The Kim Caldwell System

[RespectAPA]

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.

The P4 teams in the top 35 are Florida State, Tennessee, Oklahoma State, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Utah, and BYU.

Just outside the bar were Villanova at 36th, and TCU at 38th in 3 volume, who had a great years, and.... Mizzou at 44th in 3 volume (but the Tigers were 353th in the NCAA in offensive rebounds, 7th worst nationally, so that fits my secondary point, at least!)

The mid-majors among the list of 26 include quite a few teams who well exceded the line of .500 -- Fairfield, FDU, Richmond, Marshall, Murray State, Montana State, Belmont, and Arkansas State all had strong years, and quite a few more were in the 20+ wins range.

There's highs and lows in that top 35, since I'm not cherrypicking for percent makes (so while it does include teams with a good percentage, like Richmond, Fairfield, TCU, Vanderbilt, it also includes some teams who didn't really shoot too well -- Arkansas State, Santa Clara, Cal Baptist, Montana State, Morehead State, Central Arkansas, UC Davis, and Tennessee all shot outside the top-150 of the country for 3P% [Montana State went 27-8 while shooting 29% from 3, as a high 3-volume team! 35th highest oRB rate] -- and yet that group is still full of teams that won 20+ games, usually thanks to rebounding the misses, only Morehead State (terrible rebounding) and Tennessee (everyone here already knows) were the exceptions of winning less than 20 games out this this particular group who shot high volume while not really being impressive in their accuracy. [actually, Montana too, who went 9-22, but they both weren't accurate *and* rebounded at a very low rate, missing 62% of all FGs, yet rebounding at an NCAA D1 low of 6 offensive rebounds per game. YIKES!! Ended their year with 188 offensive rebounds]

 

[RespectAPA]

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.

I'll just reply to this comment explicitly even though I already mentioned it at the bottom of the post I just sent: they were THE worst team in the country at getting offensive rebounds. (in spite of also having a low FG%) Their offensive rebounding rate was so bad that even though they were pretty much right in the middle of D1 in defensive rebounds per game (153rd) they still finished 352 out of 359 in rebound margin.

They also turned the ball over a lot, 13 per game.

If Kim were okay with only 6 offensive rebounds per game, she never would've made it to Knoxville -- her teams are usually in 20s or close to it.

 

[Rooster1]

The P4 teams in the top 35 are Florida State, Tennessee, Oklahoma State, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Utah, and BYU.

Just outside the bar were Villanova at 36th, and TCU at 38th in 3 volume, who had a great years, and.... Mizzou at 44th in 3 volume (but the Tigers were 353th in the NCAA in offensive rebounds, 7th worst nationally, so that fits my secondary point, at least!)

The mid-majors among the list of 26 include quite a few teams who well exceded the line of .500 -- Fairfield, FDU, Richmond, Marshall, Murray State, Montana State, Belmont, and Arkansas State all had strong years, and quite a few more were in the 20+ wins .

Nuff said perhaps. Not the company anyone wants to be grouped with. Vandy would be the outlier of course, but that’s just me spit balling. Doesn’t seem like a strong indication of top level play. You seem to think otherwise with those metrics. We will see, but I doubt LV nation has resigned to that level yet. I appreciate the dig you have done, but to what point Padre?

 

[spojo13]

Nuff said perhaps. Not the company anyone wants to be grouped with. Vandy would be the outlier of course, but that’s just me spit balling. Doesn’t seem like a strong indication of top level play. You seem to think otherwise with those metrics. We will see, but I doubt LV nation has resigned to that level yet. I appreciate the dig you have done, but to what point Padre?

Two teams that made the Sweet Sixteen like we did last year. Would be interesting to see if anyone with those metric parameters has broken through or does it hit a ceiling at Sweet Sixteen. TCU was just outside them.

 

[Rooster1]

Two teams that made the Sweet Sixteen like we did last year. Would be interesting to see if anyone with those metric parameters has broken through or does it hit a ceiling at Sweet Sixteen. TCU was just outside them.

SS level got the last coach fired, no? I’m trying to be positive here, but those metrics showed one or two outliers that were SS level types. I realize there is room for a team to surpass this doing the system thingy, but the odds don’t look overly optimistic either. It’s just such a strange conversation to be having for a blue blood program. Maybe it all works out.

 

[spojo13]

SS level got the last coach fired, no?

That it did, Rooster, that it did. Along with a failure to get high school recruits, depending on who you ask.

 

[madtownvol]

That it did, Rooster, that it did. Along with a failure to get high school recruits, depending on who you ask.

Not directly about Kellie but at the time, the argument was the relying on the portal, as Kellie was doing, was "not sustainable" and you can only build a program through successful HS recruiting.

I challenged that narrative then and it is now more evident than ever that HS is not inherently "more sustainable." CKC signed a great HS class and they all left after one season,. What is sustainable about that?

Every year now a coach has to re-recruit a team and at least with portal you have a better track record of players' college level performance.

It is now very antiquated to judge a coach by HS recruiting results. All that matters is the team they put on the floor right now. Kellie was caught in a transition period where people were judging her by the old rules, whereas she perhaps out of necessity, had moved to the portal game.

 

[RespectAPA]

Last year's P5 group was a bit stronger, Utah, Oklahoma, Cal, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Florida State, + TCU and Creighton just barely outside the 25 3PA line. The only team with double digit losses in that group is Tennessee, with 10.

At a glance, the mid-major group last year is a bit less impressive overall than this year's, tho still with some very strong teams, there are more stinkers.

I would like to crunch the numbers to see how much 3PA correlates with winning percentage, as well as the correlation of 3P% to get an idea for how much of the correlation is just "good 3 shooting teams shoot 3s more" and how much of it is the intrinsic value that shooting 3s represents, for teams that can rebound the misses.

There's pretty clearly some intrinsic value, seeing some teams win on volume even without great percentages. There are quite a few teams in the 29%-32% range that had pretty good seasons overall, so you don't *have* to shoot UConn's 39%, Richmond's and Fairfield's 37%, or Vanderbilt, TCU's 36% to succeed playing this way. Offensive rebounding of course plays a big role there.

One thing is for sure, the top of the 3PA chart is better than the bottom of it. There is spotty success down there (Texas, Ole Miss, LSU) but it's mostly teams with single digit wins, and even the occasional Northwestern situation, shooting 36% with a 9-22 record, only attempting ~15 per game. (5.5 makes)

 

[spojo13]

Last year's P5 group was a bit stronger, Utah, Oklahoma, Cal, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Florida State, + TCU and Creighton just barely outside the 25 3PA line. The only team with double digit losses in that group is Tennessee, with 10.

At a glance, the mid-major group last year is a bit less impressive overall than this year's, tho still with some very strong teams, there are more stinkers.

I would like to crunch the numbers to see how much 3PA correlates with winning percentage, as well as the correlation of 3P% to get an idea for how much of the correlation is just "good 3 shooting teams shoot 3s more" and how much of it is the intrinsic value that shooting 3s represents, for teams that can rebound the misses.

There's pretty clearly some intrinsic value, seeing some teams win on volume even without great percentages. There are quite a few teams in the 29%-32% range that had pretty good seasons overall, so you don't *have* to shoot UConn's 39%, Richmond's and Fairfield's 37%, or Vanderbilt, TCU and TCU's 36% to succeed playing this way. Offensive rebounding of course plays a big role there.

One thing is for sure, the top of the 3PA chart is better than the bottom of it. There is spotty success down there (Texas, Ole Miss, LSU) but it's mostly teams with single digit wins, and even the occasional Northwestern situation, shooting 36% with a 9-22 record, only attempting ~15 per game. (5.5 makes)

Thanks for all the stats from this year and last year. It looks like TN and OK made it the furthest last year to the Sweet Sixteen. TCU again right just outside made it to Elite 8. Wonder if aiming for their numbers would be the sweet spot. Looks like the floor is higher than most with those number of attempts though.

 

[RetroVol]

I realize there is room for a team to surpass this doing the system thingy, but the odds don’t look overly optimistic either.

The odds don't look good for teams not doing the system thingy either. The odds of getting to the Elite 8 or better just aren't good. And, yes, I know that doesn't address the "it takes the very best players and they won't play in Kim's system" argument. I'm just saying that the criticism of high-volume 3-pt teams not getting past the SS needs more data before we take it as settled doctrine. Moneyball was a joke until it wasn't. Then everyone was doing analytics.

 

[spojo13]

The odds don't look good for teams not doing the system thingy either. The odds of getting to the Elite 8 or better just aren't good. And, yes, I know that doesn't address the "it takes the very best players and they won't play in Kim's system" argument. I'm just saying that the criticism of high-volume 3-pt teams not getting past the SS needs more data before we take it as settled doctrine. Moneyball was a joke until it wasn't. Then everyone was doing analytics.

One thing that we have plenty of data and seems certain is having the best talent helps. Adding in a competent coach with those players tends to get you there, no matter the system.

 

[Rooster1]

The odds don't look good for teams not doing the system thingy either. The odds of getting to the Elite 8 or better just aren't good. And, yes, I know that doesn't address the "it takes the very best players and they won't play in Kim's system" argument. I'm just saying that the criticism of high-volume 3-pt teams not getting past the SS needs more data before we take it as settled doctrine. Moneyball was a joke until it wasn't. Then everyone was doing analytics.

How far did that take the Athletics?

 

[madtownvol]

The odds don't look good for teams not doing the system thingy either. The odds of getting to the Elite 8 or better just aren't good. And, yes, I know that doesn't address the "it takes the very best players and they won't play in Kim's system" argument. I'm just saying that the criticism of high-volume 3-pt teams not getting past the SS needs more data before we take it as settled doctrine. Moneyball was a joke until it wasn't. Then everyone was doing analytics.

The lesson of moneyball was that it was an equalizer for a small market club that could not afford the best players but once the big money clubs saw the light, then the advantage disappeared.

The real question is if Kim's system the moneyball equivalent that would allow a less talented team to compete with the big dogs. Step one is in progress, she is likely to have a widely recognized "less talented team" than the upper tier of the SEC so the stage is set for a true test of the system.

 

[VintageFan]

All this statistical anlysis is mind-numbing. And very deceptive. And irrelevant to Kim's "system."

Teams that take MORE shots usually score MORE points. Teams that score MORE points usually win MORE games. Brilliant! But it doesn't apply to Kim's system.

TN lost it's last seven SEC games. And in all but one of those games they took more three-point shots then their opponent. But their opponents in all but one of those games took more two-point shots -- and won. Now before you say "That's because we shot so poorly on three-pointers" let me tell you that that is not the case. In four of these games TN shot the threes better than their opponents. In two others the percentages were very close. Heck, TN shot 38% on threes against Texas and 42% against Ole Miss and lost both games.

There are problems with Kim's system that the stats will never reflect. Her run and gun take the first open three-point shot virtually insures a low level of accuracy. Players may not be in a familiar position on the court, they may not take the time to set up the shot. And this philosophy
and her frequent subbing guarantee that many of the three-point shots will not be taken by the best shooters. (The top four Lady Vol three-point shooters this year averaged 36% -- only three teams in the SEC had higher three point percentage averages. But the attempts by the poor three-point shooters on the team brought the TN average down to 31%. )

Kim's system of pressing against teams with speed and good ball handlers (like most top SEC teams!) gives up a lot of breakaway layups. Sure, they're just two-point shots, but the accuracy percentage on those is about 85 to 90% for good teams. Plus, boxing out on quickly launched three-point shots is difficult even for good rebounders. The premise of Kim's system is supposed to be getting more shots than the opponent, but in the seven games TN lost to end the season they had more that a three shot advantage in only one of them.

Many posters on this board have given an accurate assessment of Kim's system that doesn't require statistical analysis -- just watching the games and applying common sense: The system will work reliably against teams with much less talent, but not against well-coached teams with nearly equal, equal or greater talent except for an occassional upset.

 

[volfan102455]

All this statistical anlysis is mind-numbing. And very deceptive. And irrelevant to Kim's "system."

Teams that take MORE shots usually score MORE points. Teams that score MORE points usually win MORE games. Brilliant! But it doesn't apply to Kim's system.

TN lost it's last seven SEC games. And in all but one of those games they took more three-point shots then their opponent. But their opponents in all but one of those games took more two-point shots -- and won. Now before you say "That's because we shot so poorly on three-pointers" let me tell you that that is not the case. In four of these games TN shot the threes better than their opponents. In two others the percentages were very close. Heck, TN shot 38% on threes against Texas and 42% against Ole Miss and lost both games.

There are problems with Kim's system that the stats will never reflect. Her run and gun take the first open three-point shot virtually insures a low level of accuracy. Players may not be in a familiar position on the court, they may not take the time to set up the shot. And this philosophy
and her frequent subbing guarantee that many of the three-point shots will not be taken by the best shooters. (The top four Lady Vol three-point shooters this year averaged 36% -- only three teams in the SEC had higher three point percentage averages. But the attempts by the poor three-point shooters on the team brought the TN average down to 31%. )

Kim's system of pressing against teams with speed and good ball handlers (like most top SEC teams!) gives up a lot of breakaway layups. Sure, they're just two-point shots, but the accuracy percentage on those is about 85 to 90% for good teams. Plus, boxing out on quickly launched three-point shots is difficult even for good rebounders. The premise of Kim's system is supposed to be getting more shots than the opponent, but in the seven games TN lost to end the season they had more that a three shot advantage in only one of them.

Many posters on this board have given an accurate assessment of Kim's system that doesn't require statistical analysis -- just watching the games and applying common sense: The system will work reliably against teams with much less talent, but not against well-coached teams with nearly equal, equal or greater talent except for an occassional upset.

Does CKC not use analytics of what actually happened in these games as a guide? I mean, it is clear that relying on the system at this level is not going to produce the results she had at Glenville where the talent was equal and coaching not as great.

The system is based on a numbers game, not really coaching. Given that I'm not sure why she doesn't take a hard look at the numbers.

 

[RAVOL]

SS level got the last coach fired, no? I’m trying to be positive here, but those metrics showed one or two outliers that were SS level types. I realize there is room for a team to surpass this doing the system thingy, but the odds don’t look overly optimistic either. It’s just such a strange conversation to be having for a blue blood program. Maybe it all works out.

I will say this Rooster If Kim had your roster and all those defensive minded players bought in Tennessee would have made final 4 its not about system its always about talent and the only question we will want know is can Kim get that kind of talented players to buy in just don't have that answer just yet. This year the answer was NO .

 

[madtownvol]

Does CKC not use analytics of what actually happened in these games as a guide? I mean, it is clear that relying on the system at this level is not going to produce the results she had at Glenville where the talent was equal and coaching not as great.

The system is based on a numbers game, not really coaching. Given that I'm not sure why she doesn't take a hard look at the numbers.

That is a matter of interpretation. One interpretation is that the system is flawed. The other interpretation is that the data as a clear sign that CKC's players were not implementing the system with their minds,. hearts and souls to the point that the system becomes integrated into their DNA and will be passed on to their offspring as a genetic birthright and where they say with full belief and sincere commitment "give me the system or give me death!!!!." The latter seems to be her interpretation, though I may be understating the level of expected commitment.

 

[1reVOLver]

I have my Chuckie-supplied helmet and flak jacket at the ready, so here goes nuthin…

The previous dozen or so posts made for truly interesting reading.
The statistical analysis is thought provoking but not—for my skeptical mind—convincing. It made me recall a conversation from around 1980.

It was an attempt by a newly minted (and typically arrogant) Wharton Finance MBA in her first “important” division finance director job. Her interlocutor, a bit more seasoned Wharton MBA product development director (as you may have guessed-me).
She kept insisting that if ‘we’ achieved certain financial metrics,
and focused all of our human capital on said mission, not only would life be beautiful and full of puppy dogs and highest quality Belgian chocolate unicorns, all of us would earn BIG bonuses, etc.
Having a somewhat (!) more customer centric viewpoint, and trying to keep my staff focused on delivering a very high quality integrated system (hardware and software and services) I differed. Vehemently.

She couldn’t believe how stupid I was! I confirmed her opinion by my closing remark: “Ms. So-and-so, we see things through different eyes. You believe that numbers make business happen, while I think doing business makes numbers happen.”

Yes, it’s a strained analogy. No, I don’t think it’s totally useless.

Listen to the natty winning coaches in their pre-and post-game interviews. A certain line of thought recurs. I'll paraphrase:

We tried to make them uncomfortable, take away some of what they like to do.

Xxxxxx is a really great shooter. We doubled her all game.
Their other players are good, but…

They like to play a very deliberate, methodical game. We sped them up.

 

[brittannica]

All this statistical anlysis is mind-numbing. And very deceptive. And irrelevant to Kim's "system."

Teams that take MORE shots usually score MORE points. Teams that score MORE points usually win MORE games. Brilliant! But it doesn't apply to Kim's system.

TN lost it's last seven SEC games. And in all but one of those games they took more three-point shots then their opponent. But their opponents in all but one of those games took more two-point shots -- and won. Now before you say "That's because we shot so poorly on three-pointers" let me tell you that that is not the case. In four of these games TN shot the threes better than their opponents. In two others the percentages were very close. Heck, TN shot 38% on threes against Texas and 42% against Ole Miss and lost both games.

There are problems with Kim's system that the stats will never reflect. Her run and gun take the first open three-point shot virtually insures a low level of accuracy. Players may not be in a familiar position on the court, they may not take the time to set up the shot. And this philosophy
and her frequent subbing guarantee that many of the three-point shots will not be taken by the best shooters. (The top four Lady Vol three-point shooters this year averaged 36% -- only three teams in the SEC had higher three point percentage averages. But the attempts by the poor three-point shooters on the team brought the TN average down to 31%. )

Kim's system of pressing against teams with speed and good ball handlers (like most top SEC teams!) gives up a lot of breakaway layups. Sure, they're just two-point shots, but the accuracy percentage on those is about 85 to 90% for good teams. Plus, boxing out on quickly launched three-point shots is difficult even for good rebounders. The premise of Kim's system is supposed to be getting more shots than the opponent, but in the seven games TN lost to end the season they had more that a three shot advantage in only one of them.

Many posters on this board have given an accurate assessment of Kim's system that doesn't require statistical analysis -- just watching the games and applying common sense: The system will work reliably against teams with much less talent, but not against well-coached teams with nearly equal, equal or greater talent except for an occassional upset.

While I am a quantitative researcher, I also teach my students that the eye test matters. Eye test makes the system look a little more questionable.

 

[adam.vol]

The Caldwell system requires smarter players than the Lady Vols had available last season. She needs higher IQ players who can take advantage of the opportunities that the system creates.

Hopefully Caldwell has recognized that she can’t substitute athleticism for intelligence.

 

[1reVOLver]

While I am a quantitative researcher, I also teach my students that the eye test matters. Eye test makes the system look a little more questionable.

Funny you should say that. The material below showed up in my inbox late last night. My academic training and decades of business endeavors were strongly quant oriented, but quantitative analysis was a toolkit, not an objective.

“Bad effects of Goodhart’s Law: Treat people – not their measurements”.

“Goodhart’s Law states that once a measurement becomes a target, it loses its utility and can even be harmful.

“This law was proposed by the economist Charles Goodhart, and applies in fields other than medicine. Its epistemological status is a little like Parkinson’s Law – more a generalisation than an invariable rule.

“Making a measurement a target focuses attention on the measurement itself rather than what the measurement is for. It is no longer a proxy for something; it is the thing itself.
. . .
“Researchers reported a case where the preset target [by continuously monitoring glucose (CGM) in the blood for insulin dosing] was met satisfactorily – except that patient had 21 episodes a day of low blood sugar. The episodes were so brief that they did not affect the overall results, but were still potentially deleterious for the patient.”

 

[brittannica]

Funny you should say that. The material below showed up in my inbox late last night. My academic training and decades of business endeavors were strongly quant oriented, but quantitative analysis was a toolkit, not an objective.

Yes!! And, truthfully, the more senior I become the more I value qualitative data for elaborating on those aspects that quant can't really describe or capture.

 

[RetroVol]

Really enjoying the thoughtful posts. Thanks all!

There are a couple of youtube videos from the Sports Source uploaded in the last 24 hours on this very topic. The first is a Deep Dive Analysis that looks at other unusual approaches that have been brought up from lower divisions to D1, some in football, and their results. (I'm not sure Kim's system is as much the Grinnell system as this portrays, but still a good piece.)

 

[RetroVol]

And the second is a panel discussion about the future of Kim's System.

 

[volbeast33]

All this statistical anlysis is mind-numbing. And very deceptive. And irrelevant to Kim's "system."

Teams that take MORE shots usually score MORE points. Teams that score MORE points usually win MORE games. Brilliant! But it doesn't apply to Kim's system.

TN lost it's last seven SEC games. And in all but one of those games they took more three-point shots then their opponent. But their opponents in all but one of those games took more two-point shots -- and won. Now before you say "That's because we shot so poorly on three-pointers" let me tell you that that is not the case. In four of these games TN shot the threes better than their opponents. In two others the percentages were very close. Heck, TN shot 38% on threes against Texas and 42% against Ole Miss and lost both games.

There are problems with Kim's system that the stats will never reflect. Her run and gun take the first open three-point shot virtually insures a low level of accuracy. Players may not be in a familiar position on the court, they may not take the time to set up the shot. And this philosophy
and her frequent subbing guarantee that many of the three-point shots will not be taken by the best shooters. (The top four Lady Vol three-point shooters this year averaged 36% -- only three teams in the SEC had higher three point percentage averages. But the attempts by the poor three-point shooters on the team brought the TN average down to 31%. )

Kim's system of pressing against teams with speed and good ball handlers (like most top SEC teams!) gives up a lot of breakaway layups. Sure, they're just two-point shots, but the accuracy percentage on those is about 85 to 90% for good teams. Plus, boxing out on quickly launched three-point shots is difficult even for good rebounders. The premise of Kim's system is supposed to be getting more shots than the opponent, but in the seven games TN lost to end the season they had more that a three shot advantage in only one of them.

Many posters on this board have given an accurate assessment of Kim's system that doesn't require statistical analysis -- just watching the games and applying common sense: The system will work reliably against teams with much less talent, but not against well-coached teams with nearly equal, equal or greater talent except for an occassional upset.

I think Kim's system should be judged by her first year. It's obvious that last year's team never bought into playing it correctly. It doesn't matter whether that bc of Kim, the players or the assistant coaches.

1. In year one, Our offensive efficiency improved from 25th in the nation(Kellies last year) to 3rd in the nation.
2 Our 3 point % was the highest since 2018.
3. Even last year we were just 1-2 3's made from being a top 3 3 point team % in the SEC.
4. Shooting fast helps our offensive rebounding. The defensive team always has the advantage but playing fast gets them out of possession. We had over 100 more offensive rebounds per game in 2024 than in 2023.
5. I hate teaching people to bos out right away. Go to where the ball is going to bounce and rebound once you get there.
6. We want to do everything fast bc in theory it should make the other team play faster than they want and cause them to more mistakes
7. The press only works if everyone is 100% bought in bc being out of position leads to wide ope layups.

There main questions about this team is:

1. Can you get buy in from all the players?
2.Can you get elite enough talent to compete for championships
3. Will the press work against elite teams?

I look for ward to this season. Go Lady Vols!