wakephan09
fuck duke
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 29,070
- Reaction score
- 3,237
Much clearer, thank you. It was a rather confusing statement.
Danny Manning Credibility Watch
- Thread starter RaleighTriad
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
warak
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
- Reaction score
- 790
you know, Skip was my favorite WFU coach but was only an above average game day coach and only good recruiter (not great). my love of Skip was his post game discussion and witty remarks...i loved listening to him talk and was a great representative of WFU. let's not let the rose colored glasses effect the truth.
CharlotteDeac1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,586
- Reaction score
- 201
From recruiting and in game coaching there seems to be many similarities between DM and Roy Williams. Williams is at best an average in game coach (ask a unc fan how they feel about this) and a great recruiter. Once we see more improvement on the court, Danny should be able to pull in great recruiting classes. 2015 & 2017 are both very good.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RChildress107
Well-known member
So the bar for Manning is basically:
1. Rebuild the program following its worst four year stretch in program history;
2. Bring it back to the level of play it sustained during the 20 years before that stretch;
3. Take the program to the next level, firmly establishing it as a top 10 program for the rest of his career; and
4. Do this all in 4 years (or less) although we might give you a 5th year if you complete 1 and 2 and we subjectively believe you can do number 3.
1. Rebuild the program following its worst four year stretch in program history;
2. Bring it back to the level of play it sustained during the 20 years before that stretch;
3. Take the program to the next level, firmly establishing it as a top 10 program for the rest of his career; and
4. Do this all in 4 years (or less) although we might give you a 5th year if you complete 1 and 2 and we subjectively believe you can do number 3.
warak
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
- Reaction score
- 790
holy cow...very high expectations. with that list we would have a new coach every 4-5 years. it is much harder to be a top 10 team year-in year-out then you think.
RChildress107
Well-known member
I agree, but that's the vibe I get from people calling for Manning's job or questioning his credibility.
I think we should care far less about Manning's substitution patterns, out of bounds sets, and halftime adjustments and far more about his ability to evaluate, acquire, and deploy talent.
Given what he inherited, it is hard to argue that he hasn't been above average at the latter.
Thanks for reminding me of this; I am changing my vote to #ManningIN...for now, based on these data. Here is the regression updated:
Dino's teams are in Blue, Prosser in Black and Manning in Red (I left off BZ because he drop the correlation coefficient dramatically). Points above the line indicate that the kenpom rank was worse than expected given the talent level and points below the line indicate the kenpom rank is better than expected given the talent level. Manning somewhat under-performed his first two years, but is greatly over performing this season.
DCDeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 11,730
- Reaction score
- 2,566
This is just another way of saying Kenpom is bullshit. Which is a perfectly fair argument to try to make, but you're just twisting words instead of talking about the actual data.
ChrisL68
Riley Skinner
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 31,091
- Reaction score
- 3,502
Not really. Kenpom is a good tool, but I don't judge a coach's performance based on kenpom ratings.
Dino's last year, last place Miami FL had a better kenpom rating and beat us twice, yet we went to the NCAA tournament.
Ultimately, a coach is judged by wins and losses and the quality therein.
That's not how he's interpreting it at all I would say. I think he's saying Kenpom rank inversely correlates nicely with talent level and Manning is showing a huge relative increase in Kenpom ranking to talent on the team this year, therefore might actually be a good coach.
The question is, how reliable can the "talent" data be?
Thanks for reminding me of this; I am changing my vote to #ManningIN...for now, based on these data. Here is the regression updated:
Dino's teams are in Blue, Prosser in Black and Manning in Red (I left off BZ because he drop the correlation coefficient dramatically). Points above the line indicate that the kenpom rank was worse than expected given the talent level and points below the line indicate the kenpom rank is better than expected given the talent level. Manning somewhat under-performed his first two years, but is greatly over performing this season.
You can do the same thing with games won, but that doesn't account for quality of opponent, which I think Kenpom does.
In this case, manning got a few more wins out of his first team than expected and under-performed last year, this year's numbers aren't final yet so don't worry about mannings third dot below the line.
The main thing that jumps out at me about this, Manning's talent levels are are pretty well below Prosser and Gaudio but he is doing just as well with respect to expectation vs result. So the real problem is getting more talent so that we can expect, and the team will achieve, more wins.
mebanedeac
Well-known member
Until we defeat multiple ranked teams (as opposed to the occasional surprise), we cannot expect to be taken seriously in the ACC or nationally. We have had reasonable opportunities to do that already this season and we failed. There will be several more such opportunities as the season goes on, but they will be substantially more difficult.
There is still the distinct possibility that this season will prove to be as disappointing as the previous 6.
Yet, we have superior talent so perhaps it will end better than it has begun. I just wish we had seen something on the court to give that hope. It is still disheartening to see how poorly we defend! Instead of stopping teams, we rely on them stopping themselves.
There is still the distinct possibility that this season will prove to be as disappointing as the previous 6.
Yet, we have superior talent so perhaps it will end better than it has begun. I just wish we had seen something on the court to give that hope. It is still disheartening to see how poorly we defend! Instead of stopping teams, we rely on them stopping themselves.
...and just for reference, here is the KP rank chart with [Redacted]'s years included.
I did Bz' years in puke green and everyone else in blue. He was just awful. Notice how the r-squared drops from 0.625 to 0.13 (meaning without him the talent explains 62.5% of the variation in KP rank and with him it only explains 13%) and also note that every single year was above the regression line, indicating that the rank was worse than expected given talent.
I did Bz' years in puke green and everyone else in blue. He was just awful. Notice how the r-squared drops from 0.625 to 0.13 (meaning without him the talent explains 62.5% of the variation in KP rank and with him it only explains 13%) and also note that every single year was above the regression line, indicating that the rank was worse than expected given talent.
RChildress107
Well-known member
So use RPI instead (which measures the "quality therein"). I imagine it will point to a similar conclusion.
RChildress107
Well-known member
What do you mean by reliable? In many ways the accuracy of the talent data is irrelevant as long as it is consistent.
If the data is accurate then Manning is going to be a hell of a coach. If it is inaccurate then Manning is a hell of a talent evaluator, which at the college level can lead to you being a hell of a coach.
RChildress107
Well-known member
Our RPI, which solely factors wins and strength of schedule, has us at 19th in the country right now.
Sorry Ayo, I didn't have time to do a full on MCMC Bayesian regression model with competing hypotheses and DIC scores. I just threw some shit together in excel to visualize Manning's success compared to our previous coaches. Feel free to do a real statistical analysis. Here is some JAGS code I copied form another project and changed the variable names to get you started, but you'll have to load your own data. Probably running it all through R with the R2JAGS package would be the best way forward. I'd also suggest modifying the code to incorporate "inclusion parameters" on the betas as is demonstrated here, but I first learned about it here. I think the Hooten and Hobbs explanation is more straight forward for non-statisticians like me. The inclusion parameters will tell you whether it is useful to include the variable in your model.
model_string <- "model{
# Likelihood
for(i in 1:n){
Y ~ dnorm(mu,inv.var)
mu <- beta[1] + beta[2]*Tscore + beta[3]*coach
}
# Prior for beta
for(j in 1:3){
beta[j] ~ dnorm(0,0.0001)
}
# Prior for the inverse variance
inv.var ~ dgamma(0.01, 0.01)
sigma <- 1/sqrt(inv.var)
}"
DCDeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 11,730
- Reaction score
- 2,566
This is exactly what i meant by my post. I think you misunderstood me. You value something other than kenpom for team quality. That's reasonable but no reason to talk around the point.