Danny Manning Credibility Watch

[RChildress107]

Anyway, it's clear that you have lower performance criteria and a slower performance time line than most other posters on the boards. That's fine and allowable on both sides.

Probably No and Yes, though it’s tough to know when most other posters won’t articulate their performance criteria.

I’ve been over my year by year performance criteria* for the coach that took over the program in 2014 countless times. In years 6-10 that criteria is higher than most posters willing to discuss the matter. Unexpectedly** (to me at least) Manning met my criteria through 2 1/2 years (the other half being the 2016 class). He did not meet that criteria last year and does not appear likely to do so this year. Like most jobs in the world, Manning’s performance criteria differs from the bare minimum to keep his job*** though the two begin to converge as time moves on. If people think that time has already come, or that Manning has failed to meet both, I’d be interested to hear and test your arguments.

* for your convenience and per your suggestion, I will try to use “performance criteria” or “criteria” when talking about how I believe the coach who took over from a [Redacted] should perform.

**So that you wont have to learn any alternate definitions, I will try to use “expect” or “expectations” when talking about how I believe Manning or any other coach will or would have performed.

*** I would typically use “bare minimum expectations” or “minimum expectations” to describe what Manning would have to do to avoid getting fired if I were AD, but see ** above. If you have another suggestion let me know.

 

[birdman]

99% of the discussion on this thread has been about b. I’ve tried to add modifiers such as reasonable (I.e. what Manning should do) or minimum (what Manning must do) when I thought the context warranted.

If you are having this much trouble with reading comprehension in the future speak up and I’ll let you join RJ in the remedial class. If you are just being a dick then you do you I guess.

No, 99% of your posts might be about (b), but most people are using the first definition (a). Further, most people also consider that if a coach (or anyone) does not achieve the most likely outcome or the thing considered probable, than that coach is under-performing and you should consider firing the coach.

 

[RChildress107]

No, 99% of your posts might be about (b), but most people are using the first definition (a). Further, most people also consider that if a coach (or anyone) does not achieve the most likely outcome or the thing considered probable, than that coach is under-performing and you should consider firing the coach.

Stop it. You are trolling at this point.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

El Hombre Pájaro does not troll

 

[RChildress107]

But fine, I’ll bite.

I’m sure that most of you are allowing your expectations (definition a) to influence your expectations (definition b) on a season by season, or sometimes even game by game, basis. I’ve argued strongly against that approach but admit it’s impossible to eliminate completely.

I’m also sure that many of you, intentionally or otherwise, are not separating your expectations (definition b) from your [minimum] expectations (definition c).

But when you say “I expect Manning to not lose games to Clemson by 16, or to not go 2-16 in conference, or whatever (it’s odd how they are always framed in the negative)” surely you don’t just mean “I really thought we would only lose to Clemson by 10” or “I could have sworn we would go 4-14 in conference”.

 

[birdman]

Stop it. You are trolling at this point.

Just because you are losing an argument, doesn't mean your opponent is trolling.

 

[RChildress107]

Just because you are losing an argument, doesn't mean your opponent is trolling.

Lol.

How do you “expect” the team to do next year?

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Lol.

How do you “expect” the team to do next year?

 

[RChildress107]

So basically your entire argument against Manning is “My predictions for how Wake Forest Basketball would perform each of the past 4 years weren’t very good, therefore Manning should be fired.”

Points for honesty, I guess.

 

[birdman]

Lol.

How do you “expect” the team to do next year?

I predict that the team will not do well next year. Something on the order of 15 total wins, 5 in the ACC (zero road victories) and only 1 win against our big instate rivalries, coming in last or second to last in ACC standings.

Performance criteria for the coach: Get to the quarterfinals in the ACC tournament and win a game in the NCAA or three games in the NIT. If they shit bed (again) in the ACC tourny, I'll settle for the NCAA/NIT results.

 

[birdman]

So basically your entire argument against Manning is “My predictions for how Wake Forest Basketball would perform each of the past 4 years weren’t very good, therefore Manning should be fired.”

Points for honesty, I guess.

Where did I lay out that argument? Points for disingenuousness, I guess.

 

[RChildress107]

No, 99% of your posts might be about (b), but most people are using the first definition (to consider probable or certain). Further, most people also consider that if a coach (or anyone) does not achieve the most likely outcome or the thing considered probable, than that coach is under-performing and you should consider firing the coach.

I consider probable or certain that the team will not do well next year. Something on the order of 15 total wins, 5 in the ACC (zero road victories) and only 1 win against our big instate rivalries, coming in last or second to last in ACC standings. If Manning does not achieve this probable or certain outcome, then he is underperforming and we should consider firing him.

I would consider it reasonable, due, or necessary for Manning to get to the quarterfinals in the ACC tournament and win a game in the NCAA or three games in the NIT. If they shit bed (again) in the ACC tourny, I'll consider Manning bound in duty or obligatedto at least achieve the NCAA/NIT results.

Putting the two together.

So just for the record, any time anyone other than me said “My expectations for Manning are that he achieve X” what they really meant was that “I consider it probable or certain that Manning will achieve X”.

 

[RChildress107]

No, 99% of your posts might be about (b), but most people are using the first definition (to consider probable or certain). Further, most people also consider that if a coach (or anyone) does not achieve the most likely outcome or the thing considered probable, than that coach is under-performing and you should consider firing the coach.

I consider probable or certain that the team will not do well next year. Something on the order of 15 total wins, 5 in the ACC (zero road victories) and only 1 win against our big instate rivalries, coming in last or second to last in ACC standings. If Manning does not achieve this probable or certain outcome, then he is underperforming and we should consider firing him.

I would consider it reasonable, due, or necessary for Manning to get to the quarterfinals in the ACC tournament and win a game in the NCAA or three games in the NIT. If they shit bed (again) in the ACC tourny, I'll consider Manning bound in duty or obligatedto at least achieve the NCAA/NIT results.

Putting the two together.

So just for the record, any time anyone other than me said “My expectations for Manning are that he achieve X” what they really meant was that “I consider it probable or certain that Manning will achieve X”. That’s what we’re going with?

 

[RChildress107]

Where did I lay out that argument? Points for disingenuousness, I guess.

Intentionally or not, that’s what you are suggesting in post 9306.

You are claiming that any time anyone other than me said “I expected Manning to do X. Manning did not meet my expectations. Therefore he should be fired” what they really meant was “I predicted Manning would do X. I was wrong on the high side. Therefore he should be fired.”

 

[birdman]

Putting the two together.

So just for the record, any time anyone other than me said “My expectations for Manning are that he achieve X” what they really meant was that “I consider it probable or certain that Manning will achieve X”.

Ask them.

Also you've rewritten my post pretty accurately, except for the word "certain" in the phrase "probable or certain". I am a (bird population) statistician and I don't carry much certainty about anything.

 

[birdman]

Intentionally or not, that’s what you are suggesting in post 9306.

You are claiming that any time anyone other than me said “I expected Manning to do X. Manning did not meet my expectations. Therefore he should be fired” what they really meant was “I predicted Manning would do X. I was wrong on the high side. Therefore he should be fired.”

First of all you are leaving out the word consider in the should be fired statement (do you have a reading comprehension problem? or are you being intentionally dense?). Secondly, there are a few reasons why someone predictions might be wrong, either their under lying model was wrong (which is what you are saying with the phrase "not very good predictions") and therefore predicted the wrong thing, or the system didn't perform the way it should have. It is completely reasonable to investigate some sort of system failure when predictions come out wrong and in the case of college basketball, the HC is main cog in the team machine that maybe some how failed, so you consider firing the coach to fix the system.

 

[RChildress107]

Ask them.

Also you've rewritten my post pretty accurately, except for the word "certain" in the phrase "probable or certain". I am a (bird population) statistician and I don't carry much certainty about anything.

I assumed you already had as you decided to speak for them.

As to “certain,” I was just using the definition you said most people on this thread were using. But duly noted, I agree.

And if my rewrite is accurate then I’m confused. This whole time (466 pages) people have been saying Manning should lose his job, or that Manning sucks, because he’s not meeting expectations. Meaning, of course, that he’s not meeting their predictions. The obvious implication being that if he were meeting their predictions he wouldn’t suck and shouldn’t be fired

But now you are taking about this other thing, “criteria”, which apparently only I have been talking about for 3 years but that no one else has bothered to mention. You seem to suggest that Manning’s job, some might say his credibility, rests on this second thing.

But surely someone other than me would have brought this measure of credibility on the “Danny Manning Credibility” thread. I mean, I know getting a prediction wrong might be embarrassing to some people, but not enough to call for them to get fired, surely.

But if you say so.

 

[tigerswood]

But fine, I’ll bite.

I’m sure that most of you are allowing your expectations (definition a) to influence your expectations (definition b) on a season by season, or sometimes even game by game, basis. I’ve argued strongly against that approach but admit it’s impossible to eliminate completely.

I’m also sure that many of you, intentionally or otherwise, are not separating your expectations (definition b) from your [minimum] expectations (definition c).

But when you say “I expect Manning to not lose games to Clemson by 16, or to not go 2-16 in conference, or whatever (it’s odd how they are always framed in the negative)” surely you don’t just mean “I really thought we would only lose to Clemson by 10” or “I could have sworn we would go 4-14 in conference”.

Can we stick to X, Y, and Z? You're all over the place, bud.

 

[birdman]

I assumed you already had as you decided to speak for them.

As to “certain,” I was just using the definition you said most people on this thread were using. But duly noted, I agree.

And if my rewrite is accurate then I’m confused. This whole time (466 pages) people have been saying Manning should lose his job, or that Manning sucks, because he’s not meeting expectations. Meaning, of course, that he’s not meeting their predictions. The obvious implication being that if he were meeting their predictions he wouldn’t suck and shouldn’t be fired

But now you are taking about this other thing, “criteria”, which apparently only I have been talking about for 3 years but that no one else has bothered to mention. You seem to suggest that Manning’s job, some might say his credibility, rests on this second thing.

But surely someone other than me would have brought this measure of credibility on the “Danny Manning Credibility” thread. I mean, I know getting a prediction wrong might be embarrassing to some people, but not enough to call for them to get fired, surely.

But if you say so.

People's casual "criteria" for assessing Manning's credibility is whether or not his teams perform as predicted. You are the one that brought in all this nuanced bullshit about question framing and the difference between what you think the team will do vs. what they have to do, as if the distinction in those questions is some sort of a big deal for most people. I don't think it is. I think most people say 'With these players and this schedule we will probably win 17 games' and when we only win 12 games they are disappointed and conclude that the team and the coach underperformed. All I said was that if you insist on being so nuanced in your question framing you should also be careful and specific in the words you use to avoid conflating minimum standard with most probably results.

 

[RChildress107]

People's casual "criteria" for assessing Manning's credibility is whether or not his teams perform as predicted. You are the one that brought in all this nuanced bullshit about question framing and the difference between what you think the team will do vs. what they have to do, as if the distinction in those questions is some sort of a big deal for most people. I don't think it is. I think most people say 'With these players and this schedule we will probably win 17 games' and when we only win 12 games they are disappointed and conclude that the team and the coach underperformed. All I said was that if you insist on being so nuanced in your question framing you should also be careful and specific in the words you use to avoid conflating minimum standard with most probably results.

1. Which is fucking stupid.

2. Which is circular reasoning.

3. Which is disingenuous at best since you admitted like 10 posts ago you’ve understood what I meant the whole time.