lilesrt
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2009
- Messages
- 9,562
- Likes
- 12,171
The Kim Caldwell System
- Thread starter RetroVol
- Start date
RetroVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2025
- Messages
- 1,132
- Likes
- 4,345
Since we now have a big chunk of the players for next year's team and some comments from Kim about where she wants to go, I thought it might be interesting to look at her comment about "shooting within the first 12 seconds on the shot clock." So, I used the play-by-play data I'd collected from ESPN from the 2024-2025 and 2-25-2026 seasons and asked Codex to analyze from opponent's made shots, defensive rebounds, and turnovers. Here's what I got (the "I" in this is, I guess, an amalgam of me and Codex(?)):
First-12 Seconds Analysis: 2024-25 vs. 2025-26
Kim Caldwell recently said the goal is to get back to scoring, or at least attacking, in the first 12 seconds. I wanted to test that against the play-by-play data for the last two seasons.
I looked at Tennessee's first recorded field-goal attempt after three kinds of transition triggers:
A "fast" possession here means Tennessee got its first field-goal attempt within 12 seconds of that trigger. Free throws are not counted as field-goal attempts. Possessions that ended before a Tennessee FGA, such as Tennessee turnovers, free-throw trips, or period ends, are still kept in the denominator.
Season Comparison
Average Time To First FGA
Main Takeaway
The data supports Caldwell's "get back to that" framing. Tennessee was meaningfully faster in 2024-25 than in 2025-26 by this measure.
The biggest drop was after opponent made baskets, where Tennessee got a shot within 12 seconds only 24.6% of the time in 2025-26, down from 31.5% in 2024-25. That suggests the half-court/inbound pace after made baskets slowed more than the live-ball transition game.
The live-ball numbers are more encouraging. Even in 2025-26, Tennessee still got a shot within 12 seconds on:
So the system still produced quick attempts when Tennessee had a live-ball advantage. The bigger issue appears to be consistency, especially after made baskets and in games where the offense got bogged down.
Best And Worst Games By Overall First-12 Rate
2024-25 best:
2025-26 best:
2024-25 lowest:
2025-26 lowest:
Caveats
This is based on ESPN-style play-by-play data, not optical tracking or official shot-clock data. The clock used here is game clock, so it should be close to the "first 12 seconds" concept, but it cannot account for every shot-clock reset, replay correction, delayed inbound, or play-by-play timing quirk.
I also did not rely on the imported play-type field because it misclassified many missed jumpers and missed threes as made jumpers or made threes. Instead, I parsed the text descriptions for made/missed field-goal attempts.
Opponent turnovers are counted broadly, but I separately broke out "steal-coded" turnovers where Tennessee had a same-clock steal entry. That is probably the cleaner proxy for true live-ball forced turnovers.
For 2025-26, one listed Ole Miss game had zero play rows in the file and was omitted. The 2024-25 file had no zero-play games.
Finally, this measures speed to first field-goal attempt, not shot quality, points per possession, or whether the shot was actually good offense. It answers a narrower question: how often did Tennessee get a shot up within 12 seconds after the kinds of triggers that should feed Caldwell's pace?
First-12 Seconds Analysis: 2024-25 vs. 2025-26
Kim Caldwell recently said the goal is to get back to scoring, or at least attacking, in the first 12 seconds. I wanted to test that against the play-by-play data for the last two seasons.
I looked at Tennessee's first recorded field-goal attempt after three kinds of transition triggers:
- Opponent made field goal
- Tennessee defensive rebound
- Opponent turnover
A "fast" possession here means Tennessee got its first field-goal attempt within 12 seconds of that trigger. Free throws are not counted as field-goal attempts. Possessions that ended before a Tennessee FGA, such as Tennessee turnovers, free-throw trips, or period ends, are still kept in the denominator.
Season Comparison
| Trigger | 2024-25 Fast FGA | 2024-25 Fast % | 2025-26 Fast FGA | 2025-26 Fast % | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All three triggers | 1082 / 2444 | 44.3% | 804 / 2068 | 38.9% | -5.4 pp |
| After opponent made FG | 279 / 887 | 31.5% | 189 / 767 | 24.6% | -6.9 pp |
| After Tennessee defensive rebound | 425 / 804 | 52.9% | 353 / 724 | 48.8% | -4.1 pp |
| After opponent turnover | 378 / 753 | 50.2% | 262 / 577 | 45.4% | -4.8 pp |
| Steal-coded opponent turnovers only | 247 / 384 | 64.3% | 194 / 308 | 63.0% | -1.3 pp |
Average Time To First FGA
| Trigger | 2024-25 Avg Sec | 2025-26 Avg Sec |
|---|---|---|
| All three triggers | 12.2 | 12.9 |
| After opponent made FG | 15.2 | 16.5 |
| After Tennessee defensive rebound | 10.1 | 10.4 |
| After opponent turnover | 10.9 | 11.5 |
| Steal-coded opponent turnovers only | 8.4 | 8.4 |
Main Takeaway
The data supports Caldwell's "get back to that" framing. Tennessee was meaningfully faster in 2024-25 than in 2025-26 by this measure.
The biggest drop was after opponent made baskets, where Tennessee got a shot within 12 seconds only 24.6% of the time in 2025-26, down from 31.5% in 2024-25. That suggests the half-court/inbound pace after made baskets slowed more than the live-ball transition game.
The live-ball numbers are more encouraging. Even in 2025-26, Tennessee still got a shot within 12 seconds on:
- 48.8% of possessions after defensive rebounds
- 45.4% of possessions after opponent turnovers
- 63.0% of possessions after steal-coded turnovers
So the system still produced quick attempts when Tennessee had a live-ball advantage. The bigger issue appears to be consistency, especially after made baskets and in games where the offense got bogged down.
Best And Worst Games By Overall First-12 Rate
2024-25 best:
- South Florida: 42/71, 59.2%
- Western Carolina: 43/73, 58.9%
- Liberty: 47/83, 56.6%
- N.C. Central: 49/87, 56.3%
- Winthrop: 42/75, 56.0%
2025-26 best:
- ETSU: 36/68, 52.9%
- Middle Tennessee: 34/69, 49.3%
- Winthrop: 38/79, 48.1%
- NC State opener: 33/72, 45.8%
- Louisville: 36/79, 45.6%
2024-25 lowest:
- LSU, Feb. 9: 19/72, 26.4%
- Ole Miss: 22/65, 33.8%
- UConn: 24/70, 34.3%
- Georgia: 24/69, 34.8%
- Texas, Sweet 16: 22/63, 34.9%
2025-26 lowest:
- Texas: 13/60, 21.7%
- Alabama, Jan. 18: 13/58, 22.4%
- Alabama, SEC Tournament: 16/62, 25.8%
- Auburn: 17/63, 27.0%
- UCLA: 20/70, 28.6%
Caveats
This is based on ESPN-style play-by-play data, not optical tracking or official shot-clock data. The clock used here is game clock, so it should be close to the "first 12 seconds" concept, but it cannot account for every shot-clock reset, replay correction, delayed inbound, or play-by-play timing quirk.
I also did not rely on the imported play-type field because it misclassified many missed jumpers and missed threes as made jumpers or made threes. Instead, I parsed the text descriptions for made/missed field-goal attempts.
Opponent turnovers are counted broadly, but I separately broke out "steal-coded" turnovers where Tennessee had a same-clock steal entry. That is probably the cleaner proxy for true live-ball forced turnovers.
For 2025-26, one listed Ole Miss game had zero play rows in the file and was omitted. The 2024-25 file had no zero-play games.
Finally, this measures speed to first field-goal attempt, not shot quality, points per possession, or whether the shot was actually good offense. It answers a narrower question: how often did Tennessee get a shot up within 12 seconds after the kinds of triggers that should feed Caldwell's pace?
RetroVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2025
- Messages
- 1,132
- Likes
- 4,345
The report above then led me to ask about points per possession (PPP) for fast and slow. That report is available below. Bottom Line Up Front: LVs were faster in 24-25. They also scored better overall. But, the 25-26 team scored better on slow possessions after both opponent makes and a LV defensive rebound, though even then they didn't score as well as the 24-25 team in either category.
First-12 Seconds Productivity: Were Fast Possessions Actually Better?
I looked at Tennessee's offensive possessions after three transition-type triggers:
A fast possession means Tennessee's first recorded field-goal attempt came within 12 seconds of the trigger. A slow-FGA possession means Tennessee did get a field-goal attempt, but the first one came after 12 seconds. No-FGA possessions ended before Tennessee attempted a field goal.
PPP here means total Tennessee points on the possession, including later shots, offensive rebounds, and free throws. It is not just whether the first shot went in.
Overall Result
Takeaway: Overall, faster possessions were more productive in both seasons. But the trigger type matters.
PPP By Trigger
The Defensive-Rebound Caveat
The overall data says fast possessions were better. But after Tennessee defensive rebounds, the slow-FGA possessions were actually a little more productive.
I don't have the average seconds for defensive-rebound fast/slow possessions isolated in the summary table above, but by definition the fast group shot within 12 seconds, while the slow group shot after 12 seconds. In the overall dataset, the slow-FGA group averaged about 19 seconds to first shot:
So the defensive-rebound finding is not saying Tennessee was better when it walked the ball up forever. It is saying that after defensive rebounds, the possessions where Tennessee did not force a shot in the first 12 seconds were at least as productive, and slightly more productive by PPP, than the quick-shot possessions.
That probably means defensive rebounds are a mixed category. Some are true live-ball runouts. Others are normal rebounds where pushing immediately may not create a real advantage. In those cases, getting into offense, making one more pass, or attacking a better matchup may have been just as good or better.
First-Shot Accuracy By Trigger
The report above then led to the next obvious question: Are fast possessions more productive? BLUF: Yes, especially because of the productivity and pace of points off turnovers (especially live steals).
Main Conclusions
Data Caveats
This is based on ESPN-style play-by-play data, not optical tracking or official shot-clock data. Game clock is used as the timing proxy. That should be close for this question, but it cannot catch every shot-clock reset, delayed inbound, replay correction, or scoring-table quirk.
The imported play-type field was unreliable for missed jumpers and missed threes, so the analysis parsed the written play descriptions instead.
Points per possession were computed from Tennessee score changes during the possession, not just the first shot and not just the imported points field.
One listed 2025-26 Ole Miss game had zero play rows and was omitted.
So I would not treat the exact decimals as gospel, but the broad pattern is useful: quick attacks were generally good, turnover-created quick attacks were very good, and defensive-rebound possessions need a more nuanced read.
First-12 Seconds Productivity: Were Fast Possessions Actually Better?
I looked at Tennessee's offensive possessions after three transition-type triggers:
- Opponent made field goal
- Tennessee defensive rebound
- Opponent turnover
A fast possession means Tennessee's first recorded field-goal attempt came within 12 seconds of the trigger. A slow-FGA possession means Tennessee did get a field-goal attempt, but the first one came after 12 seconds. No-FGA possessions ended before Tennessee attempted a field goal.
PPP here means total Tennessee points on the possession, including later shots, offensive rebounds, and free throws. It is not just whether the first shot went in.
Overall Result
| Season | Category | Poss | Points | PPP | First-shot FG% | Avg sec to first FGA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | Fast FGA <=12s | 1082 | 1472 | 1.360 | 45.6% | 7.4 |
| 2024-25 | Slow FGA >12s | 776 | 981 | 1.264 | 40.7% | 18.9 |
| 2024-25 | No FGA | 586 | 248 | 0.423 | -- | -- |
| 2024-25 | Non-fast all | 1362 | 1229 | 0.902 | 40.7% | 18.9 |
| 2025-26 | Fast FGA <=12s | 804 | 1018 | 1.266 | 44.3% | 7.2 |
| 2025-26 | Slow FGA >12s | 723 | 838 | 1.159 | 38.9% | 19.3 |
| 2025-26 | No FGA | 541 | 215 | 0.397 | -- | -- |
| 2025-26 | Non-fast all | 1264 | 1053 | 0.833 | 38.9% | 19.3 |
Takeaway: Overall, faster possessions were more productive in both seasons. But the trigger type matters.
PPP By Trigger
| Season | Trigger | Fast PPP | Slow-FGA PPP | No-FGA PPP | Non-fast PPP | Fast Poss | Slow Poss | No-FGA Poss |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | After opponent made FG | 1.272 | 1.137 | 0.315 | 0.837 | 279 | 386 | 222 |
| 2024-25 | After Tennessee defensive rebound | 1.198 | 1.251 | 0.481 | 0.821 | 425 | 167 | 212 |
| 2024-25 | After opponent turnover | 1.608 | 1.493 | 0.500 | 1.091 | 378 | 223 | 152 |
| 2024-25 | Steal-coded turnovers only | 1.753 | 1.561 | 0.563 | 1.044 | 247 | 66 | 71 |
| 2025-26 | After opponent made FG | 1.016 | 1.094 | 0.333 | 0.822 | 189 | 371 | 207 |
| 2025-26 | After Tennessee defensive rebound | 1.252 | 1.262 | 0.453 | 0.819 | 353 | 168 | 203 |
| 2025-26 | After opponent turnover | 1.466 | 1.196 | 0.412 | 0.870 | 262 | 184 | 131 |
| 2025-26 | Steal-coded turnovers only | 1.536 | 0.875 | 0.561 | 0.693 | 194 | 48 | 66 |
The Defensive-Rebound Caveat
The overall data says fast possessions were better. But after Tennessee defensive rebounds, the slow-FGA possessions were actually a little more productive.
| Season | Def Reb Category | Poss | PPP | First-shot FG% | 3PA rate on first shot | Avg sec to first FGA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | Fast FGA <=12s | 425 | 1.198 | 39.1% | 48.2% | -- |
| 2024-25 | Slow FGA >12s | 167 | 1.251 | 41.9% | 41.9% | -- |
| 2025-26 | Fast FGA <=12s | 353 | 1.252 | 42.5% | 47.9% | -- |
| 2025-26 | Slow FGA >12s | 168 | 1.262 | 43.5% | 51.2% | -- |
I don't have the average seconds for defensive-rebound fast/slow possessions isolated in the summary table above, but by definition the fast group shot within 12 seconds, while the slow group shot after 12 seconds. In the overall dataset, the slow-FGA group averaged about 19 seconds to first shot:
- 2024-25 overall slow-FGA possessions: 18.9 seconds to first FGA
- 2025-26 overall slow-FGA possessions: 19.3 seconds to first FGA
So the defensive-rebound finding is not saying Tennessee was better when it walked the ball up forever. It is saying that after defensive rebounds, the possessions where Tennessee did not force a shot in the first 12 seconds were at least as productive, and slightly more productive by PPP, than the quick-shot possessions.
That probably means defensive rebounds are a mixed category. Some are true live-ball runouts. Others are normal rebounds where pushing immediately may not create a real advantage. In those cases, getting into offense, making one more pass, or attacking a better matchup may have been just as good or better.
First-Shot Accuracy By Trigger
| Season | Trigger | Fast first-shot FG% | Slow first-shot FG% | Fast 3PA rate | Slow 3PA rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | After opponent made FG | 42.7% | 38.1% | 48.4% | 42.7% |
| 2024-25 | After Tennessee defensive rebound | 39.1% | 41.9% | 48.2% | 41.9% |
| 2024-25 | After opponent turnover | 55.0% | 44.4% | 39.4% | 40.8% |
| 2025-26 | After opponent made FG | 35.4% | 36.7% | 48.7% | 45.0% |
| 2025-26 | After Tennessee defensive rebound | 42.5% | 43.5% | 47.9% | 51.2% |
| 2025-26 | After opponent turnover | 53.1% | 39.1% | 37.0% | 50.5% |
The report above then led to the next obvious question: Are fast possessions more productive? BLUF: Yes, especially because of the productivity and pace of points off turnovers (especially live steals).
Main Conclusions
- Fast possessions were more productive overall in both seasons.
- The biggest payoff came after opponent turnovers, especially steal-coded turnovers. That is the clearest statistical support for the pressure/transition part of Caldwell's system.
- No-FGA possessions were terrible offensively, which is one reason the combined non-fast group looks much worse than slow-FGA possessions alone.
- Defensive rebounds are the important caveat: slow-FGA possessions after defensive boards were slightly more productive than fast-FGA possessions in both seasons.
- That suggests the goal should not be "shoot fast no matter what." The better version is probably "attack fast when there is an advantage, especially after turnovers, but don't mistake every defensive rebound for a true transition chance."
Data Caveats
This is based on ESPN-style play-by-play data, not optical tracking or official shot-clock data. Game clock is used as the timing proxy. That should be close for this question, but it cannot catch every shot-clock reset, delayed inbound, replay correction, or scoring-table quirk.
The imported play-type field was unreliable for missed jumpers and missed threes, so the analysis parsed the written play descriptions instead.
Points per possession were computed from Tennessee score changes during the possession, not just the first shot and not just the imported points field.
One listed 2025-26 Ole Miss game had zero play rows and was omitted.
So I would not treat the exact decimals as gospel, but the broad pattern is useful: quick attacks were generally good, turnover-created quick attacks were very good, and defensive-rebound possessions need a more nuanced read.
RetroVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2025
- Messages
- 1,132
- Likes
- 4,345
RetroVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2025
- Messages
- 1,132
- Likes
- 4,345
. I just hope they have comparable analysis that you provide for the know it alls on the forum. You really do great work...
Advertisement
