• 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!

Doral Moore

RJKarl said:
You shouldn't use an arbitrary height demarcation for this. Three perfect examples are the Morris twins and Thomas Robinson. Each plays PF. Each is under 6'10. Thus using height rather than position is a wrong criteria.
Click to expand...
LOL....so the data backs your point and you complain about it. Good grief.
 
I'm not complaining about it. I'm saying it should be expanded which makes my point even stronger. But none of this matters to Bird.
 
pourdeac said:
It was just a quick survey but quite convincing. And it makes sense. Big men are probably a lot harder to evaluate because their competition is always against smaller players so quite a few probably get ranked high coming out of HS but don't pan out. Manning could be coaching them up, or could just be better at evaluating talent. Either way, it looks like he is above average. Not sure what exceptional would mean. I guess you'd have to run stats and look to see if he's an outlier.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd agree that he is probably above average, I don't think the evidence is sufficient to prove that he is an outlier. I proposed an analysis on some other thread looking at year to year player improvement under manning vs. a random sample of other players, but high school to draft position would do it too. The key to thoroughly demonstrating this, from my perspective, would be to compare Danny's success to other coaches. This all started because some jackass Canadian suggested that JC's improvement is a once in a lifetime improvement and that shows Manning is the best big man coach in the game. Someone suggested that Duncan disproved the premise and the Canadian got a bit obnoxious about it. I don't think Manning is bad, I just don't think the evidence yet proves he is the best.
 
RJKarl said:
Let's even say there are two PF/C drafted each in the Top 20 who were ranked below #30 each year. This means in a twelve year span twenty-four were. Danny would have FIVE of them. That's over 20% of the national total. There are over 300 D1 schools and many more coaches than the raw number.

How isn't that excellent?
Click to expand...

You are now trying to prove a point based on some assumed, imaginary data set. Ok, I'm convinced, Manning is amazing.
 
birdman said:
You are now trying to prove a point based on some assumed, imaginary data set. Ok, I'm convinced, Manning is amazing.
Click to expand...

When pour posted this, you gave it credibility. Hmmmmmmmmmm...
 
RJKarl said:
I'm not complaining about it. I'm saying it should be expanded which makes my point even stronger. But none of this matters to Bird.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I posted last night that the additional data on Doral's improvement this season is changing my mind. I literally came to this thread last night to say this new bit of information about Doral's playing success this year could be convincing evidence that Manning has a special talent and here you are accusing me of being obstinate and unmoved by data.
 
RJKarl said:
When pour posted this, you gave it credibility. Hmmmmmmmmmm...
Click to expand...

Maybe I am mistaken, I thought pour's post was actual data from three successive drafts. If it was also imaginary data I retract my gratitude. Either way you are free to keep feeling persecuted.
 
birdman said:
Maybe I am mistaken, I thought pour's post was actual data from three successive drafts. If it was also imaginary data I retract my gratitude. Either way you are free to keep feeling persecuted.
Click to expand...
It was actual numbers pulled off of 247 and then searched individually for draft and NBA status.
 
pourdeac said:
It was actual numbers pulled off of 247 and then searched individually for draft and NBA status.
Click to expand...

OK, so gratitude remains.

RJ, do you see the difference between presenting three years of actual data and extrapolating that pattern to 12 years then proclaiming the extrapolation conclusively confirms your point?
 
RChildress107 said:
Statistical inference isn’t particularly useful here and you have provided no logical reason to set your null as “Manning is not a good big man coach.”
Click to expand...

If that is an actual quote of something I said, then I apologize for misstating my premise. The null here is that Manning is no different from other coaches.

If you don't use statistical inference, what do we do, just feel that he is a great big man coach? That is a more logical approach?
 
birdman said:
OK, so gratitude remains.

RJ, do you see the difference between presenting three years of actual data and extrapolating that pattern to 12 years then proclaiming the extrapolation conclusively confirms your point?
Click to expand...

How about if I don't extrapolate?

I looked at the NBA drafts from 2006-17. I found 25 players picked in the Top 20 who were listed as PF or C and weren't ranked in Rivals Top 25. Of those 25 players, 5 were coached by Danny Manning. That's 20%.

As stated before there are over 300 D1 programs. There were an average of over 60 teams in the NCAA Power 6 (football P5+Big East). Of all those coaches NONE has put as many players from this group into the high NBA draft.

Whether you want to use 300 schools or 60+, being #1 shows excellence or lightning striking the same place over and over and over and over and over again.

But I'm sure actual results won't matter.
 
RJKarl said:
How about if I don't extrapolate?

I looked at the NBA drafts from 2006-17. I found 25 players picked in the Top 20 who were listed as PF or C and weren't ranked in Rivals Top 25. Of those 25 players, 5 were coached by Danny Manning. That's 20%.

As stated before there are over 300 D1 programs. There were an average of over 60 teams in the NCAA Power 6 (football P5+Big East). Of all those coaches NONE has put as many players from this group into the high NBA draft.

Whether you want to use 300 schools or 60+, being #1 shows excellence or lightning striking the same place over and over and over and over and over again.

But I'm sure actual results won't matter.
Click to expand...

Actual data...thank you. That 20% metric is really impressive. Thanks, RJ.
 
birdman said:
To further explain, you and RJ are setting up the hypothesis in the opposite direction of me. The premise is that Manning is an exceptional big man coach. To me it looks like you guys are taking that as the starting premise of the discussion and suggesting that it is up to me, or any contrarian, to disprove it. I am coming from the other direction, that Manning is an average big man coach and looking for evidence to disprove that. As statistical ecologist, I think you are a setting up the experiment backwards and that the proper null in this case should be there is no special effect of Manning as a big man coach, i.e., he is no different that other coaches. Sufficient evidence to the contrary would disprove that.

I suppose the other explanation of this difference of opinion is that you and RJ have different standards for rejecting the null than I do. Y'all are convinced that the data strongly support the hypothesis, and I am not. But if you are calling my starting premise that "Manning is not an exceptional coach" illogical I don't think this explains the difference of opinion.
Click to expand...

The only logical basis for the premise “Manning is not an exceptional big man coach” is the definition of the word exceptional (let’s call it top 10%). That’s a pretty weak basis (as it’s based on the general population of coaches and not specifically on anything about Manning). It’s weaker still when you consider Manning’s successful career as a big man (indicating a higher than average knowledge base about what makes a successful big man than the ordinary coach). It gets even weaker given the data we have seen thus far (both at Kansas and here) and his generally accepted reputation as a great big man coach.

Whatever you choose as your null in this situation is going to be pretty weak and should be pretty responsive to new data.
 
My heart sinks at the level of scientific ignorance displayed in this thread. I thought WFU was a rigorous liberal arts university but apparently most people on this thread slept through their science courses (Forgive me for assuming most on this thread went to WFU). Not only is birdman correct in his assertions but a hard ass scientist would be even more demanding. As a scientist, birdman should demand that Manning's success rate with big man preparation for the NBA be statistically significant from the null hypothesis at the 0.05 significance level AND that the study be replicated by an independent group, preferably in a double blind, randomized study, before accepting the theorem. Even then, a good scientist should always be looking to disprove the theorem as new methods of testing present themselves. We scientists are a skeptical lot by nature and should not be accused of emotional motivations for our obstinence. It's what we do.
 
Neurodeac said:
My heart sinks at the level of scientific ignorance displayed in this thread. I thought WFU was a rigorous liberal arts university but apparently most people on this thread slept through their science courses (Forgive me for assuming most on this thread went to WFU). Not only is birdman correct in his assertions but a hard ass scientist would be even more demanding. As a scientist, birdman should demand that Manning's success rate with big man preparation for the NBA be statistically significant from the null hypothesis at the 0.05 significance level AND that the study be replicated by an independent group, preferably in a double blind, randomized study, before accepting the theorem. Even then, a good scientist should always be looking to disprove the theorem as new methods of testing present themselves. We scientists are a skeptical lot by nature and should not be accused of emotional motivations for our obstinence. It's what we do.
Click to expand...

Hard ass scientists are notorious for confusing logic and science. Am I correct in saying that the weaker your null hypothesis the weaker the evidence it takes to disprove it?

It’s also patently illogical to apply that level of scientific rigor to ordinary matters of everyday life.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top