• 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

RChildress107 said:
I want to say wrangor but without going back I can't be sure. Someone definitely said they just care about wins and SOS. And a LOT of people have harped on solely wins and losses.
Click to expand...

Not me. Sorry. Analytics are important and useful. Martin of victory matters when evaluating a team, especially when you have a coach that is trying to rebuild. KP is a much better evaluator of our program than Anthony else because it takes a non emotional view.

I will say that there is also something about learning to win, but that doesn't mean that margin of victory doesn't matter in evaluation. Clearly it does.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Wrangor said:
Not me. Sorry. Analytics are important and useful. Martin of victory matters when evaluating a team, especially when you have a coach that is trying to rebuild. KP is a much better evaluator of our program than Anthony else because it takes a non emotional view.

I will say that there is also something about learning to win, but that doesn't mean that margin of victory doesn't matter in evaluation. Clearly it does.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sorry for assigning that view to you then. I'll go back and check who it was.
 
RChildress107 said:
Where?

Do you think we will make the tourney? Why? (I don't btw)

Where would you rank this team nationally?
Click to expand...

This whole argument. You're trying to stifle any skepticism about projections.

No idea. I hope so. Depends on what the committee values unless we get some Top 25 wins or make it to Saturday in Brooklyn.

No idea. I don't watch enough of other teams. I think this team is on par with past Wake NIT teams.
 
Just for fun:

AAC:
1. Cinn (20)

ACC:
2. FSU (10)
3. UNC (9)
4. ND (15)
5. UVA (16)
6. L'ville (12)
7. dook (18)
8. VT

BE:
9. 'nova (1)
10. Butler (13)
11. Creighton (7)
12. X (22)

Big 10:
13. MD (25)
14. Wisc (17)
15 Purdue (21)

Big 12:
16. Kansas (2)
17. Baylor (6)
18. W. VA (7)
19. K State

Pac 12:
20. Az (14)
21. Oregon (11)
22. UCLA (3)

West Coast:
23. zags (4)
24. St. Mary's (23)

SEC:
25. KY (5)
26. UF (19)
27. SC (24)

Assume there are 5-8 other teams that should be on this list. That places us 32-38 based on where we are today.
 
RChildress107 said:
Sorry for assigning that view to you then. I'll go back and check who it was.
Click to expand...

It was me. And I stand by it. Tonight partly illustrated why. One possession goes differently and we probably win by ten instead of by five.

Furthermore, my whole thing is what matters to fans, not necessarily what indicates the best team. The question about where we rank nationally is fairly useless for example. If it isn't the top 25 then, as a fan, I don't get more satisfaction from being ranked 35th instead of 60th if the higher ranking doesn't translate into wins.

Until the past two games, our Kenpom rating was based on losing games to good teams and beating teams that weren't the complete drudges of the NCAA (but also aren't in the running for at large bids). As a fan, that isn't very concrete proof that we are getting better. Wins against quality ACC opponents are.

When you take the broader context of the fan base being talked down to by culture warriors for four years, condescension about advanced stats is not really appropriate. Step back to earlier this month, people were looking for confirmation that our Kenpom rating was real. This was not unreasonable given how we fell apart last year and, frankly, Manning's lack of a track record overall. Now we seem to have that confirmation.
 
The "only wins and losses matter" people don't make any sense to me. There are going to be 25 win teams that don't make the tournament, and 18 win teams that make the tournament. There will probably be teams who lose in the first round of their conference tournament who get higher seeds than conference champions. There are many other variables that matter besides wins and losses. We have the 4th highest SOS in the country, so if we do make the tournament, we will be seeded higher than many teams who have more wins than us. No one is going to look back in time and give a shit whether or not we won 17-18-19 games, it will only be important in relation to whether or not we make the tournament and how we are seeded.
 
The point is we have to win some games against high quality opponents instead of just playing a lot of them.
 
I know I'm in the minority here but I think improvements in the win column and in the stats column are both good things
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
The "only wins and losses matter" people don't make any sense to me. There are going to be 25 win teams that don't make the tournament, and 18 win teams that make the tournament. There will probably be teams who lose in the first round of their conference tournament who get higher seeds than conference champions. There are many other variables that matter besides wins and losses. We have the 4th highest SOS in the country, so if we do make the tournament, we will be seeded higher than many teams who have more wins than us. No one is going to look back in time and give a shit whether or not we won 17-18-19 games, it will only be important in relation to whether or not we make the tournament and how we are seeded.
Click to expand...

No one has actually said this. It's a RChildress straw man.
 
WFU Lurker said:
Until the past two games, our Kenpom rating was based on losing games to good teams and beating teams that weren't the complete drudges of the NCAA (but also aren't in the running for at large bids).
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm wrong here, but my understanding of KP is that it's not just a ranking of SOS, but a measure of offensive/defensive efficiency in relation to quality of opponent. To me it provides a deeper context for a team's W-L record and gives us an understanding of quality of a team outside of the top 25. So for a team like Wake, we are ranked higher this year not just because we have played such a tough schedule, but because we have been more competitive in those games. If the KP gurus want to correct me, please do.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
It comes up on the sports boards all the time, especially when people are sore after close losses.
Click to expand...

Yeah. But it's that Wake wins matter more than stats or feelings in moral victories not that an 18 win ACC team is worse than a 20 win MAAC.
 
It's mind-boggling to me that people still don't understand the basics of KenPom despite years of discussion on it.

1. Wins and losses do not matter at all
2. All the matter is offensive and defensive efficiency (adjusted for strength of opponent).
3. The Four Factors that go into each of those are: effective field goal %, offensive rebounding %, turnover %, and free throw attempts/field goal attempts

Wins and losses are all that matter at the end of the day to fans, and results, but when you are looking for predictive analysis, and how "improved" the team is overall, wins don't matter at all in the KenPom world.

All that matters is how efficient you are on both sides of the ball, and the strength of the opponent you play.
 
Last edited:
whodatdeac said:
Maybe I'm wrong here, but my understanding of KP is that it's not just a ranking of SOS, but a measure of offensive/defensive efficiency in relation to quality of opponent. To me it provides a deeper context for a team's W-L record and gives us an understanding of quality of a team outside of the top 25. So for a team like Wake, we are ranked higher this year not just because we have played such a tough schedule, but because we have been more competitive in those games. If the KP gurus want to correct me, please do.
Click to expand...

This is correct. It doesn't care if people know who Bucknell is, because statistically Bucknell is 95th in the country. That's a good win. Playing well against Bucknell/CoC (both top 100 teams) as opposed to playing well against Radford or Charlotte (sub-200) matters, and it matters a lot. They are completely different teams and provide different assessments of how good we are, based on how we play.
 
SpringChicken said:
I know I'm in the minority here but I think improvements in the win column and in the stats column are both good things
Click to expand...

I'm with you, it's just a personal belief of mine that kenpom and other advanced statistics (mainly kenpom) can show progress during a complete rebuild moreso than the wins column. We're seeing that kenpom progress come to fruition right now in wins just as it was predicted, and hopefully we keep it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The trap Danny created yesterday to be used against Smith was a great idea. If you noticed, the double was almost always a big (mostly Dinos). Then another player would often rotate into the middle taking away the immediate roll pass. Further, by having Dinos do a trap rather than a show, we took away passes to that side of the court by having a 6'10 person to throw over.

It worked best against State due to their reliance on Smith. It also worked against them because they aren't very smart in Bball IQ.

Few teams rely show much on one guy. So, it won't be as effective against others. However, I'd like to see Danny use this tactic several times a game rather than hedging.
 
Great observation. Seemed more like a trap rather than a hedge. We also did not seem to hedge as far out from the basket as we had been doing in other games. It was quite effective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top