Next Wake Forest Basketball Coach...

I grant you we could do better, but 2018's class is ranked 19th by Rivals and 20th by Scout/247. That's a lot better than we've had in a long time. 2019 is critical.

Why the Deac Not said:

Haha good luck with that. Danny hasn't been able to recruit players in the range of 50-125 (or even Top 150) in four years. Suddenly he's going to put together a 2019 class that includes two more Top 100 players (AND a Top 40) when we don't seem to be on the serious consideration radar of any Top 50 players. BTW, Egg was ranked roughly 200th, and that may be generous as one service had him as high as 129, which seems quite high), and Okeke was a preferred walk-on ranked in the 500-600 range. The average rank of 2016 was around 160ish. And Sharone and Jamie (post-injuries) are both in the 175-200 range at this point. While we might get another Top 100 this year, I would have preferred 4 straight years of 3 or 4 player classes who were all in the 50-150 range, save for the odd reach here and there, along with Brown and Hoard, who are consensus Top 50 players. The only 2 consensus Top 50 players he has hit on in 4 years. Not quite enough when your other 13 or 14 players average 195-200.

I just think it's funny that you are so adamant that Danny can pull off a miracle in 2019 when there is very little in terms of positive recruiting trail scuttlebutt at this point.

Click to expand...

Moore, Crawford, Collins (according to some), and Mucius were all in that range. Sarr likely would have been if he played in the U.S. (he was showing up on some 2019 draft big boards prior to this season). He also landed back to back top 40 recruits (something we’ve only done twice in the last 2 years). Given how bad we’ve been that’s an accomplishment.

He needs to start improving the back ends of his classes.

Why the Deac Not said:

Even though Dave Odom did it in '89-90 and snagged key role players the following two years. And while Skip had the luxury of building off the momentum of 2001's near Sweet 16 appearance, it's not like he got CP3 the first year and the rest followed. He did his due diligence and recruited 7 out of 8 players the first two years that went on to graduate. How bout [Redacted] and Manning? Not so much.

Danny had a chance to establish stability and a foundation to build upon. It looks as though he has failed to do so. Now it all boils down to the 2019 class? Maybe 2018/2019 will prove to be his 2007/2008, but the foundation has crumbled (was it ever there?) and we will likely crash and burn in 2020 and beyond, if the ascent is all that high to begin with. No pressure Jaylen!

I would feel much better about anchoring my hopes on 2018's class if Hoard were a dominant PG, who can control the game without dominating the ball a la a certain someone.

Click to expand...

Who knew our foundation was SJM, Washington, Mitchell, Woods, and maybe Eggleston.

RChildress107 said:

Who knew our foundation was SJM, Washington, Mitchell, Woods, and maybe Eggleston.

Click to expand...

That's the whole fucking point Sherlock. You can't build a program with "throw-away" classes who either aren't good enough, or decide to transfer because they figure their coach will just recruit a grad-transfer or two to play in their place. 2017 was barely acceptable because he managed to snag Sarr late in the game.

But Sarr was nowhere close to Top 75. He might have cracked the Top 100 if he played more in the US. He was 176th by one service, 185th by another and an average of 222. Seems a bit of a "stretch" if you ask me, as he barely got a 4th star from someone based on his potential. Same thing for SJM, and that didn't exactly pan out. Hopefully Sarr works harder and gets the minutes he needs as a stretch 4 to excel.

Why the Deac Not said:

That's the whole fucking point Sherlock. You can't build a program with "throw-away" classes who either aren't good enough, or decide to transfer because they figure their coach will just recruit a grad-transfer or two to play in their place. 2017 was barely acceptable because he managed to snag Sarr late in the game.

But Sarr was nowhere close to Top 75. He might have cracked the Top 100 if he played more in the US. He was 176th by one service, 185th by another and an average of 222. Seems a bit of a "stretch" if you ask me, as he barely got a 4th star from someone based on his potential. Same thing for SJM, and that didn't exactly pan out. Hopefully Sarr works harder and gets the minutes he needs as a stretch 4 to excel.

Click to expand...

Crawford, Moore, Wilbekin, and Dinos proved a pretty decent foundation in 2016-17. Collins was meant to be part of that foundation but for too good too quick.

You are basically saying the same thing I’ve been saying for a year. This entire mishegas boils down to Collins leaving earlier than expected and the 2016 class being an absolute failure.

WTF is a near Sweet Sixteen appearance ? Is that what you call it when you lose to a lower seeded team in the second round ?

How about the Carolina Panthers and all those near Super Bowl appearances and two near Super Bowl Championships !!?!?!?!?!?

Sarr's ranking was absurd as he never played in the U.S. Rivals had him as 4*. ESPN Insider ranked him the top NBA prospect at the FIBA tournament. People who actually saw him didn't think what you do.

Isn't Melo Charlie Harrison's nephew? You take chances like this. Some work. Some don't. Do you think Seth Greenberg wishes he took the kid of a former VT player?

15 was very good getting JC, Doral and Craw. 16 sucked due missing on Giles. 17 was decent and could look much better if Chaundee and Sarr improve. If you get two solid multi-year starters in one class it's a good year. 2018 is a Top 20 class. We need to get moving on 19.

My bad, being dispassionate and not saying everything sucks is not what the board wants to hear and everything else is wrong.

Oh man, Melo is gonna be the next Steph Curry !

We will have 5 top 100 players on the roster for the first time since 2010 and y’all are bitching at Manning for not building a foundation because the end of his bench keeps rotating.

Of his recruits that were ever in the top 8 in minutes played, Manning has lost three prior to graduation; two went pro and one was kicked off the team for being a knucklehead.

RChildress107 said:

He hired [Redacted] (0% chance of becoming a Top ACC coach) and Manning (x percent chance of becoming a Top ACC coach). Assessing the expected value of Wellman’s next hire is obviously more complicated than averaging his last two hires. If I had realized this would be so confusing to people I would have just responded with an emoji.

Click to expand...

Well the phrase expected value helps me understand what you're trying to do here, but the reason it's confusing is that you're doing it wrong. Expected future value of a potential future coach needs to be about the value of the coaching candidates not the past hires. The correct inequality statement looks more like: P(m)>? sum(P(h)i*P(succ)i), where P(m) is the probability of Manning becoming a successful "top Acc coach", P(h) is the probability of Wellman hiring candidate i, and P(succ) is the probability of coach i being a successful top Acc coach. The P(h) is based on the data we have on Wellman's past hiring practices and it probably varies among candidates, P(succ) is based on the success of the candidate coaches at prior coaching gigs and definitely varies among candidates, and P(m) is based on Manning's success so far as an HC. P(m) is the only quantity that is really fixed at this point but we don't have certainty on what it actually is, though most posters on this board would probably assign low P(m) value. P(succ) and P(h) are dependent on the candidate pool of future coaches and you definitely cannot definitively say P(m) is greater than the sum of P(h)i*P(succ)i, because we don't know who the i's are.

You're right about one thing, emoji's would be less confusing, assuming you know how to use those correctly.

RJKarl said:

Sarr's ranking was absurd as he never played in the U.S. Rivals had him as 4*. ESPN Insider ranked him the top NBA prospect at the FIBA tournament. People who actually saw him didn't think what you do.

Isn't Melo Charlie Harrison's nephew? You take chances like this. Some work. Some don't. Do you think Seth Greenberg wishes he took the kid of a former VT player?

15 was very good getting JC, Doral and Craw. 16 sucked due missing on Giles. 17 was decent and could look much better if Chaundee and Sarr improve. If you get two solid multi-year starters in one class it's a good year. 2018 is a Top 20 class. We need to get moving on 19.

My bad, being dispassionate and not saying everything sucks is not what the board wants to hear and everything else is wrong.

Click to expand...

This. Two multi-year starters and a one/two-and-done first round pick is a great class. Manning needs to start churning out great classes.

birdman said:

Well the phrase expected value helps me understand what you're trying to do here, but the reason it's confusing is that you're doing it wrong. Expected future value of a potential future coach needs to be about the value of the coaching candidates not the past hires. The correct inequality statement looks more like: P(m)>? sum(P(h)i*P(succ)i), where P(m) is the probability of Manning becoming a successful "top Acc coach", P(h) is the probability of Wellman hiring candidate i, and P(succ) is the probability of coach i being a successful top Acc coach. The P(h) is based on the data we have on Wellman's past hiring practices and it probably varies among candidates, P(succ) is based on the success of the candidate coaches at prior coaching gigs and definitely varies among candidates, and P(m) is based on Manning's success so far as an HC. P(m) is the only quantity that is really fixed at this point but we don't have certainty on what it actually is, though most posters on this board would probably assign low P(m) value. P(succ) and P(h) are dependent on the candidate pool of future coaches and you definitely cannot definitively say P(m) is greater than the sum of P(h)i*P(succ)i, because we don't know who the i's are.

You're right about one thing, emoji's would be less confusing, assuming you know how to use those correctly.

Click to expand...

Holy shit dude. The reason it’s confusing is because you failed to recognize simple context clues. I stated that I had more faith in Manning becoming a Top ACC coach than in Wellman hiring one. Biff quipped that Wellman hired Manning. I essentially quipped back that he also hired [Redacted].

I clearly wasn’t trying to lay down an equation to perfectly capture the expected value of a Wellman hire (though thanks for taking the time to do so).

As to your equation, we may not know who the i’s are, but we know who they are not (I.e. likely top 20 coaches). Given that, and given what we know about P(h), I feel extremely confident that P(m) is > the sum of P(h)i *P(succ)i.

Biff quipped that because in four years Manning has yet to prove that he is ever going to be a Top ACC coach.

Recruiting has been a roller coaster. In-game coaching has been good in the first half and awful in the second half. And he has yet to build a bench of 3* players who improve and are inspired by his leadership.

RJKarl said:

.

My bad, being dispassionate and not saying everything sucks is not what the board wants to hear and everything else is wrong.

Click to expand...

This board deserves a better class of poster, RJ. And you're gonna give it to them.

BiffTannen said:

Biff quipped that because in four years Manning has yet to prove that he is ever going to be a Top ACC coach.

Recruiting has been a roller coaster. In-game coaching has been good in the first half and awful in the second half. And he has yet to build a bench of 3* players who improve and are inspired by his leadership.

Click to expand...

And I quipped back because people want to give the guy who hired [Redacted] and Manning, as you pointed out, another chance. I’d rather put our program in the hands of the guy who has assembled a potential starting 5 full of top 100 players, at least for another year.

RChildress107 said:

And I quipped back because people want to give the guy who hired [Redacted] and Manning, as you pointed out, another chance. I’d rather put our program in the hands of the guy who has assembled a potential starting 5 full of top 100 players, at least for another year.

Click to expand...

This is fine, but it's an opinion based on your assessment of unmeasured probabilities, not a fact. To be clear, I agree that Welman would probably fuck up another hire, but other folks weigh the equation differently you, i.e., assigning a much lower probability to Manning's success than you. It is not an invalid conclusion to say we'd be better off going with a completely unknown new coach than to stick with a pretty well known bad coach.

RChildress107 said:

Holy shit dude. The reason it’s confusing is because you failed to recognize simple context clues. I stated that I had more faith in Manning becoming a Top ACC coach than in Wellman hiring one. Biff quipped that Wellman hired Manning. I essentially quipped back that he also hired [Redacted].

I clearly wasn’t trying to lay down an equation to perfectly capture the expected value of a Wellman hire (though thanks for taking the time to do so).

As to your equation, we may not know who the i’s are, but we know who they are not (I.e. likely top 20 coaches). Given that, and given what we know about P(h), I feel extremely confident that P(m) is > the sum of P(h)i *P(succ)i.

Click to expand...

You can "Holy shit dude" me all you want, but your original inequality was not just a quick, short-hand version of a future expected value equation, it was wrong and I am a stickler for good mathematics, especially in the realm of probability. Context clues are fantastic, but you tried to used past value to represent probable future value, and that is incorrect, and thus confusing. All the context clues wouldn't clear that up, unless you literally said, for context, something like "in this case, I'm thinking about probable future value, but using past estimated value to represent that, it's a sort of backwards math thing I like to do. Capisce?"

The other problem with all of this is that you are stating your probabilities as if they are known, certain quantities, but there not. You can estimate them from data, but we don't know what they are specifically, and you are acting like anyone who draws a different conclusion, because they are estimating the probabilities differently than you, is a moron.

birdman said:

This is fine, but it's an opinion based on your assessment of unmeasured probabilities, not a fact. To be clear, I agree that Welman would probably fuck up another hire, but other folks weigh the equation differently you, i.e., assigning a much lower probability to Manning's success than you. It is not an invalid conclusion to say we'd be better off going with a completely unknown new coach than to stick with a pretty well known bad coach.

Click to expand...

That probably describes 99% of posts on this message board.

I’d be curious to hear what percentile people would place Manning in among coaches that would be willing to come to Wake this year AND that Wake would be willing to hire this year (keeping in mind the coaches that have allegedly said no to Wellman and the coaches Wellman has definitively said yes to).

RChildress107 said:

And I quipped back because people want to give the guy who hired [Redacted] and Manning, as you pointed out, another chance. I’d rather put our program in the hands of the guy who has assembled a potential starting 5 full of top 100 players, at least for another year.

Click to expand...

We'll see if they can actually play good enough defense to win tight games when the scoring droughts kick in from not having enough consistent shooters on the floor. Doubtful for next year. So Danny better get crackin' on those Top 100 guards for 2019.