• 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

PhDeac said:
Good post.

I wish the people who are bashing skeptics would just admit that they are basing their opinions on hope and moral victories.
Click to expand...

"Moral victories" is simply another way of saying analytically positive but emotionally negative event. Ultimately wins are all that matters, but when evaluating a teams quality, or a coach's improvement, I'll take a sample size of 2100 (possessions) over a sample size of 30.(games).

I'm giving Manning credit for having us in games we probably shouldn't be in, rather than doubting him for not finishing those games.

Mainly because, as a statistical reality, when a mediocre team has a second half lead against a better team, they should be expected to at least somewhat blow that lead.
 
Why do you think the handwringing is only about the last three games?
 
It was in a thread called "Coaching" vs. "Talent".

On that same thread birdman ran a regression that indicated that if you remove the [Redacted] years the rudimentary talent score I developed explained ~80% of the final Kenpom ranking. Buzz skewed the data because he sucked so fucking much.
 
What those numbers do illustrate is that, contrary to what people may think, [Redacted] left Manning in a worse place than Dino left [Redacted]. That seems to be a somewhat popular narrative.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
What those numbers do illustrate is that, contrary to what people may think, [Redacted] left Manning in a worse place than Dino left [Redacted]. That seems to be a somewhat popular narrative.
Click to expand...
It is contrary to what many people think, but it's a popular narrative. Pure nonsense ninja!
 
Average of Lowe's 3 worst seasons:

Talent: 4.23, 15.33 wins, SRS: 6.94, KP: 92.67

Manning over 2 and 1/2 seasons (weighting this season half as much as first two)

Talent: 3.28, 13-14 wins (depending on how we finish), SRS: 6.66, KP:104.2

Let's please stop the Sidney Lowe comparisons
 
Coaching basketball is really about getting as much talent on the floor as you can, and installing a system and culture that maximizes that talent.

90% of good college coaches simply assemble talented teams on a regular basis and make sure the team adds up somewhere close to the sum of its parts.

Coaches that take average talent and turn it into something greater than the sum of its parts, or steal games throughout the season through in game wizardry or individual game planning are few and far between.

Y'all are looking for a unicorn when a horse will do.

Manning has proven he can put talent on the floor, put a system in place, and largely get out of the way. The talent needs to get better and Manning appears up to that task.
 
RChildress107 said:
Coaching basketball is really about getting as much talent on the floor as you can, and installing a system and culture that maximizes that talent.

90% of good college coaches simply assemble talented teams on a regular basis and make sure the team adds up somewhere close to the sum of its parts.

Coaches that take average talent and turn it into something greater than the sum of its parts, or steal games throughout the season through in game wizardry or individual game planning are few and far between.

Y'all are looking for a unicorn when a horse will do.

Manning has proven he can put talent on the floor, put a system in place, and largely get out of the way. The talent needs to get better and Manning appears up to that task.
Click to expand...

That is a reasonable argument. As frustrated as I am over what appears to be a lack of progress, especially on the defensive end, it is a fact that our team is still very young and relatively inexperienced. In the BC game it struck me that Arians seems to have the best bb IQ (notwithstanding the boneheaded passes against Clemson). And he is the oldest, most experienced player on the team. It is reasonable that Crawford, Collins, Woods and Childress will show marked improvement with increased experience. Dinos is definitely improved in his interior game; but time is running out for him. Despite the negativity toward Wilbekin, it seems to me that he is more responsive to game situations and makes better decisions offensively. He is one of our best shooters, particularly at the foul line.

Moore is the guy who doesn't appear to be improving in a measurable way. His determination to shoot in the last game gave the appearance that he was auditioning for something. Hope not.
 
Last edited:
wakephan09 said:
It is contrary to what many people think, but it's a popular narrative. Pure nonsense ninja!
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're just picking to pick, or I was unclear (or both), let me rephrase:

It seems to be a popular notion, on this thread especially, that Manning has/had more talent at his disposal than what [name redacted] had when he first got here. So, contrary to what people may think, that is actually incorrect given the numbers Childress listed.
 
This board makes way to big a deal over what it sees in one individual game. Looking at the big picture, one of the following must be true:

1. Danny's players are better than expected based on recruiting rankings (which Manning should get credit for); or

2. Danny gets more out of the talent he has than is to be expected (which Manning should get credit for).
 
It would be interesting to see what the "Expected KenPom" rank is given our talent evaluation by SRS.

I'm not sure if what Danny is doing is above average, average, or below average given this team's 3.40 ranking. Obviously this would need to be schedule adjusted, which makes it a bit harder, but it would provide a good picture.
 
Funny that VTech is now rated at 40 & WF is 45 when one is coached by the savior & the other the devil.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
It would be interesting to see what the "Expected KenPom" rank is given our talent evaluation by SRS.

I'm not sure if what Danny is doing is above average, average, or below average given this team's 3.40 ranking. Obviously this would need to be schedule adjusted, which makes it a bit harder, but it would provide a good picture.
Click to expand...

SRS is schedule adjusted but not pace adjusted I think. It's kind of in between Kenpom and RPI. I use it because it has data going back much further than Kenpom.

This is from the original thread, would be interested to see an update:

RChildress107 said:
For a non-Wake comparison I also looked at Tony Bennett's first two years at UVA

UVA 2009-2010: Talent: 3.54; Wins: 15; SRS: 8.80; Kenpom: 80
UVA 2010-2011: Talent: 3.44; Wins: 16; SRS: 6.01; Kenpom: 99
Click to expand...

Comparing him to what Skip and Bennett did with similar talent, given the consensus that they are both above average coaches, I would guess that Manning would be above average if you did a full scale analysis.
 
Years 3 and 4 for Bennett

Talent: 3.67; Wins: 22 (got whooped in first round by Florida); SRS: 12.51; KP: 33

Talent: 3.57; Wins: 23 (3rd round NIT); SRS: 12.89; KP: 41
 
RChildress107 said:
This board makes way to big a deal over what it sees in one individual game. Looking at the big picture, one of the following must be true:

1. Danny's players are better than expected based on recruiting rankings (which Manning should get credit for); or

2. Danny gets more out of the talent he has than is to be expected (which Manning should get credit for).
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is arguing that Manning isn't a decent-to-good recruiter.
 
CantStandYa said:
I don't think anyone is arguing that Manning isn't a decent-to-good recruiter.
Click to expand...

I agree. But if they are Manning pessimists they should be.

Given the perceived talent level, Manning is performing at or above what Skip Prosser and Tony Bennett did with the same perceived talent.


That means one of three things:

1. Manning is on Skip's level as a coach and thus when he brings in Skip level recruits we can expect similar results.

2. Manning's teams are more talented than perceived because Manning is a prodigy at identifying talent. Once you get into the top 75 players this skill has diminishing returns meaning that when Manning starts recruiting at Skips level his teams' actual talent will match its perceived talent.

3. There was something peculiar to Skips coaching style that made him a good coach when he had a certain level of talent but a mediocre coach when his talent wasn't at that level. Manning doesn't share that trait.

Manning Skeptics need to cling to something like #2 or #3.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top