• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Danny Manning Credibility Watch Thread Credibility Watch

Time for the DMCWTCWTCW. This thread has jumped the shark.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 
TownieDeac said:
Does Kenpom consider blowing leads or bad rotations or bad turnovers? Close losses are gonna look better in Kenpom than they'll feel to fans.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But close losses, by definition, are close to being wins. That means this team is close to being a 15-4 top 25 KP team.

That means Manning is close to getting us back to where we want to be, and given what our team looks like next year, has a decent chance of getting us there by year 4.

People either can't make that connection, think there is a much greater gap between a close win and a close loss, or think that advanced statistics are bunk.
 
RChildress107 said:
That seems like a "the advanced statistics that have us at #40 are inaccurate" argument. That's fine, I just haven't seen anyone willing to make that argument.

If your view is "teams should be judged solely on wins and losses," I disagree with you but am not going to argue with you or call you unreasonable.

If your view involves more nuance than that, such that you agree Duke is clearly better than College of Charleston despite similar W-L records, then I'd love to know what other factors you consider.
Click to expand...

Of course it's more nuanced than that. I basically look at it like the committee does: record matters but some wins are better than others, some losses are worse than others. Prior to Miami, we had the unique situation of having no quality wins (best win was at KP #92) and no bad losses (worst loss was to #33 Clemson). Take out margin of victory / loss and that equals a pretty mediocre team. In other words, I just don't care much about margin. You either win or you lose. By how much doesn't really matter too much to me.
 
Last edited:
RChildress107 said:
Agreed.

But close losses, by definition, are close to being wins. That means this team is close to being a 15-4 top 25 KP team.

That means Manning is close to getting us back to where we want to be, and given what our team looks like next year, has a decent chance of getting us there by year 4.

People either can't make that connection, think there is a much greater gap between a close win and a close loss, or think that advanced statistics are bunk.
Click to expand...

Of course there's a huge gap between a close win and a close loss. Not in statistical terms but in emotional terms. Sports aren't about statistics, they are about emotions.
 
WFU Lurker said:
Of course it's more nuanced than that. I basically look at it like the committee does: record matters but some wins are better than others, some losses are worse than others. Prior to Miami, we had the unique situation of having no quality wins (best win was at KP #92) and no bad losses (worst loss was to #33 Clemson). Take out margin of victory / loss and that equals a pretty mediocre team. In other words, I just don't care much about margin. You either win or you lose. By how much doesn't really matter too much to me.
Click to expand...

You are basically describing RPI which has us at #30.
 
WFU Lurker said:
Of course there's a huge gap between a close win and a close loss. Not in statistical terms but in emotional terms. Sports aren't about statistics, they are about emotions.
Click to expand...

I was speaking in predictive/statistical terms. In statistical terms a team with a bunch of 1 point losses would only need to be 2 ppg better on average to turn those losses into wins.

It wouldn't shock me if it were the case that when a team is crossing the threshold between losing a bunch of close games by a point and winning them might require a team to be more than 2 ppg better.
 
WFU Lurker said:
Not quite. I don't give extra credit for wins against the likes of Bucknell and UNCG because they are better than Radford and UTEP.
Click to expand...

So basically an RPI like system that breaks teams into certain tiers and calculates SOS that way rather than linearly?

I see the appeal to that, but such a system seems very schedule dependent since we lack data points in that 40-90 tier (or tiers).
 
Why bother distinguishing between the difference in wins over a top 40 team (Miami) and top 100 team (CoC) if you're not going to distinguish between the difference in wins between Bucknell (top 110 team) and UTEP (300+)?

The difference in Bucknell and UTEP at this point of the season is almost twice as big of a gap between Miami and CoC on KenPom.
 
RChildress107 said:
So basically an RPI like system that breaks teams into certain tiers and calculates SOS that way rather than linearly?

I see the appeal to that, but such a system seems very schedule dependent since we lack data points in that 40-90 tier (or tiers).
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

And, yes, agree that it's a little weird to evaluate Wake against it this year because of how our schedule has worked out in terms of difficulty.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Why bother distinguishing between the difference in wins over a top 40 team (Miami) and top 100 team (CoC) if you're not going to distinguish between the difference in wins between Bucknell (top 110 team) and UTEP (300+)?

The difference in Bucknell and UTEP at this point of the season is almost twice as big of a gap between Miami and CoC on KenPom.
Click to expand...

My view is we should always beat low majors because we invest so much more in the program and have so much more talent than they do.

Do you get satisfaction out of beating Bucknell? Knowing that our coaching staff probably makes more than five times as much as theirs?
 
There's something a little weird going on in these threads. People are using Kenpom and other advanced stats as #evidence that Wake basketball is back in arguments with people who are waiting for actual wins.
 
WFU Lurker said:
My view is we should always beat low majors because we invest so much more in the program and have so much more talent than they do.

Do you get satisfaction out of beating Bucknell? Knowing that our coaching staff probably makes more than five times as much as theirs?
Click to expand...

I don't conflate my personal satisfaction about each win with the reality of how "good" or "bad" bad it was. If UNC was objectively the worst team in America I would get a great amount of satisfaction from beating them regardless. That doesn't mean that it was a "good" win objectively.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I don't know that I've staked out a position on Manning one way or the other (blasphemous I know) other than to say this past offseason that I was surprised with how much of the fan base was seemingly against Manning.

It's hard to offer up where Manning stands in a vacuum, nor do I think it's particularly helpful, but it's also difficult to identify what context we should be providing for how Manning is doing. Do we compare him with previous Wake coaches, other ACC coaches at present, all other NCAA coaches at present, with other programs but also adding in some "multiplier" for where we as a fan base believe Wake "should" be compared to other programs (where success at, say, Duke, Wake, and NC A&T would all be viewed differently), or a mixture of all of this?

My current position is that Manning is doing a solid job at this juncture at Wake and that he has experienced some decent success this year. He's seemingly very good at identifying talent while recruiting and has shown pretty solid indicators that he is able to lock down good to great recruits. Similarly, he and his staff (which I think he gets credit for as well) have done a good to very good job of developing the talent that has been brought in. His in-game coaching has at times been pretty bad to downright terrible, but he still seems to be growing into his own style and identifying how he wants to manage games himself which makes sense as he's only been a head coach for five years. Do I wish he had more of an "identity" at this point? Maybe at times, but he seems open to changing how he operates (see substitution patterns changing a bit over time as well as use of time outs) - which I think is more than even the most ardent defenders of [name redacted] would or could say.

All-in-all I'm happy with Manning as our head coach for now and at this point I think that's all that really needs to be said or thought about. We can revisit Manning's position at the end of the season when there's a larger sample size and a third season to compare in whole to the previous two years.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. We need to remember what a hole name redacted left us with. Looking ahead, with the continued development of a still young team, when you replace McClinton and Arians with Brown and Eggelston next year our talent level goes up.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I don't conflate my personal satisfaction about each win with the reality of how "good" or "bad" bad it was. If UNC was objectively the worst team in America I would get a great amount of satisfaction from beating them regardless. That doesn't mean that it was a "good" win objectively.
Click to expand...

That's fine. I am not trying to be objective. I am being a fan and am saying what matters to me. Beating Bucknell does not result in me holding Manning in higher esteem or feeling better about where our program is.
 
I misunderstood then - I now see you were saying that you personally don't view them differently. I was thinking about how methodology could be used in the actual selection process, not about what matters to fans.
 
What if we lost to Illinois State or St. Mary's this year? Seems like you would view this differently than losing to Boston College or Georgia Tech, even though Wake would be underdogs on a neutral court against both Illinois State and St. Mary's but would be favored anywhere they played BC/GT. The former would be a bad loss because Wake should never lose to those teams, while the latter is okay because they happen to be in the same conference?
 
WFU Lurker said:
That's fine. I am not trying to be objective. I am being a fan and am saying what matters to me. Beating Bucknell does not result in me holding Manning in higher esteem or feeling better about where our program is.
Click to expand...

What about the manner in which we beat those teams? Because there is definitely a difference in the way we handled those teams this year compared to last


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top