• 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

RChildress107 said:
Kenpom has it at 125, 128, 176, 178 fwiw. Manning’s two teams at Tulsa were 131 and 51. And yes talent matters on the defensive end too
Click to expand...

Those are pretty horrible as well for a power 5 team.

Do you know how the differences are calculated? I was pretty shocked when I saw the numbers on that site. I expected something more along the lines of the Ken Pom numbers.

Either way, there is a systemic problem. Depending on which numbers you use, the defense is either about what you would expect for a Sun Belt team or horrific for a Sun Belt team.
 
Kenpom calculates adjusted efficiency based on pace and strength of opponent rather than just how many points you give up a game.
 
We went through this same back and forth last year. I get that as a fan it sucks when your team loses so I get the frustration. But completely re-evaluating a coach after each game or even a set of five games is just silly. I obviously want us to win every game from here on out, but what I care far more about is whether Manning can get his team back and develop Crawford, Chill, Woods, and Moore into a potent supporting cast for Chaundee and Hoard. How this year ends, not how it begins, will give us that answer.
 
knowell said:
Those are pretty horrible as well for a power 5 team.

Do you know how the differences are calculated? I was pretty shocked when I saw the numbers on that site. I expected something more along the lines of the Ken Pom numbers.

Either way, there is a systemic problem. Depending on which numbers you use, the defense is either about what you would expect for a Sun Belt team or horrific for a Sun Belt team.
Click to expand...

Duke’s defense was #47 last year. Didn’t realize they had a Sun Belt level defense.
 
knowell said:
Those are pretty horrible as well for a power 5 team.

Do you know how the differences are calculated? I was pretty shocked when I saw the numbers on that site. I expected something more along the lines of the Ken Pom numbers.

Either way, there is a systemic problem. Depending on which numbers you use, the defense is either about what you would expect for a Sun Belt team or horrific for a Sun Belt team.
Click to expand...

This critique is also rich coming from a board that ran Dino out of town and then vilified him since then. Skip’s average KP defensive rating: 96. Dino: 36.
 
guitardeac said:
Yeah but that's not all that meaningful of a stat. Duke plays a fast Up tempo game, which allows them to score more Points but also allows the opposing team more possessions. Same with Wake. Duke was 47, but about half the teams ahead of it I would bet play a much slower and deliberate offense. That doesn't mean that Duke isn't as good of a defensive team as those ahead of it at all.

For some reason this stat reminds me of the meaningless NFL stat - X team wins 80% of its games when it rushed 30 or more times. Well no shit. You're ahead in the game so you run the ball the rest of the game to run out the clock.
Click to expand...

Well I agree it’s a meaningless stat if you don’t understand what it means.

Kenpom adjusts for pace.
 
RChildress107 said:
This critique is also rich coming from a board that ran Dino out of town and then vilified him since then. Skip’s average KP defensive rating: 96. Dino: 36.
Click to expand...

True that. I loved the way Dino's teams played defense. That defense and rebounding allowed Gaudio offenses to win 2/3 of their games.

Had either of the coaches that followed Gaudio continued the pack line defense there would likely never have been a dumpster fire.

Please bring back the pack line D.

That would get me in Manning's camp today.
 
RChildress107 said:
This critique is also rich coming from a board that ran Dino out of town and then vilified him since then. Skip’s average KP defensive rating: 96. Dino: 36.
Click to expand...

Dino did improve the D compared to Prosser's teams. Was he a great long-term answer as head coach? I tend to think not, but we will never know. Maybe he would have surrounded himself with good x and o guys.
 
knowell said:
True that. I loved the way Dino's teams played defense. That defense and rebounding allowed Gaudio offenses to win 2/3 of their games.

Had either of the coaches that followed Gaudio continued the pack line defense there would likely never have been a dumpster fire.

Please bring back the pack line D.

That would get me in Manning's camp today.
Click to expand...

Honest question: how many teams have made a final four playing pack line defense?
 
Duke has been an offense first program for awhile. Their weakness for awhile has been defense (the term "weakness" has to be taken in context with how good their offense has been). Think that partially has to do with their trend toward one and dones as elite freshman players are typically more focused on offensive production than defensive prowess (Jahilil Okafor being a prime example). Also, it takes awhile to learn team defense that's why programs with Wichita State, Wisconsin and UVA that has a lot of older players typically excel on defense.

Here are Duke's defensive ratings since 2012:

2012 - #79
2013 - #26
2014 - #86
2015 - #11
2016 - #86
2017 - #47


Each one of those years Duke's offense was in the top 8. You can get away with playing less than elite defense when you have lottery talent that can score at will (see John Collins last year). WF, and most other programs, don't have lottery talent that can outscore opposing teams at will.
 
Buttermaker said:
Dino did improve the D compared to Prosser's teams. Was he a great long-term answer as head coach? I tend to think not, but we will never know. Maybe he would have surrounded himself with good x and o guys.
Click to expand...

My point was that everyone (rightly) considered Skip a better coach than Dino even though Skip’s defenses were awful and Dino’s were not. At the end of the day all that matters is that your offense score more points than your defense allows. Skip was better at that and thus he was a better coach.
 
RChildress107 said:
WTF are you taking about. Cav is in the NBA right now. All three of those guys were slated to start the next year and were our 3-5 best returning players. And [Redacted]’s last two years sucked but they aren’t what made him [Redacted]. Those two years and Manning’s first two were both outside of the range Wake had been in the previous 20 years but they weren’t that much worse than Skip’s last season and a half.
Click to expand...

Dinos was better as a freshmen than Cavanaugh was as a sophomore. Obviously Cav developed into a very good player at George Washington. That was not the player that was coming back to Wake though.
 
Pilchard said:
Duke has been an offense first program for awhile. Their weakness for awhile has been defense (the term "weakness" has to be taken in context with how good their offense has been). Think that partially has to do with their trend toward one and dones as elite freshman players are typically more focused on offensive production than defensive prowess (Jahilil Okafor being a prime example). Also, it takes awhile to learn team defense that's why programs with Wichita State, Wisconsin and UVA that has a lot of older players typically excel on defense.

Here are Duke's defensive ratings since 2012:

2012 - #79
2013 - #26
2014 - #86
2015 - #11
2016 - #86
2017 - #47


Each one of those years Duke's offense was in the top 8. You can get away with playing less than elite defense when you have lottery talent that can score at will (see John Collins last year). WF, and most other programs, don't have lottery talent that can outscore opposing teams at will.
Click to expand...

It’s almost like we need to get some lottery level talent that can outscore opposing teams at will.

How has Wake been successful in the past without such talent? Someone should figure out the secret and tell Manning.
 
WFU Lurker said:
Dinos was better as a freshmen than Cavanaugh was as a sophomore. Obviously Cav developed into a very good player at George Washington. That was not the player that was coming back to Wake though.
Click to expand...

Freshman Dinos was not better than junior Cavanaugh (the player that was coming back). Who was it that brought Dinos to Wake though? Y’all keep on acting like some magical basketball fairy just dropped Dinos and Collins was onto campus as fully formed professional basketball players.
 
The one thing I don't understand is Tulsa's transformation into a good defensive team in Manning's second year there. I, maybe some others, thought we would make a transformation into that by now.
 
RChildress107 said:
Freshman Dinos was not better than junior Cavanaugh (the player that was coming back). Who was it that brought Dinos to Wake though? Y’all keep on acting like some magical basketball fairy just dropped Dinos and Collins was onto campus as fully formed professional basketball players.
Click to expand...

Manning brought both. He gets credit for both. I have never hesitated to give him credit for recruiting. We are comparing [Redacted]'s Y4 coaching job to Manning's Y1 coaching job. You think Manning did an impressive job because the team was less talented. I agree there was a talent gap but don't think it was particularly big, especially when you factor in the additional experience gained by the two best players on the team.

Obviously impossible to prove the hypothetical on either way on freshman Dinos vs junior Cav since junior Cav never existed.

Freshman Dinos averaged 9.7 pts / 4.6 rbds in 22 minutes on 44.2% shooting. Sophomore Cav averaged 8.8 pts / 3.8 rbds in 21.2 minutes on 42.2% shooting. I don't remember if Cav was any good on D, but, at least from an offensive perspective, it seems pretty clear that Manning had just as good of a stretch 4 as [Redacted] did.

Anyway, this is a silly discussion, and I don't really care. I hope Manning turns it around. These results are not good enough for year 4 (something we all can agree on), but we won't / shouldn't do anything about it anytime soon (something most of us can agree on).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top