KP Report - L'ville Cardinals - Wednesday 9 pm - ESPN2

[liveanddiedeac]

I knew we could count on the worst coach in ACC history to blow it in the second half.

So evident that Danny is a complete joke of a coach. A team like ours that is undermanned against at least the top half of the league, but has enough talent to pull an upset or 2, has to have a coach capable of guiding through a 2nd half like last night. We played lights out in the first half, shots were falling, but you just know in the 2nd it's going to level off and get tight. That's where a good coach can sometimes, not always, but sometimes get a team through that and finish it off. When has Danny ever done that in 6 years?

 

[PhDeac]

Second 50 point half allowed in 3 games.

 

[DCDeac]

Second 50 point half allowed in 3 games.

Almost like you can hang your hat on it...

 

[nvadeac]

A friend of mine texted me just before halftime telling me Louisville was down to Wake by 15 and we were playing great. My response, "It won't last". If we shoot the ball well in the first half we can't throw it in the ocean in the second half. Add in the stupid turnovers galore and we'll lose by double digits".

Seen it way too many times....

 

[80deacon]

Seen it way too many times....[/QUOTE]

Another factor is adrenaline and fatigue. We really don't have much of a bench and the guys are really hustling hard. They just get wore out some, IMO.

 

[deacon14]

So evident that Danny is a complete joke of a coach. A team like ours that is undermanned against at least the top half of the league, but has enough talent to pull an upset or 2, has to have a coach capable of guiding through a 2nd half like last night. We played lights out in the first half, shots were falling, but you just know in the 2nd it's going to level off and get tight. That's where a good coach can sometimes, not always, but sometimes get a team through that and finish it off. When has Danny ever done that in 6 years?

I don't care enough to do the research on this, but I feel like the majority of our ACC wins under Danny are when the game is close or we are behind at the half, and maybe a few blowout wins. I'm not sure he has ever held an 8-12 point lead at half and gone on to comfortably win the game, so when we have that kind of lead it's almost easier to just assume we are going to lose.

 

[liveanddiedeac]

I don't care enough to do the research on this, but I feel like the majority of our ACC wins under Danny are when the game is close or we are behind at the half, and maybe a few blowout wins. I'm not sure he has ever held an 8-12 point lead at half and gone on to comfortably win the game, so when we have that kind of lead it's almost easier to just assume we are going to lose.

I certainly don't think he's ever done it against what would be considered a good team. I mean we've had ACC wins where we had good leads at half and gone on to win easy, but I can't of any against the top of the conference in any given year. I don't care enough to do the research either, but what is the biggest conference upset we've had under Manning?

 

[ChaosDeac]

I don't care enough to do the research on this, but I feel like the majority of our ACC wins under Danny are when the game is close or we are behind at the half, and maybe a few blowout wins. I'm not sure he has ever held an 8-12 point lead at half and gone on to comfortably win the game, so when we have that kind of lead it's almost easier to just assume we are going to lose.

This season,
WF has won games with the following standing at halftime:
led Columbia by 1
led UNCA by 5
led Davidson by 3
led CoC by 2
led Cal State by 7
led Xavier by 9 (outscored by 7 in second)
led NC A&T by 7
trailed Pitt by 3
led BC by 7
led Clemson by 3

WF has lost games with the following standing at halftime:
trailed BC by 15
tied with Charlotte (also tied at end of reg. - lost in OT)
trailed Arizona by 6
trailed Penn State by 18
trailed NC State by 9
trailed FSU by 7
trailed Duke by 26
trailed VT by 2
led Clemson by 6 (lost by 3)
led UVA by 7 (tied at end of reg - lost in OT)
led ND by 5 (lost by 10)
led UL by 12 (lost by 10)

So losing leads after halftime is actually a recent development, with each of the last 4 games involving that (and being the only games this season that it has occurred - although Xavier did make a run earlier this season). On a related note, WF is not great at overcoming a halftime deficit, having won only one game this season where they entered the second half losing. Conference games are bolded.

 

[liveanddiedeac]

I think an even better question is has there been any game against decent competition, where we could say "we really played better as the game went on, Danny has done some good in-game coaching?" I'm coming up empty on that too. I mean it's like we go out there with whatever game plan (????) we had going in and that's it.
If the other team makes the right adjustments to what we're doing, we're screwed.

 

[tagsfan]

A friend of mine texted me just before halftime telling me Louisville was down to Wake by 15 and we were playing great. My response, "It won't last". If we shoot the ball well in the first half we can't throw it in the ocean in the second half. Add in the stupid turnovers galore and we'll lose by double digits".

Seen it way too many times....

I'm not saying coaching doesn't matter but KenPom did a study of what is strong predictor of which team will win based on halftime stats. His conclusion - the team with the worse 3P shooting % at the half tends to pull out the victory. My guess is that it is often a case of regressing to the mean. Good coaching can find ways around bad shooting.

 

[ChaosDeac]

I think an even better question is has there been any game against decent competition, where we could say "we really played better as the game went on, Danny has done some good in-game coaching?" I'm coming up empty on that too. I mean it's like we go out there with whatever game plan (????) we had going in and that's it.
If the other team makes the right adjustments to what we're doing, we're screwed.

The teams largely do the same thing - focus on taking away or putting extra pressure on Childress. WF still forces the ball to him and the team struggles to overcome the other team's change in approach. In a way, those that have argued that WF is better off without Childress could inadvertently be partially correct. Without him playing, WF is forced to involve numerous other players versus depending on him to run the show. This points to a huge Manning flaw - he simply chooses to rely on certain players (Childress, Tory Johnson, etc) regardless of anything else. He constantly talks about how other teams focused on Childress but never reveals what WF did in response and the reason why is that Manning did nothing different. He simply resorted to trying to shove the square peg through the round hole even though it's been proven to not work many times. WF depends on a good shooting % and players overcoming the lack of any cognizant game plan and/or halftime adjustments.

 

[CONeill]

I certainly don't think he's ever done it against what would be considered a good team. I mean we've had ACC wins where we had good leads at half and gone on to win easy, but I can't of any against the top of the conference in any given year. I don't care enough to do the research either, but what is the biggest conference upset we've had under Manning?

2017 against Louisville

I mean ... he's 27-75 in the ACC. Of those 27 wins, 5 have been against teams that finished better than .500 in the league. Louisville was the only one of those five that wasn't 10-8.

 

[ChrisL68]

2017 against Louisville

I mean ... he's 27-75 in the ACC. Of those 27 wins, 5 have been against teams that finished better than .500 in the league. Louisville was the only one of those five that wasn't 10-8.

That's incredible

 

[PhDeac]

It’s difficult to be that bad over six years.

 

[Chil Tron]

The teams largely do the same thing - focus on taking away or putting extra pressure on Childress. WF still forces the ball to him and the team struggles to overcome the other team's change in approach. In a way, those that have argued that WF is better off without Childress could inadvertently be partially correct. Without him playing, WF is forced to involve numerous other players versus depending on him to run the show. This points to a huge Manning flaw - he simply chooses to rely on certain players (Childress, Tory Johnson, etc) regardless of anything else. He constantly talks about how other teams focused on Childress but never reveals what WF did in response and the reason why is that Manning did nothing different. He simply resorted to trying to shove the square peg through the round hole even though it's been proven to not work many times. WF depends on a good shooting % and players overcoming the lack of any cognizant game plan and/or halftime adjustments.

A very astute and truthful observation.

Case in point: Childress is frequently our inbounder for the last four years, something that has always made zero sense to me, as he is always the smallest guy on the floor. Commentator last night pointed it out, and yet we always do it. Manning, if nothing else, is stubborn as a mule.
When an organization or individual is stuck, the answer is to go against the grain,not keeping spinning your wheels in the mud.

 

[liveanddiedeac]

2017 against Louisville

I mean ... he's 27-75 in the ACC. Of those 27 wins, 5 have been against teams that finished better than .500 in the league. Louisville was the only one of those five that wasn't 10-8.

And that was in the one season that is the outlier (to an extent, still wasn't a great year really) of the Manning era because we had John Collins. What's so frustrating with Manning is he'll say "they turned up the pressure in the 2nd half, it's what good teams do." Well, did you try anything in response to that? I mean in fairness, I know it's easier for the more talented team in the matchup to make effective adjustments, but what we did we try to do in response? Because watching the game, it appears we never do anything.

 

[Rafi]

This season,
WF has won games with the following standing at halftime:
led Columbia by 1
led UNCA by 5
led Davidson by 3
led CoC by 2
led Cal State by 7
led Xavier by 9 (outscored by 7 in second)
led NC A&T by 7
trailed Pitt by 3
led BC by 7
led Clemson by 3

WF has lost games with the following standing at halftime:
trailed BC by 15
tied with Charlotte (also tied at end of reg. - lost in OT)
trailed Arizona by 6
trailed Penn State by 18
trailed NC State by 9
trailed FSU by 7
trailed Duke by 26
trailed VT by 2
led Clemson by 6 (lost by 3)
led UVA by 7 (tied at end of reg - lost in OT)
led ND by 5 (lost by 10)
led UL by 12 (lost by 10)

So losing leads after halftime is actually a recent development, with each of the last 4 games involving that (and being the only games this season that it has occurred - although Xavier did make a run earlier this season). On a related note, WF is not great at overcoming a halftime deficit, having won only one game this season where they entered the second half losing. Conference games are bolded.

Thanks for the stats, Chaos. My impression is that this year we have played pretty well in the first 5 minutes or so of the second half, which is different from previous years. This was not the case last night. It doesn't actually matter if the team ends up losing, but it does seem different from previous years under Manning. I have no idea why this would be the case. From a coaching standpoint, the only difference is Walters - maybe he provides some insight at halftime?

But as the game winds down, we are still unable to defend, foul a lot, and resort to chucking 3s (and abandon Sarr and drives).

 

[thatguy2016]

2017 against Louisville

I mean ... he's 27-75 in the ACC. Of those 27 wins, 5 have been against teams that finished better than .500 in the league. Louisville was the only one of those five that wasn't 10-8.

That's incredible

It’s difficult to be that bad over six years.

one doesn't establish the worst 10-year winning percentage over the past 60 years of ACC basketball without some effort

 

[Bluegrass Deac]

2017 against Louisville

I mean ... he's 27-75 in the ACC. Of those 27 wins, 5 have been against teams that finished better than .500 in the league. Louisville was the only one of those five that wasn't 10-8.

That Louisville win I remember Donovan Mitchell had a horrible shooting night, missing open shots he usually made.

 

[PhDeac]

102 games total. I imagine 45-55 of those were against teams under .500. That means Manning is under .500 against ACC teams that were under .500.