• 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

FckVwls said:
I'm not saying that for sure. What I am saying is:

1. We are a decent team this year because we have 3 awesome players
2. Manning brought these players into the program and has developed them for 2 years and now they are good.
3. Maybe DM is really good at finding/developing awesome players or maybe he just got lucky. Kind of hard to know with the sample size we have at this point.
4. I do know with quite a lot of confidence that Danny sucks at game management, lineups, timeouts, adjustments etc.
Click to expand...

#3, even if true, isn't enough to explain how decent we are, especially if #4 is also true.
 
FckVwls said:
Not really. It's the same as if a rookie* NFL GM hits on 3 stars during an NFL draft. I recognize and acknowledge that the 3 players are studs. I'm not going to all of a sudden assume that the GM is a better than average talent analyst.
Click to expand...

Since we don't know about the frosh yet, all the evidence is he has found and improved the talent.
 
RJKarl said:
Since we don't know about the frosh yet, all the evidence is he has found and improved the talent.
Click to expand...

Uh, we know about the frosh. Basically all of them are drawing dead to ever be top 30-40 players in the ACC.
 
SpringChicken said:
Because it preconceives the possibility that he's not the GOAT recruiter/developer
Click to expand...

He's not. But you have to explain our teams performance some how. If Manning sucks as an in game coach, sucks as a recruiter and sucks as a developer of talent, then you are left with he got lucky that Collins, Crawford, Woods, and Dino all outperformed their recruiting rankings.

That's a huge stretch, and the variance of those 4 from their recruiting ranks isn't enough to explain the variance in our performance from our teams overall recruiting rankings. And that's before factoring in that Manning is apparently below average at everything else.
 
RJKarl said:
He did blow the 2016 class, but he had to go balls to the walls and keep slots open in case we got Giles. You can't deny we have more talent than at any time in the past 6-7 years and we are getting better. It's undeniable that JC, Dinos and Bryant have great improved since arrive. Although Wilbekin isn't an ACC level starter, he's also improved. We can't tell yet about the frosh.

As to his coaching, he has had some problems, but to say he sucks is without merit.

You love your analytics. How can a coach who is "less than average" take this amount of talent to #21 in RPI and Top 50 in KP and Sagarin? Do their computers and numbers only count when they fit your preconceived notions?

The jury is still out on Danny's coaching.
Click to expand...

I said he was "less than average" at in-game coaching. I flaunted his ability to recruit guys and develop them. I hope that he can continue to sustain that and also improve on the nuances of situational basketball once the game begins.
 
RJKarl said:
He did blow the 2016 class, but he had to go balls to the walls and keep slots open in case we got Giles. You can't deny we have more talent than at any time in the past 6-7 years and we are getting better. It's undeniable that JC, Dinos and Bryant have great improved since arrive. Although Wilbekin isn't an ACC level starter, he's also improved. We can't tell yet about the frosh.

As to his coaching, he has had some problems, but to say he sucks is without merit.

You love your analytics. How can a coach who is "less than average" take this amount of talent to #21 in RPI and Top 50 in KP and Sagarin? Do their computers and numbers only count when they fit your preconceived notions?

The jury is still out on Danny's coaching.
Click to expand...

The point that he hasn't recruited a player above 50 in rankings but is 44 in kenpom this year is a irrelevant. Total recruiting class rankings is what should matter. That being said, we have an average of the 66th ranked recruiting classes from 2014-2016. Therefore, Manning is outperforming recruiting rankings this year by about 20 spots.

**does not count Keyshawn Woods as a recruit since he wasn't in the recruiting class database


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think we can all agree that Manning is either an excellent coach or a terrible one. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
 
We don't that about Sam. Hell, unless you are God, you can't possibly know that yet. How many players had bad frosh years but became good ACC players?

Given the fact that several of our players have progressed, to say others won't is not only without merit, it contradicts what has happened.

You have chided in the past for being anti-analytics. Yet now, you and others are dismissing those analytics entirely, because they don't fit your set-in-stone position. You can't suck at coaching, have a lesser amount of talent, yet be ranked where we are by three major sources of analytics.
 
Given our recruiting rankings and experience I'd imagine an average coach would have us in the 100-125ish range in Kenpom.

Since Manning is apparently a shitty in game coach and that apparently matters a lot, let's bump that down to 150. On average our top 4 were 3 star players. They play ~55% of our minutes.

Even if we say that on average they are actually 4 star players our team is only about a half star more talented than our recruiting rankings would suggest.

That's not enough to explain a more than 100 spot jump in expected Kenpom.
 
RChildress107 said:
In short, if Manning is truly an average to below average coach then he has gotten extremely lucky in getting this team within the top 50.
Click to expand...

#1 in luck!!!!!! But seriously, these recruiting rankings being below where we are in kenpom is a pretty good way of telling that he's not NEARLY as bad as some of you are saying. In fact, it would go to show that he's pretty much good at all aspects of coaching outside of late game management - but as I said before, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until he has a full roster including bench players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RJKarl said:
If #1 and #2 are true, then #3 is showing a preconceived negative notion. If believe #2 , #3 is ridiculous.

As to #4, you have no way to fully judge that with a team that you have to try weird things to succeed due being out-talented so often. He may not be great, but to say he sucks cannot be justified due the talent level.
Click to expand...
As excuses go, "you have to try weird things" is a doozy. That excuse flies only in our other major sport.

"Trying weird things" is really just "Manning doesn't yet know how to win games with 8 mins to go." Maybe he should try more conventional things.
 
CharlotteDeac1 said:
#1 in luck!!!!!! But seriously, these recruiting rankings being below where we are in kenpom is a pretty good way of telling that he's not NEARLY as bad as some of you are saying. In fact, it would go to show that he's pretty much good at all aspects of coaching outside of late game management - but as I said before, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until he has a full roster including bench players.


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

I know you're joking, but wanted to look at "luck" for this year. We are ranked 191st. Meaning that we are slightly below average nationally at the rate that we win close games.

Last year we actually finished at 106th because we lost almost all the close games in conference, which pretty much goes with the notion that close games are won at a toss-up rate.

It also kind of shows that "learning to win" is a dumb notion as well. Last year Wake won their first 6 games decided by 5 points or less. They then lost their final 4 games decided by 5 points or less. Did they forget how to close out games and win over the course of a season? I thought once a team "got over the hump", they would "close out games" better?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I know you're joking, but wanted to look at "luck" for this year. We are ranked 191st. Meaning that we are slightly below average nationally at the rate that we win close games.

Last year we actually finished at 106th because we lost almost all the close games in conference, which pretty much goes with the notion that close games are won at a toss-up rate.

It also kind of shows that "learning to win" is a dumb notion as well. Last year Wake won their first 6 games decided by 5 points or less. They then lost their final 4 games decided by 5 points or less. Did they forget how to close out games and win over the course of a season? I thought once a team "got over the hump", they would "close out games" better?
Click to expand...

Yeah I was joking because of being #1 in luck last year for about 3-4 games at the beginning of the year. This is a good post


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I know you're joking, but wanted to look at "luck" for this year. We are ranked 191st. Meaning that we are slightly below average nationally at the rate that we win close games.

Last year we actually finished at 106th because we lost almost all the close games in conference, which pretty much goes with the notion that close games are won at a toss-up rate.

It also kind of shows that "learning to win" is a dumb notion as well. Last year Wake won their first 6 games decided by 5 points or less. They then lost their final 4 games decided by 5 points or less. Did they forget how to close out games and win over the course of a season? I thought once a team "got over the hump", they would "close out games" better?
Click to expand...

Some of the "learning how to win" is learning to play with a decent size lead in the last 10 minutes and not go total brain dead and give up a 10 plus point lead. Its not just about "getting lucky" in end game situations in games with the five points or fewer differential.

Its about keeping games from getting into the "luck" category by continuing to play smart and hitting free throws.
 
Deaconblue said:
Some of the "learning how to win" is learning to play with a decent size lead in the last 10 minutes and not go total brain dead and give up a 10 plus point lead. Its not just about "getting lucky" in end game situations in games with the five points or fewer differential.

Its about keeping games from getting into the "luck" category by continuing to play smart and hitting free throws.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with this.
 
Deaconblue said:
Some of the "learning how to win" is learning to play with a decent size lead in the last 10 minutes and not go total brain dead and give up a 10 plus point lead. Its not just about "getting lucky" in end game situations in games with the five points or fewer differential.

Its about keeping games from getting into the "luck" category by continuing to play smart and hitting free throws.
Click to expand...

We need to play every game, no matter the situation, like it's a + or - 4 point game with 5 minutes left. It's not enough to wait around and only get that practice when the situation presents itself.

If we could some how win tonight, this thread should fall off the front page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top