• 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

TownieDeac said:
Fine, but you're way overthinking by doing all this contextualizing. No amount of rationalization makes this season fun until we beat a good team.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But at this point it's all relative and this is the most fun Wake team we've had in 7 years and I feel good about next year being the most fun team we've had since Chris Paul left (not as good as the 09 team but minus the drama and embarrassing first round loss).
 
The context helps identify how close we are to having fun as fans.

If the goal were boiling water, Manning has taken a pot of ice and turned it into hot water. Some of y'all are the frogs who can't tell the difference
 
RChildress107 said:
this is the most fun Wake team we've had in 7 years.
Click to expand...

See, this is the problem. If board consensus is that Dino and [Redacted] sucked, then why are folks propping up Manning by showing that he's exceeded an expectation that most of us agree is a lousy expectation?

We're ranked highly right now because we play in a good conference and because we have lost to good teams. We're not fun to watch, either, and lack of depth remains an issue six years after [Redacted] blew up the program for the first time. Moral victories just don't do it for me anymore.
 
DeacDaddy said:
..
Click to expand...

One objective fact does not equal a healthy dose.

Without context that fact doesn't tell me anything other than we have sucked compared to the rest of our ACC competition over an arbitrary span of games. It doesn't tell me much about our teams overall quality or how many ACC games we can expect to win over our next 28.
 
Strickland33 said:
See, this is the problem. If board consensus is that Dino and [Redacted] sucked, then why are folks propping up Manning by showing that he's exceeded an expectation that most of us agree is a lousy expectation?

We're ranked highly right now because we play in a good conference and because we have lost to good teams. We're not fun to watch, either, and lack of depth remains an issue six years after [Redacted] blew up the program for the first time. Moral victories just don't do it for me anymore.
Click to expand...

No, we are ranked this highly because we have a very efficient offense and rebound pretty well.
 
No, some of us recognize that he has gotten us out of the icy redacted waters and brought some warmth to our program, while still believing he won't get us boiling hot. Because his strengths appear to be less the master chef variety, and more along the lines of an quality sous-chef.
 
Strickland33 said:
See, this is the problem. If board consensus is that Dino and [Redacted] sucked, then why are folks propping up Manning by showing that he's exceeded an expectation that most of us agree is a lousy expectation?

We're ranked highly right now because we play in a good conference and because we have lost to good teams. We're not fun to watch, either, and lack of depth remains an issue six years after [Redacted] blew up the program for the first time. Moral victories just don't do it for me anymore.
Click to expand...

Don't think there is a board consensus that Dino sucked. This team is ranked highly because when adjusted for strength of schedule it would be expected to beat the average team by 14 points on a neutral floor. Our ranking is unchanged since the start of ACC play.

I never said this team was fun to watch. Simply that it was more fun than any team we've had in 7 years.
 
DeacDaddy said:
No, some of us recognize that he has gotten us out of the icy redacted waters and brought some warmth to our program, while still believing he won't get us boiling hot. Because his strengths appear to be less the master chef variety, and more along the lines of an quality sous-chef.
Click to expand...

Again, I think we are just holding Manning to different standards/timetables. Given what he inherited, yours seems pretty unreasonable
 
RChildress107 said:
The context helps identify how close we are to having fun as fans.

If the goal were boiling water, Manning has taken a pot of ice and turned it into hot water. Some of y'all are the frogs who can't tell the difference
Click to expand...

Tell that to UNC fans who engineered the coup to depose Doh. I'm sure that fanbase would be tolerant and patient while ice water turned warm.
 
If I was hiring a replacement for [Redacted] my expectations would have been the following:

Short term (yrs 1-3): make us respectable again. I.e. Get us back within the range we enjoyed from 1990-2010.

Mid term (yrs 4-6): top 40 team each year, make the tournament at least twice, finish in top 25 at least once.

Long term (yrs 7-10): top 25 each year, an ACC championship (regular or tourney), 8+ NCAA wins, top 10 at least once.

Barring a complete collapse he has met short term expectations. He has us in good position for mid term expectations. Why are people already writing him off on those long term expectations?
 
RChildress107 said:
The context helps identify how close we are to having fun as fans.

If the goal were boiling water, Manning has taken a pot of ice and turned it into hot water. Some of y'all are the frogs who can't tell the difference
Click to expand...

If this metaphor is meant to depict Wake as a dying fanbase, it does kinda work.
 
Strickland33 said:
But a game involves both types of possessions, no?
Click to expand...

Well of course, but obviously 25% of possessions are weighted at 25%, while 75% are weighted at 75%.

Not sure if he makes any adjustments for increasing the value of possessions in the final minutes (I am almost positive he doesn't because in theory all possessions are worth the same), so we are ranked where we are because we are pretty damn efficient on the majority of our possessions. Our (anecdotally at least) poor possessions appear to come later in the game than just randomly sprinkled throughout.

I do think that if we looked at our possessions in each game throughout the course of the season so far, bad possessions wouldn't necessarily be clustered at the end of games, or under the 8 minute mark. It just feels that way because the last 2-3 games have been that way.
 
RChildress107 said:
If I was hiring a replacement for [Redacted] my expectations would have been the following:

Short term (yrs 1-3): make us respectable again. I.e. Get us back within the range we enjoyed from 1990-2010.

Mid term (yrs 4-6): top 40 team each year, make the tournament at least twice, finish in top 25 at least once.

Long term (yrs 7-10): top 25 each year, an ACC championship (regular or tourney), 8+ NCAA wins, top 10 at least once.

Barring a complete collapse he has met short term expectations. He has us in good position for mid term expectations. Why are people already writing him off on those long term expectations?
Click to expand...

This may be a good goal with a mediocre coach. Wellman may have ruined the coaching well for us. But you can absolutely turn a basketball team around in 2 - 3 years. Waiting 7 - 10 to get back to, and remain in, the top 25 is a pretty low bar for an historically good (top 25 most years) program.
 
knowell said:
How efficient are we in the last 10 minutes of the game and when the game is on the line?
Click to expand...

Over the last 10 minutes of games our margin is 4 points less on average than expected based on current Kenpom rankings. That means we are playing 16 points worse than our Kenpom ranking in the last 10 minutes. If my math is correct that means we are 5.3 points per game better over the first 30 min.

That's the equivalent of being a top 25 team for 30 minutes and a ~#180 team for the last 10.

In the non-conference the 30min/10min split was +3.14 ppg / -9..44 ppg (equivalent of going from #30 to #115).

In ACC play the split is +11.86/-35.6 (equivalent of going from #9 to #345)

There are a lot of assumptions baked in there that make those numbers very rough, especially for the smaller the sample sizes, but still the numbers are startling.

Edit: these numbers are wrong because I didn't adjust for pace. Multiply everything by 7 and a rough calculation becomes even rougher but in the ballpark.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top