The Kim Caldwell System

[SummittSoul]

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.

There are things that the system requires: like players who can quickly read defenses and make strong decisions. It's more the speed at which they can recognize and make a quality decision. While I guess that could be considered a type of intelligence or component of a type of intelligence, the presence or lack of presence of this doesn't indicate that a person has a higher or lower IQ. There were multiple players on this team that were very smart and it's insulting to suggest otherwise.

Additionally, this "intelligence" can be learned and conditioned, over time, with more exposure to and time within a system that requires this type of functioning. Some people are more naturally adept at it but it can be learned. This is one reason it can look ugly at first and get better over time in teams that stay together and play within it.

Athleticism and conditioning are also core components necessary for a system like this to succeed.

 

[StepCross]

There are things that the system requires: like players who can quickly read defenses and make strong decisions. It's more the speed at which they can recognize and make a quality decision. While I guess that could be considered a type of intelligence or component of a type of intelligence, the presence or lack of presence of this doesn't indicate that a person has a higher or lower IQ. There were multiple players on this team that were very smart and it's insulting to suggest otherwise.

Additionally, this "intelligence" can be learned and conditioned, over time, with more exposure to and time within a system that requires this type of functioning. Some people are more naturally adept at it but it can be learned. This is one reason it can look ugly at first and get better over time in teams that stay together and play within it.

This is what KC probably means when she talks about “relearning” basketball. It’s the pattern recognition. Athletes get in a habit of “when I see X, I do Y,” and the stimulus and behavior change from system to system.

Most coaches are shot-quality control freaks. Players learn to play conservative and “work the ball around.” This system instead prioritizes shooting the first decent shot we find. So you’re fighting against 10 years of learned conservative instincts.

Most coaches are transition defense control freaks. Send a couple guys to the boards but mostly we want to get back. This system prioritizes boards, so again you’re fighting against learned instincts.

Etc.

 

[volfan102455]

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.

You made me laugh with the "give me the system" thoughts

 

[glv98]

This is what KC probably means when she talks about “relearning” basketball. It’s the pattern recognition. Athletes get in a habit of “when I see X, I do Y,” and the stimulus and behavior change from system to system.

Most coaches are shot-quality control freaks. Players learn to play conservative and “work the ball around.” This system instead prioritizes shooting the first decent shot we find. So you’re fighting against 10 years of learned conservative instincts.

Most coaches are transition defense control freaks. Send a couple guys to the boards but mostly we want to get back. This system prioritizes boards, so again you’re fighting against learned instincts.

Etc.

So Kim is just smarter and more innovative than 99.9% of coaches who prefer quality over quantity of shots? That’s very comforting to know.

 

[volfan102455]

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.”

I agree with you for what it is worth! Took a lot of statistics with many classes on different usages while in college. Very easy to introduce bias that makes the numbers say what you want them to say. But the numbers don't make the business happen - it is the latter.

 

[Rooster1]

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

post #919

 

[SummittSoul]

This is what KC probably means when she talks about “relearning” basketball. It’s the pattern recognition. Athletes get in a habit of “when I see X, I do Y,” and the stimulus and behavior change from system to system.

Most coaches are shot-quality control freaks. Players learn to play conservative and “work the ball around.” This system instead prioritizes shooting the first decent shot we find. So you’re fighting against 10 years of learned conservative instincts.

Most coaches are transition defense control freaks. Send a couple guys to the boards but mostly we want to get back. This system prioritizes boards, so again you’re fighting against learned instincts.

Etc.

great points

 

[StepCross]

So Kim is just smarter and more innovative than 99.9% of coaches who prefer quality over quantity of shots? That’s very comforting to know.

No. It’s just a different system, not an inherently better one. I don’t know that KC is the answer and I’m not defending her.

Rick Barnes is a shot quality tyrant and he likes shots that come out of off-ball screens.

Calipari is a shot quality guy also, but totally different. He wants to spread out and drive. He even titled his offense the “dribble drive motion offense.” And it was stolen by half the country back when it was new. You hear less about it now.

Billy Donovan was different than both: he preferred to build his college offenses on the pick and roll. PnR is really popular right now.

All are valid. You can mix and match and take points out of each one and that’s valid too. Barnes mix-matches as well: he likes to run his off-ball screens and continuity offense in the first half. In the second half, depending on personnel, he likes to spread and isolate (Grant williams, Dalton knecht, ament) or go to the ball screens (zakai, Kennedy Chandler; bone and GW did a lot of ball screens too).

KC wants to relax the control over shot quality and get shots earlier in the clock. This is also viable—not smarter, not dumber, just a different take.

The math behind the KC philosophy is to dramatically reduce turnovers in favor of early shots.

The math behind iso is “we don’t think you can guard this player at all.”

The math behind pick and roll is “we don’t think you can guard these two players without helping and leaving a third player open.”

The math behind continuity offenses is “we think the defense will screw up and leave someone open before we screw up and turn it over.”

All are situationally valid and depend on personnel and execution.

 

[glv98]

No. It’s just a different system, not an inherently better one. I don’t know that KC is the answer and I’m not defending her.

Rick Barnes is a shot quality tyrant and he likes shots that come out of off-ball screens.

Calipari is a shot quality guy also, but totally different. He wants to spread out and drive. He even titled his offense the “dribble drive motion offense.” And it was stolen by half the country back when it was new. You hear less about it now.

Billy Donovan was different than both: he preferred to build his college offenses on the pick and roll. PnR is really popular right now.

All are valid. You can mix and match and take points out of each one and that’s valid too. Barnes mix-matches as well: he likes to run his off-ball screens and continuity offense in the first half. In the second half, depending on personnel, he likes to spread and isolate (Grant williams, Dalton knecht, ament) or go to the ball screens (zakai, Kennedy Chandler; bone and GW did a lot of ball screens too).

KC wants to relax the control over shot quality and get shots earlier in the clock. This is also viable—not smarter, not dumber, just a different take.

The math behind the KC philosophy is to dramatically reduce turnovers in favor of early shots.

The math behind iso is “we don’t think you can guard this player at all.”

The math behind pick and roll is “we don’t think you can guard these two players without helping and leaving a third player open.”

The math behind continuity offenses is “we think the defense will screw up and leave someone open before we screw up and turn it over.”

All are situationally valid and depend on personnel and execution.

Bottom line is her chosen approach seems to be so incredibly difficult in so many ways that it almost seems like being innovative just to be innovative. Hard to see a net payoff in the long term for this approach.

Once again, it’s why the best coaches with the best rosters don’t use it.

 

[volfan102455]

There are things that the system requires: like players who can quickly read defenses and make strong decisions. It's more the speed at which they can recognize and make a quality decision. While I guess that could be considered a type of intelligence or component of a type of intelligence, the presence or lack of presence of this doesn't indicate that a person has a higher or lower IQ. There were multiple players on this team that were very smart and it's insulting to suggest otherwise.

Additionally, this "intelligence" can be learned and conditioned, over time, with more exposure to and time within a system that requires this type of functioning. Some people are more naturally adept at it but it can be learned. This is one reason it can look ugly at first and get better over time in teams that stay together and play within it.

Athleticism and conditioning are also core components necessary for a system like this to succeed.

Agree with this - but would add that while intelligence can be learned and conditioned - the missing aspect has always been the reaction to what each unique opponent will bring to the table.

During a season the team will play 30 plus teams that have different types of offenses and defenses. To be successful a coach / team must react to the strengths / weaknesses of that opponent in comparison to their own.

I get the impression, may be incorrect, that CKC has only one plan and that is to run the same system and not adapt it as needed per opponent or situation in a game. So she is relying on the players to take one of two approaches:

1. Just run the system and if we get behind by a large number hope the "numbers" factor into the equation for us to catch up and win (e.g. the subs will wear the other team down so that they make mistakes and miss, then in the 4th quarter we can score as many points as we need to win)
2. Dependence upon the players to within the context of the game, pick up on patterns from the opponent and adjust (e.g. she is not going to call a time out and explain to them what she is seeing and how to adjust so it is up to them - and heaven forbid it is something they have never seen before).

In my mind, her system really expects the players to not only play but be like a coach on the floor and be able to adjust to what an opponent is doing.

 

[volfan102455]

And to add I think this works for D2 because the talent is equal and coaches are not elite.

 

[StepCross]

Bottom line is her chosen approach seems to be so incredibly difficult in so many ways that it almost seems like being innovative just to be innovative. Hard to see a net payoff in the long term for this approach.

Once again, it’s why the best coaches with the best rosters don’t use it.

This is just false. On the men’s side, Alabama had the 8th fastest offensive possessions in the country this year (out of 365 teams) and Nate Oats is absolutely considered a top coach and running a top program.

Michigan had the 15th fastest offense and just won the title.

It’s a valid system. Whether KC is good enough to recruit to it and execute it is an open question, but the plan of shooting quickly is fine and not as weird as this board pretends.

 

[glv98]

This is just false. On the men’s side, Alabama had the 8th fastest offensive possessions in the country this year (out of 365 teams) and Nate Oats is absolutely considered a top coach and running a top program.

Michigan had the 15th fastest offense and just won the title.

It’s a valid system. Whether KC is good enough to recruit to it and execute it is an open question, but the plan of shooting quickly is fine and not as weird as this board pretends.

not talking about fast-paced offense at all since that is only a small part of the CKC system. Many teams profess to play fast on offense and analytically prefer the three.

What makes her system difficult,as she has told us many times, is the constant pressing and trapping and the exquisitely delicate training needed to play that way. Which is why most of the coaches you named who enjoy three chunking do not trap constantly nor hockey line sub.

 

[volfan102455]

Bottom line is her chosen approach seems to be so incredibly difficult in so many ways that it almost seems like being innovative just to be innovative. Hard to see a net payoff in the long term for this approach.

Once again, it’s why the best coaches with the best rosters don’t use it.

At times, I do think she wants to be different to be different - but wonder if that is because the system is what she knows and all she knows.

 

[StepCross]

not talking about fast-paced offense at all since that is only a small part of the CKC system. Many teams profess to play fast on offense and analytically prefer the three.

What makes her system difficult,as she has told us many times, is the constant pressing and trapping and the exquisitely delicate training needed to play that way. Which is why most of the coaches you named who enjoy three chunking do not trap constantly nor hockey line sub.

Got it.

In that case yes, I am iffy on the pressing as well.

(I think quick offense and shooting early to avoid turnovers is a big part of the KC system, not a small part, but that’s quibbling)

 

[RetroVol]

post #919

Oops! Missed that, obviously!

 

[RetroVol]

What makes her system difficult,as she has told us many times, is the constant pressing and trapping and the exquisitely delicate training needed to play that way.

Genuinely curious here, @glv98. You've really hammered on the idea that Kim's system is just too hard to learn. And, yet, despite Kim's perfectionist tendencies (which she has admitted), the records of her teams don't back that up. Generally they've won early and continued winning through the season. The biggest exception was the Marshall team, and she has said that a conversation with her husband helped her pick up on something that turned that around. (Which argues against the "doesn't adjust" criticism.)

So, can you point me to where Kim has said this? It could just be that you and I are interpreting things she's said differently, but I'd really like to know.

 

[glv98]

Genuinely curious here, @glv98. You've really hammered on the idea that Kim's system is just too hard to learn. And, yet, despite Kim's perfectionist tendencies (which she has admitted), the records of her teams don't back that up. Generally they've won early and continued winning through the season. The biggest exception was the Marshall team, and she has said that a conversation with her husband helped her pick up on something that turned that around. (Which argues against the "doesn't adjust" criticism.)

So, can you point me to where Kim has said this? It could just be that you and I are interpreting things she's said differently, but I'd really like to know.

I really don’t wanna go back and dig up quotes partially because I’m astonished This would even be disputed. Has Kim not said more than once that players who played for her have to forget everything they knew and relearn it all? Also several times the famous comments that everyone including her own family will hate her at Thanksgiving, but thank her by the first of the year because that’s how long it takes to get her system down?

I think she very much embraces how hard everything about the system is. Think there’s quite a bit of macho involved in being the hardest working most effort requiring system in history. Gabe was asked early last year why more teams don’t run this system and he replied because no one else wants to work this hard. I could be wrong, but I thought that was Kim’s whole vibe.

As I’ve said many times, it’s also her fatal flaw because as several analysts have pointed out, effort and endurance are not separators in the SEC.

 

[1reVOLver]

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.

This comment pre-supposes that it is a “good” system and, therefore, when it doesn’t yield desired outcomes it must be the fault of one or more system implementers. That ignores the opponents’ role in …playing the game!

 

[glv98]

This comment pre-supposes that it is a “good” system and, therefore, when it doesn’t yield desired outcomes it must be the fault of one ir more system implementers. That ignores the opponents’ role in …playing the game!

and again, I think it’s that admirable, but reality challenged sentiment that if you just work hard enough, run through that brick wall with enough effort, the opponent doesn’t matter. I think that’s what allows them to have and reveal their one and only game plan from the start. And promise never to adjust.

 

[1reVOLver]

Agree with this - but would add that while intelligence can be learned and conditioned - the missing aspect has always been the reaction to what each unique opponent will bring to the table.

During a season the team will play 30 plus teams that have different types of offenses and defenses. To be successful a coach / team must react to the strengths / weaknesses of that opponent in comparison to their own.

I get the impression, may be incorrect, that CKC has only one plan and that is to run the same system and not adapt it as needed per opponent or situation in a game. So she is relying on the players to take one of two approaches:

1. Just run the system and if we get behind by a large number hope the "numbers" factor into the equation for us to catch up and win (e.g. the subs will wear the other team down so that they make mistakes and miss, then in the 4th quarter we can score as many points as we need to win)
2. Dependence upon the players to within the context of the game, pick up on patterns from the opponent and adjust (e.g. she is not going to call a time out and explain to them what she is seeing and how to adjust so it is up to them - and heaven forbid it is something they have never seen before).

In my mind, her system really expects the players to not only play but be like a coach on the floor and be able to adjust to what an opponent is doing.

Excellent analysis. Thanks.

 

[RetroVol]

I really don’t wanna go back and dig up quotes partially because I’m astonished This would even be disputed. Has Kim not said more than once that players who played for her have to forget everything they knew and relearn it all? Also several times the famous comments that everyone including her own family will hate her at Thanksgiving, but thank her by the first of the year because that’s how long it takes to get her system down?

I think she very much embraces how hard everything about the system is. Think there’s quite a bit of macho involved in being the hardest working most effort requiring system in history. Gabe was asked early last year why more teams don’t run this system and he replied because no one else wants to work this hard. I could be wrong, but I thought that was Kim’s whole vibe.

As I’ve said many times, it’s also her fatal flaw because as several analysts have pointed out, effort and endurance are not separators in the SEC.

As far as I can remember, Kim has never said anything close to a claim that players have to forget everything they knew and relearn it all. And I fairly certain she never said her family hated her, at Thanksgiving or any other time. Her dad was her assistant coach and her mom was the team mom. That just doesn't fit. I do remember her saying something about her not wanting to talk about her team at Thanksgiving and maybe not at Christmas. But I have a memory of her putting that into context about what her expectations were. And, again, if it were as hard to learn as you're suggesting, her teams wouldn't have won so many games and by such large margins early on.

How does her talking about focusing on getting the team to make another pass this season fit in with "just go harder"? Read the SI article where it describes her discussing the connections between her offensive approach and modern offensive trends. Is that "just go harder"?

So, yeah, I was wondering if your belief that Kim is a horrible coach who only knows one way to do things and its the wrong way was shaping your memory of things she has said, i.e., confirmation bias. Or, on the other hand, is my belief that she's an analytical and highly competitive coach who has take a system she played under and adapted it -- and says has flexibility for players and situations -- shaping my memory, i.e. confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is a core cognitive processing system for all of us that takes what we believe and accumulates evidence to back it up, and that includes twisting memories to fit. One of the best ways to combat it is discuss things with those who hold different beliefs, which is part of why I value so much the things you've made me consider these last few months. I was just wondering if maybe there was something else I needed to re-consider to see if what I remembered had been shaped to fit my beliefs.

 

[glv98]

my apologies. apparently, I’ve been living in the matrix. I had no clue that there was any question whether Caldwell had said those things and they were a basis for her system..

Also, while caught up in the matrix I could’ve sworn you said you suspected she knew no other way to coach, nor that she knew how to coach players at this level.

I need to go off and work on my confirmation bias, which is clearly out of control.

But, am I the only one who heard these things?

 

[glv98]

also, regarding the just go harder approach, Again. am I just in my own head to think the exact AD narrative is that only players poor effort stood between poor Kim and resounding success this year? could have sworn quitting and lack of effort was the whole ball of wax. I have so much work to do.

 

[adam.vol]

There are things that the system requires: like players who can quickly read defenses and make strong decisions. It's more the speed at which they can recognize and make a quality decision. While I guess that could be considered a type of intelligence or component of a type of intelligence, the presence or lack of presence of this doesn't indicate that a person has a higher or lower IQ. There were multiple players on this team that were very smart and it's insulting to suggest otherwise.

Additionally, this "intelligence" can be learned and conditioned, over time, with more exposure to and time within a system that requires this type of functioning. Some people are more naturally adept at it but it can be learned. This is one reason it can look ugly at first and get better over time in teams that stay together and play within it.

Athleticism and conditioning are also core components necessary for a system like this to succeed.

When you say there were multiple players who were very smart, instead of saying every player was very smart, you’re saying there were multiple people who were not. So if you think that’s meant to insult, then that’s what you’re doing.

Conditioning is not intelligence. You won’t ever turn Vince Young into Peyton Manning, no matter how many times you beat your head against the wall. You don’t need Vince Carter’s athleticism to get Larry Bird’s production either. You’re just saying that if you hammer a square peg hard enough, it will eventually fit into a round hole.. That sounds terribly inefficient to me.