The Kim Caldwell System

#901
#901
volfan102455 said:
You tried to disprove what Knight said to prove that CKC's system is great when Knights comment was all about taking "good shots".
Click to expand...
I don’t need to disprove what Knight said. His statement is self-disproving. The only way to redeem it is to pretend he meant something other than what he said. On its face, it is simply nonsense.

Anyway I don’t care about Knight, who is retired and didn’t coach the team I cheer for. I only used it to set the stage for the discussion.

And I am far from wanting to “prove KC system is great.” In the poll thread I voted I would have fired her. I only want to shift the conversation to something other than “Caldwell bad, other coaches good.” I find basketball theory interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volsagain, 1reVOLver and chuckiepoo
#902
#902
VintageFan said:
Posters on this board noted the energy and hustle of the TN players against Texas. And they shot 38% of their many three point shots. TX didn't make a three-pointer. But TN lost and Texas won. How do you explain that outcome?
Click to expand...
Tennessee turned the ball over 23 times in that game.

The one advantage to shooting early is to minimize turnovers. If turnovers didn’t exist, then of course you’d hold the ball for the best possible shot you could find. The main risk to waiting for a better shot is the risk of turning it over.

If you’re using that game as an example that “shoot early in the clock” doesn’t work, then you don’t understand the argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RespectAPA, volsagain and chuckiepoo
#903
#903
StepCross said:
I don’t need to disprove what Knight said. His statement is self-disproving. The only way to redeem it is to pretend he meant something other than what he said. On its face, it is simply nonsense.

Anyway I don’t care about Knight, who is retired and didn’t coach the team I cheer for. I only used it to set the stage for the discussion.

And I am far from wanting to “prove KC system is great.” In the poll thread I voted I would have fired her. I only want to shift the conversation to something other than “Caldwell bad, other coaches good.” I find basketball theory interesting.
Click to expand...
🤣🤣🤣🧐👍✅
 
#904
#904
StepCross said:
Tennessee turned the ball over 23 times in that game.

The one advantage to shooting early is to minimize turnovers. If turnovers didn’t exist, then of course you’d hold the ball for the best possible shot you could find. The main risk to waiting for a better shot is the risk of turning it over.

If you’re using that game as an example that “shoot early in the clock” doesn’t work, then you don’t understand the argument.
Click to expand...
Yer herding cats, dude/dudette.
Commendable effort, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volsagain, 1reVOLver and StepCross
#906
#906
volbeast33 said:
There is nothing wrong with Kim’s offensive style. Analytics tells us that you want to take three kinds of shots to play winning basketball. Three pointers, lay ups, and free throws.

The average mid range jumper % is 35% and short jumpers is 39% in women’s basketball

A bad three point % shooter at 29% should score 87 points in 100 FGA while a mid range jump shot would score 70 points in 100 FGA and a short jumper would score 78 points in 100 shots.

Our issue in the games that you mentioned were being out of position in our pressing defense and overall lack of hustle/intensity.

There is nothing wrong evidence that our style lowers 3 point shooting ability and in many cases it has increased the efficiency.
Click to expand...
I want some of whatever it is that you are smoking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: troopervol
#909
#909
Amb3096 said:
It may be desirable from that standpoint that they have a strong fanbase and facilities. But in terms of relevance? If you ask people on the streets to name the top women's basketball teams, the chances are that no one will answer Tennessee unless you're asking in Knoxville. They just aren't relevant anymore for the casual sports fan.

She whiffed on the portal and lost control of the upperclassmen. If anything, she should have sent a message to Barker, Cooper and Spearman that their body language and conduct was detrimental to the team and suspended them until they fixed their attitudes, W-L record be damned. What she ended up with was a bunch of players that clearly don't enjoy playing for her and with each other, and still the same crappy record she would have gotten had she sent a message to the upperclassman.

Honestly, the program is a literal dumpster fire right now until Kim learns to recruit for disposition as much as skill and how to motivate her players to get the best out of them. I have a hard time believing it's the system, since it worked so much better last year with a much less talented roster. Sure, they lost games, but they were always in them. This year's team does not have the same fight in them that they did last year, even with a couple of the players (Cooper, Spearman) were stallwarts from last year,
Click to expand...
Teams know how to execute against it and she will not change. They knew she didn't have shooters but she didn't.
 
#910
#910
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo, Chippo and yabbadabbado
#913
#913
If I was a player in the portal and thought I had enough talent to maybe make the pros, why would I come here when I can go to another school to develop my game skills in a system similar to the pros?

Talking about Bobby Knight. Apparently when he interviewed for the Indiana job he was asked what he would change. He said “Two things. First we will play by the rules (recruiting rules since Indiana was allegedly a little lax on recruiting rules) and we will learn to play defense. It does no good to score 80 points if the other team is scoring 85”.
I often think about the second part of his statement when I watch our opponent make layups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: troopervol, Smallvol#1, chuckiepoo and 3 others
#914
#914
SummittSoul said:
I know how much y'all love AI 😆. I asked AI to analyze Kim Caldwell's system: Analysis of Kim Caldwell's System .
Interesting. Reiterates what a lot of you have so aptly said.

It then asked me if I wanted to compare it to elite programs at this level. It chose the two comparison programs on its own, Dawn Stately and Kim Mulkey. The Caldwell System vs The Standard Formula at Elite Programs
Click to expand...
This is an excellent read! The hired clapbacks won't understand it. Thanks for trying to educate them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: troopervol, Smallvol#1, glv98 and 2 others
#915
#915
yabbadabbado said:
This is an excellent read! The hired clapbacks won't understand it. Thanks for trying to educate them.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I found it really helpful to my own understanding. I have probably underestimated how tough it must be for a player to reprogram what has become instinctual over years of how you think about the game because I would say that I've been holding on to some very traditional ideas when I watch the system at work, how players are performing within it etc. It takes a bit of a mindset shift.

In my judgement of the system, I was definitely looking at certain things through my existing lens. I naturally have a resistance to some components, like makes my whole body tense to see it in games or even read about it. But, that's the nature of change and trying to unwrap something that is deeply conditioned. I genuinely want to give understanding it a real shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcannon1, chuckiepoo, yabbadabbado and 1 other person
#916
#916
Interesting! My experience with AI is that it is that it's best to think about it as an alien intelligence. It does some things that really strike me as intelligent, but then it does some things that just seem alien.

Remember that ChatGPT has never watched a basketball game. Unless you're careful with model usage and prompting, it's not even very consistent about getting facts right. REALLY good for somethings, REALLY bad for others, REALLY inconsistent, and hard to know where.

I agreed with some parts, thought some were off base, and felt like it raised some interesting questions to pursue. Unfortunately, with ChatGPT, those "questions to pursue" come in the form of "confident statements about reality." Ultimately, as was said at the end of Ready Player One: "Reality is the only thing that's real."
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo, JL1231 and SummittSoul
#918
#918
It's hard to find a team that lost more games than they won while shooting a high volume of 3s. It's even more difficult to find a team that lost more games than they won while shooting a high volume of 3s and rebounding inside the top-300.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RetroVol
#921
#921
RetroVol said:
I'd be interested in more on this if you got it.
Click to expand...

Sure. If we look at the top 35 last year in 3 point volume (all shooting more than 25 threes per game, regardless of percentage they made, not cherrypicking for that), 26 of them were >.500, and only 9 were <.500.

Out of the 9 who were under .500, six of those had fewer than 10 offensive rebounds per game, and were outside the top 300 in that stat. The exceptions were Florida State (100th in oRBs), Cal-State Northridge (121st), and Coastal Carolina (82nd).

Offensive rebounding and 3 point volume synergize very well. When you're matched up against a team you're rebounding very well on, you need to push up your 3 point volume. When you're matched up against a team that's beating you on the boards, you need to push up your FG%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RetroVol
#922
#922
This seemed like the proper place to post this video on the LV program, fair points made on both sides. I would lean on the side that feels she deserves another year to work it out. It’s debatable, and a contentious topic but a solid watch.



SIAP: I haven’t been following the threads much lately as I head into the offseason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulect and 1reVOLver
#923
#923
RespectAPA said:
Sure. If we look at the top 35 last year in 3 point volume (all shooting more than 25 threes per game, regardless of percentage they made, not cherrypicking for that), 26 of them were >.500, and only 9 were <.500.

Out of the 9 who were under .500, six of those had fewer than 10 offensive rebounds per game, and were outside the top 300 in that stat. The exceptions were Florida State (100th in oRBs), Cal-State Northridge (121st), and Coastal Carolina (82nd).

Offensive rebounding and 3 point volume synergize very well. When you're matched up against a team you're rebounding very well on, you need to push up your 3 point volume. When you're matched up against a team that's beating you on the boards, you need to push up your FG%.
Click to expand...
Is the bar simply above .500? Your metrics show it certainly achieves that most often. What do those metrics show for conference championships or even top three conference standings, say in P4 conferences? UT was above .500 last season, yet few are happy right now about the season that just ended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo, 1reVOLver, glv98 and 1 other person
#924
#924
Rooster1 said:
Is the bar simply above .500? Your metrics show it certainly achieves that most often. What do those metrics show for conference championships or even top three conference standings, say in P4 conferences? UT was above .500 last season, yet few are happy right now about the season that just ended.
Click to expand...
When you look strictly at volume, you have to get to Vanderbilt at number 18 in order to get to a program with real name recognition. Vandy made 36.3% of its 3 point attempts on 26 attempts per game, which definitely puts it at the high-end of this group for made 3 percentage. Kentucky is number 33 on the list and they made about 33% of their average 25 3 point shots per game.

edited to add – obviously Tennessee is also in this list and has name recognition. But your question was about the power four conferences or championships.
 
#925
#925
Rooster1 said:
Is the bar simply above .500? Your metrics show it certainly achieves that most often. What do those metrics show for conference championships or even top three conference standings, say in P4 conferences? UT was above .500 last season, yet few are happy right now about the season that just ended.
Click to expand...
One other note… Montana was sixth on the list for volume. The record for the year was 9 wins and 22 losses. They average 29 three point shots per game and made 31% of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo, brittannica and glv98
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top