%	40.8%	-3.4%
Scoring Rate on OREBs	43.0%	39.1%	-3.9%

*2025-26 season still in progress

Analysis:

The 2025-26 Lady Vols are showing some regression in their 3-point possession efficiency compared to last year's Elite Eight squad:

1. Shooting decline: 3P% has dropped from 32.5% to 30.0%, a meaningful 2.5 percentage point decrease that shifts more possessions into the "missed" category.
   
2. Rebounding regression: The offensive rebound rate on missed threes has fallen from an elite 44.2% to a still-excellent 40.8%. Tennessee is getting fewer second chances than they did in 2024-25.
   
3. Second-chance conversion down: When they do get offensive rebounds, they're converting at 39.1% vs 43.0% last year. This compounds the lower OREB rate.
   
4. Net effect: Last year, 45.3% of 3PA possessions resulted in points (made 3 + OREB scored). This year it's down to 41.2% — a 4+ point drop in possession efficiency on three-point attempts.

The system still works — 40.8% OREB rate on missed threes remains exceptional compared to typical teams — but the execution isn't quite at last year's level yet.

 

[chuckiepoo]

Claude, analyzing ESPN play-by-play summaries:

Tennessee 3-Point Possession Outcomes (2024-25 Season)
1,054 total possessions with a 3-point attempt

Outcome	Count	Percentage
Made 3-pointer	343	32.5%
Missed 3, opponent rebounded	397	37.7%
Missed 3 → OREB → scored	135	12.8%
Missed 3 → OREB → drew foul	57	5.4%
Missed 3 → OREB → did not score	122	11.6%

Key Metrics:

• 3-Point Shooting %: 32.5% (343-1054)
• Offensive Rebound Rate on Missed 3s: 44.2%
• Scoring Rate on OREB Possessions: 43.0%

---

Year-Over-Year Comparison: 2024-25 vs 2025-26

Metric	2024-25	2025-26	Change
Total 3PA	1,054	564	-490*
3-Point %	32.5%	30.0%	-2.5%
Missed, opponent rebounded	37.7%	41.5%	+3.8%
OREB → scored	12.8%	11.2%	-1.6%
OREB → drew foul	5.4%	6.2%	+0.8%
OREB → did not score	11.6%	11.2%	-0.4%
OREB Rate on Missed 3s	44.2%	40.8%	-3.4%
Scoring Rate on OREBs	43.0%	39.1%	-3.9%

*2025-26 season still in progress

Analysis:

The 2025-26 Lady Vols are showing some regression in their 3-point possession efficiency compared to last year's Elite Eight squad:

1. Shooting decline: 3P% has dropped from 32.5% to 30.0%, a meaningful 2.5 percentage point decrease that shifts more possessions into the "missed" category.
2. Rebounding regression: The offensive rebound rate on missed threes has fallen from an elite 44.2% to a still-excellent 40.8%. Tennessee is getting fewer second chances than they did in 2024-25.
3. Second-chance conversion down: When they do get offensive rebounds, they're converting at 39.1% vs 43.0% last year. This compounds the lower OREB rate.
4. Net effect: Last year, 45.3% of 3PA possessions resulted in points (made 3 + OREB scored). This year it's down to 41.2% — a 4+ point drop in possession efficiency on three-point attempts.

The system still works — 40.8% OREB rate on missed threes remains exceptional compared to typical teams — but the execution isn't quite at last year's level yet.

Excellent! We oughtta hire that guy…

 

[chuckiepoo]

Claude, analyzing ESPN play-by-play summaries:

Tennessee 3-Point Possession Outcomes (2024-25 Season)
1,054 total possessions with a 3-point attempt

Outcome	Count	Percentage
Made 3-pointer	343	32.5%
Missed 3, opponent rebounded	397	37.7%
Missed 3 → OREB → scored	135	12.8%
Missed 3 → OREB → drew foul	57	5.4%
Missed 3 → OREB → did not score	122	11.6%

Key Metrics:

• 3-Point Shooting %: 32.5% (343-1054)
• Offensive Rebound Rate on Missed 3s: 44.2%
• Scoring Rate on OREB Possessions: 43.0%

---

Year-Over-Year Comparison: 2024-25 vs 2025-26

Metric	2024-25	2025-26	Change
Total 3PA	1,054	564	-490*
3-Point %	32.5%	30.0%	-2.5%
Missed, opponent rebounded	37.7%	41.5%	+3.8%
OREB → scored	12.8%	11.2%	-1.6%
OREB → drew foul	5.4%	6.2%	+0.8%
OREB → did not score	11.6%	11.2%	-0.4%
OREB Rate on Missed 3s	44.2%	40.8%	-3.4%
Scoring Rate on OREBs	43.0%	39.1%	-3.9%

*2025-26 season still in progress

Analysis:

The 2025-26 Lady Vols are showing some regression in their 3-point possession efficiency compared to last year's Elite Eight squad:

1. Shooting decline: 3P% has dropped from 32.5% to 30.0%, a meaningful 2.5 percentage point decrease that shifts more possessions into the "missed" category.
2. Rebounding regression: The offensive rebound rate on missed threes has fallen from an elite 44.2% to a still-excellent 40.8%. Tennessee is getting fewer second chances than they did in 2024-25.
3. Second-chance conversion down: When they do get offensive rebounds, they're converting at 39.1% vs 43.0% last year. This compounds the lower OREB rate.
4. Net effect: Last year, 45.3% of 3PA possessions resulted in points (made 3 + OREB scored). This year it's down to 41.2% — a 4+ point drop in possession efficiency on three-point attempts.

The system still works — 40.8% OREB rate on missed threes remains exceptional compared to typical teams — but the execution isn't quite at last year's level yet.

…the bad news is we’re headed into the meat of the schedule.

 

[gule]

we ain't skeered

 

[RetroVol]

Excellent! We oughtta hire that guy…

Claude works for juice.

 

[chuckiepoo]

Claude works for juice.

I heard he’s ravenous…

 

[Rooster1]

Claude, analyzing ESPN play-by-play summaries:

Tennessee 3-Point Possession Outcomes (2024-25 Season)
1,054 total possessions with a 3-point attempt

Outcome	Count	Percentage
Made 3-pointer	343	32.5%
Missed 3, opponent rebounded	397	37.7%
Missed 3 → OREB → scored	135	12.8%
Missed 3 → OREB → drew foul	57	5.4%
Missed 3 → OREB → did not score	122	11.6%

Key Metrics:

• 3-Point Shooting %: 32.5% (343-1054)
• Offensive Rebound Rate on Missed 3s: 44.2%
• Scoring Rate on OREB Possessions: 43.0%

---

Year-Over-Year Comparison: 2024-25 vs 2025-26

Metric	2024-25	2025-26	Change
Total 3PA	1,054	564	-490*
3-Point %	32.5%	30.0%	-2.5%
Missed, opponent rebounded	37.7%	41.5%	+3.8%
OREB → scored	12.8%	11.2%	-1.6%
OREB → drew foul	5.4%	6.2%	+0.8%
OREB → did not score	11.6%	11.2%	-0.4%
OREB Rate on Missed 3s	44.2%	40.8%	-3.4%
Scoring Rate on OREBs	43.0%	39.1%	-3.9%

*2025-26 season still in progress

Analysis:

The 2025-26 Lady Vols are showing some regression in their 3-point possession efficiency compared to last year's Elite Eight squad:

1. Shooting decline: 3P% has dropped from 32.5% to 30.0%, a meaningful 2.5 percentage point decrease that shifts more possessions into the "missed" category.
2. Rebounding regression: The offensive rebound rate on missed threes has fallen from an elite 44.2% to a still-excellent 40.8%. Tennessee is getting fewer second chances than they did in 2024-25.
3. Second-chance conversion down: When they do get offensive rebounds, they're converting at 39.1% vs 43.0% last year. This compounds the lower OREB rate.
4. Net effect: Last year, 45.3% of 3PA possessions resulted in points (made 3 + OREB scored). This year it's down to 41.2% — a 4+ point drop in possession efficiency on three-point attempts.

The system still works — 40.8% OREB rate on missed threes remains exceptional compared to typical teams — but the execution isn't quite at last year's level yet.

Elite 8?

 

[chuckiepoo]

Elite 8?

Nice catch!

 

[1reVOLver]

I heard he’s ravenous…

Don’t anthropomorphize computers. They hate it.

And watch what you say about them!

 

[LVFL78]

Umm... okay, a lot to look at here, but ChatGPT's analysis of substitution patterns in the Kentucky game is startling, and suggests Kim may not be as far away from her system, at least in terms of frequent substitutions, if not wave substitutions as we thought. Keep going until you get to the analysis of Kentucky's substitution pattern to get the real impact.

TL/DR: KY's starting lineup played together for 22:51 and was +10. KY played 7 lineups. TN's longest lineup was 7:42 and -1. We played 21 different lineups - and won with the one-offs.

Here are minutes played (team-clock minutes) for each lineup code I used in the Kentucky wave report, plus each lineup’s cumulative +/- from Tennessee’s perspective (i.e., change in TENN–UK margin while that lineup was on the floor). Totals reconcile to a 40:00 game and a +2 final margin (60–58).

Named lineup codes​

Code	Minutes​	+/-​	Lineup
B	7:42​	-1​	Alyssa Latham, Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Mia Pauldo, Nya Robertson
C	4:40​	+5​	Alyssa Latham, Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper
A	3:08​	-3​	Kaniya Boyd, Lauren Hurst, Mya Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper, Zee Spearman
S	2:55​	0​	Alyssa Latham, Deniya Prawl, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper, Zee Spearman
D	2:52​	+2​	Alyssa Latham, Kaniya Boyd, Mia Pauldo, Nya Robertson, Zee Spearman
CL	2:24​	0​	Alyssa Latham, Mia Pauldo, Nya Robertson, Talaysia Cooper, Zee Spearman
W	1:29​	-1​	Jersey Wolfenbarger, Kaniya Boyd, Lauren Hurst, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper
E	0:58​	-2​	Alyssa Latham, Jaida Civil, Mia Pauldo, Nya Robertson, Zee Spearman
A′	0:28​	0​	Kaniya Boyd, Lauren Hurst, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper, Zee Spearman

Named-code total: 26:36 of game time, net +/- = 0

One-off lineups (X codes)​

These are the “uncoded” combinations that showed up in the substitution log but weren’t part of the main code set.

Code	Minutes​	+/-​	Lineup
X10	3:53​	0​	Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Mia Pauldo, Nya Robertson, Zee Spearman
X11	3:08​	+2​	Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper, Zee Spearman
X8	1:05​	-1​	Alyssa Latham, Kaniya Boyd, Mia Pauldo, Mya Pauldo, Zee Spearman
X1	0:58​	+1​	Alyssa Latham, Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Kaniya Boyd, Nya Robertson
X7	0:57​	0​	Alyssa Latham, Jaida Civil, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper, Zee Spearman
X4	0:56​	0​	Alyssa Latham, Deniya Prawl, Mia Pauldo, Nya Robertson, Talaysia Cooper
X5	0:51​	-3​	Alyssa Latham, Jaida Civil, Jersey Wolfenbarger, Mia Pauldo, Nya Robertson
X12	0:45​	+2​	Deniya Prawl, Jersey Wolfenbarger, Kaniya Boyd, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper
X2	0:19​	+1​	Alyssa Latham, Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Mia Pauldo, Zee Spearman
X3	0:14​	0​	Alyssa Latham, Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Nya Robertson, Talaysia Cooper
X9	0:10​	0​	Deniya Prawl, Jaida Civil, Jersey Wolfenbarger, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper
X6	0:08​	0​	Alyssa Latham, Jaida Civil, Jersey Wolfenbarger, Mia Pauldo, Talaysia Cooper

X-lineups total: 13:24, net +/- = +2

What this says (no sugar-coating)​

• Tennessee won this game (+2) entirely in the “mixed/one-off” space: the X lineups were +2, while your “main code” lineups netted 0.
• The best sustained coded unit was C at +5 in 4:40.
• The biggest coded drag was A at -3 in 3:08.

Here’s the Kentucky lineup unit breakdown (minutes + cumulative +/-) for the 1/22/2026 Tennessee–Kentucky game, computed from the Kentucky “subbing in/out” lines in your play-by-play.

Sign convention: +/- is from Kentucky’s perspective = change in UK − TENN margin while that 5-player unit was on the floor.
So positive = Kentucky won that stretch, negative = Tennessee won it.

Kentucky lineup codes​

• K0 (Starters): Tonie Morgan, Asia Boone, Amelia Hassett, Jordan Obi, Clara Strack
• K1: Tonie Morgan, Lexi Blue, Amelia Hassett, Jordan Obi, Clara Strack
• K2: Tonie Morgan, Lexi Blue, Asia Boone, Amelia Hassett, Jordan Obi
• K3: Tonie Morgan, Lexi Blue, Kaelyn Carroll, Amelia Hassett, Clara Strack
• K4: Tonie Morgan, Lexi Blue, Asia Boone, Amelia Hassett, Clara Strack
• K5: Tonie Morgan, Lexi Blue, Asia Boone, Jordan Obi, Clara Strack
• K6: Lexi Blue, Kaelyn Carroll, Asia Boone, Amelia Hassett, Jordan Obi (no Morgan, no Strack)

Minutes played + cumulative +/-​

Code	Minutes​	KY +/-​
K0	22:51​	+10​
K1	6:51​	-2​
K2	4:31​	-5​
K3	2:09​	-3​
K4	1:36​	-2​
K5	1:17​	+2​
K6	0:45​	-2​

What it says (bluntly)​

• Kentucky’s starters (K0) were +10 in 22:51.
• Every other Kentucky unit combined was -12 in 17:09.
• Net: -2 overall, which matches the final (UK 58, TENN 60).

If you want, I can also list every Kentucky stint (start time → end time, score/margin change) so you can see exactly where those -12 bench minutes happened.

good work.. whats the best 5 to close out the 2nd quarter, start the 3rd quarter and to play the last 4-5 minutes of the game without a sub?

 

[RetroVol]

good work.. whats the best 5 to close out the 2nd quarter, start the 3rd quarter and to play the last 4-5 minutes of the game without a sub?

I don't know, and hard to say from one game, especially where Barker was out.

That said, I'm going to add some to my questions I'd like to see asked of Coach Kim after the season:

1. Coach, you substitute much more frequently than other teams, and not only in "hockey line" 5-5 substitutions, but in 4-4, 3-3, etc. And there is a lot of variation in which players are substituted for which. You have said that you do not handle substitutions. Is that still true?

2. What guides in-game decisions about substitutions, and has that guidance changed based on your first two years in the SEC?

3. [If the season ended today]: Lazaria Spearman didn't have the type of year I'm sure she and you wanted this year with the drop in her offensive efficiency. She also played 3-on-3 ball internationally before the season. Do you think that had a negative effect on her game this season, or do you see some other reason for the decline in her performance?

4. This year's team didn't have the 3-point shooting that the 24-25 team got from Spear, Spencer, and Darby, and they also struggled offensively. In fact, you said before the season you were looking for 10 more points per game this year, and that didn't happen. How are you thinking about Tennessee's offensive attack for next season, and do you have the players to execute that approach?

 

[gule]

If you get to ask those questions to CKC, where would you want to be buried? lol

 

[chuckiepoo]

I don't know, and hard to say from one game, especially where Barker was out.

That said, I'm going to add some to my questions I'd like to see asked of Coach Kim after the season:

1. Coach, you substitute much more frequently than other teams, and not only in "hockey line" 5-5 substitutions, but in 4-4, 3-3, etc. And there is a lot of variation in which players are substituted for which. You have said that you do not handle substitutions. Is that still true?

2. What guides in-game decisions about substitutions, and has that guidance changed based on your first two years in the SEC?

3. [If the season ended today]: Lazaria Spearman didn't have the type of year I'm sure she and you wanted this year with the drop in her offensive efficiency. She also played 3-on-3 ball internationally before the season. Do you think that had a negative effect on her game this season, or do you see some other reason for the decline in her performance?

4. This year's team didn't have the 3-point shooting that the 24-25 team got from Spear, Spencer, and Darby, and they also struggled offensively. In fact, you said before the season you were looking for 10 more points per game this year, and that didn't happen. How are you thinking about Tennessee's offensive attack for next season, and do you have the players to execute that approach?

Ruthless…

 

[chuckiepoo]

If you get to ask those questions to CKC, where would you want to be buried? lol

 

[NeedOrange]

The system still works

When compared to itself it appears to work. Try running comparisons against other systems. 46% of LV FG attempts are from 3. do a comparison of the current score totals verses a more conventional 35% 3-point attempt rate using the current make percentages and see which team scores better.

 

[RetroVol]

If you get to ask those questions to CKC, where would you want to be buried? lol

No guts, no glory. Just needs a real journalist.

 

[RetroVol]

When compared to itself it appears to work. Try running comparisons against other systems. 46% of LV FG attempts are from 3. do a comparison of the current score totals verses a more conventional 35% 3-point attempt rate using the current make percentages and see which team scores better.

The real comparison of Kim's approach to other approaches has been where it counts -- on the floor. Yes, I know, D2. Then Marshall. Then last year at UT. But look at how Glenville State and Marshall did after she left. Overall, her record gives her credibility.

There's been a lot of commenting on this board this year that she would have done better with this year's roster with a more traditional approach. Anyone want to make that claim for last year's roster?

As for the analysis you suggest, if I understand it, I think you have to look at what happens when they take a three. Misses don't always lead to bad results. And, what kind of two? A layup or a jumper? Yeah, take all the layups you can get, and a chunk of ours come from steals off the press. But the 2 point jumper? Lowest efficiency shot in basketball. Take it only when absolutely necessary.

I think the claim that, "If we only took fewer threes, we would win more," is a tough argument to back up with data. On the other hand, the argument that we need to adjust who our primary three point shooters are is crystal clear.

 

[LVFL78]

I don't know, and hard to say from one game, especially where Barker was out.

That said, I'm going to add some to my questions I'd like to see asked of Coach Kim after the season:

1. Coach, you substitute much more frequently than other teams, and not only in "hockey line" 5-5 substitutions, but in 4-4, 3-3, etc. And there is a lot of variation in which players are substituted for which. You have said that you do not handle substitutions. Is that still true?

2. What guides in-game decisions about substitutions, and has that guidance changed based on your first two years in the SEC?

3. [If the season ended today]: Lazaria Spearman didn't have the type of year I'm sure she and you wanted this year with the drop in her offensive efficiency. She also played 3-on-3 ball internationally before the season. Do you think that had a negative effect on her game this season, or do you see some other reason for the decline in her performance?

4. This year's team didn't have the 3-point shooting that the 24-25 team got from Spear, Spencer, and Darby, and they also struggled offensively. In fact, you said before the season you were looking for 10 more points per game this year, and that didn't happen. How are you thinking about Tennessee's offensive attack for next season, and do you have the players to execute that approach?

Kim doesn’t handle subs…it’s her assistant That came over from Glenville state. Subs are pr determined more than likely rather than feel.. the only feel is more than likely from fouls… this imo where the chances need to happen. If a matchup is in in favor of us… then we have to take advatags… when we go on a run… ride it for another min to 2… If a player is playing like dogshit then skip their turn the next schedule sub you have for her… if a player has hit 2-3 threes in a row.. ride her For another pattern. the coach subbing is lacking the feel for the game… the flow… and the reading of who ja playing well within the momen… the mass subbing doesn’t bother me it’s the above stuff that I feel like coach B is lacking. Each game and each quarter and each 4-5 mins are very important for the coach to read/ feel/ and have knowledge of what’s going on… for example, If a certain player is taking a bad shots not within the offense or not sharing the ball or pressing like you want… you punish and reward who is… right now regardlless the top 10 players know they are going to play regardless so that the downside… but you can still reward and punish within the system without them knowing.

 

[LVFL78]

Kim doesn’t handle subs…it’s her assistant That came over from Glenville state. Subs are pr determined more than likely rather than feel.. the only feel is more than likely from fouls… this imo where the chances need to happen. If a matchup is in in favor of us… then we have to take advatags… when we go on a run… ride it for another min to 2… If a player is playing like dogshit then skip their turn the next schedule sub you have for her… if a player has hit 2-3 threes in a row.. ride her For another pattern. the coach subbing is lacking the feel for the game… the flow… and the reading of who ja playing well within the momen… the mass subbing doesn’t bother me it’s the above stuff that I feel like coach B is lacking. Each game and each quarter and each 4-5 mins are very important for the coach to read/ feel/ and have knowledge of what’s going on… for example, If a certain player is taking a bad shots not within the offense or not sharing the ball or pressing like you want… you punish and reward who is… right now regardlless the top 10 players know they are going to play regardless so that the downside… but you can still reward and punish within the system without them knowing.

The fastest way to your Brain Is your butt.

 

[RetroVol]

Kim doesn’t handle subs…it’s her assistant That came over from Glenville state.

I know it was said to be that way. Am curious if it still is. I think answers to the questions above would help us understand more.

 

[chuckiepoo]

The fastest way to your Brain Is your butt.

Hmm… put your hand on my thigh… or closer to my loins….

 

[sgacock]

Hmm… put your hand on my thigh… or closer to my loins….

That’s the off switch for the male brain.

 

[creekdipper]

The fastest way to your Brain Is your butt.

Keep your friends close and your enemas closer.

 

[Rooster1]

When compared to itself it appears to work. Try running comparisons against other systems. 46% of LV FG attempts are from 3. do a comparison of the current score totals verses a more conventional 35% 3-point attempt rate using the current make percentages and see which team scores better.

Here is the rankings for WBB by 3P% of shots taken. You can see that none of the P4 teams outside of UT shoot the 3 at that high of a rate. It’s an interesting list to be sure.

Verifying Browser...