• 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

PhDeac said:
It's been a very long time since we had a team I thought could legitimately win 2 games. The 2009 team had the talent but they were playing like crap.
Click to expand...

You don't remember thinking "Hey, maybe Cousins and Wall (and Patterson and Bledsoe) will get hurt?"
 
That was 2010.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think next year we will resemble the LSU Ben Simmons team.
 
SkyDivingDeacon said:
Got it. So losing, and being close to winning are different to you? Also, Louisville's coach is an interim first year HC in the shadow of a huge scandal involving the basketball program. Of course, he should have better results than a fourth year HC playing with players that he himself recruited into his system and he himself has developed over the prior years...

Good lord. You either have a clear agenda or you're an idiot. It might be possible that it's both.
Click to expand...

Being far from winning and close to winning are different to me.

My agenda is pretty straightforward: 1. Talent typically accounts for 80-90% of a team’s success, 2. The only true measure of a coach is his team’s success relative to consistent and reasonable expectations, and 3. I trust a large amount of objective data on talent and results far more than selective and subjective evaluations of a coach’s intangibles.
 
Bluegrass Deac said:
That was 2010.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think next year we will resemble the LSU Ben Simmons team.
Click to expand...

I will state with utmost confidence that we will look nothing like that team. We won’t have a player nearly as good as Ben Simmons and Manning has already shown he can make the tourney without a player as good as Ben Simmons.
 
RJKarl said:
But that same team was also Top 10 in offense. We don't get in The Dance if we are #90/#90.
Click to expand...

we play some defense in that must-win game at Clemson, get the W, we're in fine shape for an NCAA bid
 
RChildress107 said:
Being far from winning and close to winning are different to me.

My agenda is pretty straightforward: 1. Talent typically accounts for 80-90% of a team’s success, 2. The only true measure of a coach is his team’s success relative to consistent and reasonable expectations, and 3. I trust a large amount of objective data on talent and results far more than selective and subjective evaluations of a coach’s intangibles.
Click to expand...

your "objective" data relies on subjective rankings of recruits
 
SkyDivingDeacon said:
Yes, a coach that under performs with talent means they did a bad job utilizing that talent. And yes, a good coach with that same level of talent should get the most out of it and out perform a bad coach with the same roster. What's not clear about that?

Your argument is also an empty one seeing as though the talent that is at Wake currently was recruited and developed under Manning. Either the talent level isn't there (it's not nearly as bad as our record would indicate over the last four years) or Manning just isn't a good coach. In either situation, Manning has failed as a HC. Period. End of story. Done. Numbers don't lie. 12th place, 14th place, 10th place and 14th place. That's his success out of 15 other programs in our basketball conference over the last four years. WGAF if Manning goes 7-11 next year and misses the tournament if that means a new coach could come in and do a better job with the exact same roster? Isn't that what everyone is so upset about? Christ almighty. Can't believe I'm blowing off work right now to argue a point that doesn't need explaining. And for the record, this is some Bzzz level rationalization from you and others that agree that DM will all of a sudden turn our depressingly miserable flagship program around over night because his next recruiting class is going to somehow save the day when his previous four haven't to date...
Click to expand...

The talent isn’t there and that’s Manning’s fault. He’s increased the talent steadily since he got here, and he exceeded expectations based on talent last year, but neither excuse the level of talent on the team this your or the amount we have underperformed that talent.

I’m not sure how many more times I have to say that for y’all to stop acting like I’m saying Manning is doing a great job this year or isn’t to blame for this shit.

That being said, the talent on the roster will increase significantly next year and Manning’s performance last year with a less talented team has earned him the chance to coach next year’s team.
 
SkyDivingDeacon said:
Yes, a coach that under performs with talent means they did a bad job utilizing that talent. And yes, a good coach with that same level of talent should get the most out of it and out perform a bad coach with the same roster. What's not clear about that?

Your argument is also an empty one seeing as though the talent that is at Wake currently was recruited and developed under Manning. Either the talent level isn't there (it's not nearly as bad as our record would indicate over the last four years) or Manning just isn't a good coach. In either situation, Manning has failed as a HC. Period. End of story. Done. Numbers don't lie. 12th place, 14th place, 10th place and 14th place. That's his success out of 15 other programs in our basketball conference over the last four years. WGAF if Manning goes 7-11 next year and misses the tournament if that means a new coach could come in and do a better job with the exact same roster? Isn't that what everyone is so upset about? Christ almighty. Can't believe I'm blowing off work right now to argue a point that doesn't need explaining. And for the record, this is some Bzzz level rationalization from you and others that agree that DM will all of a sudden turn our depressingly miserable flagship program around over night because his next recruiting class is going to somehow save the day when his previous four haven't to date...
Click to expand...

This. Mega dittos.
 
RChildress107 said:
The talent isn’t there and that’s Manning’s fault. He’s increased the talent steadily since he got here, and he exceeded expectations based on talent last year, but neither excuse the level of talent on the team this your or the amount we have underperformed that talent.

I’m not sure how many more times I have to say that for y’all to stop acting like I’m saying Manning is doing a great job this year or isn’t to blame for this shit.

That being said, the talent on the roster will increase significantly next year and Manning’s performance last year with a less talented team has earned him the chance to coach next year’s team.
Click to expand...

We are stuck with him one more year. But that’s it. He coaches NBA style with no yelling at players, freedom to shoot, focus on offense and structured minutes. It won’t work in college. It’s the opposite of Pitino going to the Celtics, when his college system didn’t work in the pros.
 
The reality is that team grossly overachieved all national and regional predictions. I know this reality doesn't fit your narrative, but it is the truth.

It's also the truth that if JC and Bryant get in foul trouble, we end up under .500. It's also true that Wilbekin and Arians couldn't cover a chair. Dinos helped us a lot but his D was mediocre at best no matter was coaching him. Key is an elite shooter, but isn't a decent defender.

I have had issues with Danny this year, but last year he got far more out of our talent than anyone could have reasonably expected.
 
RJKarl said:
The reality is that team grossly overachieved all national and regional predictions. I know this reality doesn't fit your narrative, but it is the truth.
Click to expand...

I don't have a "narrative" other than this: teams that don't play defense don't win NCAA tournament games

oh, and this: Manning hasn't coached a WF team that played top 100 defense yet
 
RChildress107 said:
Being far from winning and close to winning are different to me.

My agenda is pretty straightforward: 1. Talent typically accounts for 80-90% of a team’s success, 2. The only true measure of a coach is his team’s success relative to consistent and reasonable expectations, and 3. I trust a large amount of objective data on talent and results far more than selective and subjective evaluations of a coach’s intangibles.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure I ran some analysis for you and showed that at Wake between 2002 and 2016 (except for the [Redacted] years) your player talent scores accounted for about 60% of the variation in winning percentage. I can't find the original regression models that I did you but the results are posted in the talent vs coaching thread.
 
birdman said:
Pretty sure I ran some analysis for you and showed that at Wake between 2002 and 2016 (except for the [Redacted] years) your player talent scores accounted for about 60% of the variation in winning percentage. I can't find the original regression models that I did you but the results are posted in the talent vs coaching thread.
Click to expand...

I found the figure, but not the source file, looks like without bz's teams talent explains 62.5% of the variation in season ending KP rank.
v3J6p6F.jpg


With Bz it was 13.3% of the variation:
4Ne4nru.jpg
 
birdman said:
Pretty sure I ran some analysis for you and showed that at Wake between 2002 and 2016 (except for the [Redacted] years) your player talent scores accounted for about 60% of the variation in winning percentage. I can't find the original regression models that I did you but the results are posted in the talent vs coaching thread.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that is typical of most P5 basketball teams, or is an aberration (low or high)?
 
RChildress107 said:
Being far from winning and close to winning are different to me.

My agenda is pretty straightforward: 1. Talent typically accounts for 80-90% of a team’s success, 2. The only true measure of a coach is his team’s success relative to consistent and reasonable expectations, and 3. I trust a large amount of objective data on talent and results far more than selective and subjective evaluations of a coach’s intangibles.
Click to expand...

I agree, the true measure of a coach should be benchmarked against his/her appropriate peer group. For DM, that would be the HCs of other ACC men’s basketball programs. You’re moving the goalposts if you don’t define what’s ‘reasonable’ each year, as that can and will change based on a lot of different factors but average results should ultimately shine through.

So far, DM has placed 14, 12, 10 and now 14 out of 15 total coaches in the same league. Explain to me how that’s not an indicator of his lack of success and probability of future lack of success and how constantly losing and placing in the bottom tier of the conference is close to winning.
 
thatguy2016 said:
I don't have a "narrative" other than this: teams that don't play defense don't win NCAA tournament games

oh, and this: Manning hasn't coached a WF team that played top 100 defense yet
Click to expand...

You're not willing to give Danny any credit for last year's team. That team was never going to be better than mediocre on defense. To reach that level, we would have had to give up a lot on offense. We would not have won as many games.

You can't wish something to be.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I wonder if that is typical of most P5 basketball teams, or is an aberration (low or high)?
Click to expand...

Yes, that would be a very interesting analysis comparing Wake's relationship or even Manning specifically, to P5 schools in general.
 
RJKarl said:
You're not willing to give Danny any credit for last year's team. That team was never going to be better than mediocre on defense. To reach that level, we would have had to give up a lot on offense. We would not have won as many games.

You can't wish something to be.
Click to expand...

I've said before that Manning deserves credit for Collins' development and the team reaching the Tuesday night NCAA tournament; he also deserves "credit" for the team's defensive showings

I realize there were talent limitations

I also saw the layup lines at the end of multiple games last year; ghastly numbers in several games

we literally would have been better off fouling every single time down the floor in the last 5 minutes of multiple regular season games, and that came home to roost in the second halves of the ACCT and NCAAT losses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top