• 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:
Now are you saying he's an excellent coach for bigs?
Click to expand...

I am saying exactly what I said. The 20% metric is impressive. Actual data on the subject can definitely sway my opinion and conclusions. A series of quotes from Manning's co-workers and students ,and anecdotal references to the success of two or three of his former players are not, in my view, actual data. The data you provided here are far more convincing, to me at least. Do you see what happened there RJ? You provided actual data to support your point (instead of just stating your opinion as fact over and over again) and it actually nudged my opinion in favor of yours.
 
Does he have be at 50% of such players? do they have to become Hall of Famers?

Nudge?

How is having more than anyone else in the country not excellent? For it not to be, nearly everyone else would have to suck.
 
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...
I believe you are describing experimental science. I wouldn't call observational data mining experimental science, even if it were being done in some sort of rigorous way which obviously is not the case here.

The standard in observational science is predictability, not replication. If done.....analysis of the observed data would show Manning to have X% success rate with future bigs (under some sort of parameter/metric set) and that success rate to be consistently much better than the observed rate of other coaches. Once that is established, then the real test is whether or not that model holds up over time.

Experimentally testing the hypothesis would be different. To test the recruiting variable, you'd probably have Manning coach up someone else's recruits (blind if possible). To test the coaching variable, I guess you might ask him to coach like someone who did not have success with big men, or maybe ask someone else to coach his recruits. That's where replication comes in.
 
You can talk about methodology all you like. Actual results matter. Over the past dozen years, no coach in the country has put as many non-5* PFs/Centers into the Top 20 in the NBA draft as Danny has.

You can come up with all the theories and esoteric criteria you like. But if you are going to try to say someone is excellent at something, results matter more than theories or opinions.
 
RJKarl said:
Over the past dozen years, no coach in the country has put as many non-5* PFs/Centers into the Top 20 in the NBA draft as Danny has.
Click to expand...

There is just no way that this is true.

ETA: RJ neg-repped this post. What a damn baby. Show your work or GTFOH.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to put the odds of either side convincing the other at approximately 40% on this one
 
Strickland33 said:
There is just no way that this is true.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is:

"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%."
 
RJKarl said:
Does he have be at 50% of such players? do they have to become Hall of Famers?

Nudge?

How is having more than anyone else in the country not excellent? For it not to be, nearly everyone else would have to suck.
Click to expand...

Did you actually demonstrate that he is the only one that that did this? That he had more than anyone else. I think you showed that 20% of them were associated with Danny (most of them were when Danny was an assistant under Bill Self), but you showed no data on who the other coaches were for the other 80%.

RJ, you've already gone a long way to providing the data that is changing my conclusion. Most people would say that is a pretty good achievement on a sports message board. You don't have to be so dramatic about this whole thing; if I were you, I'd declare victory in this discussion and move on. I've been skeptical, but now I am a little less skeptical knowing that Manning has been involved with coaching 20% of those big men draftees that you pointed out. That is really impressive.
 
The most anyone else had was two:

FL
KY
UConn
AZ

Before you say anything, other players came from teams that didn't have much upward motion of coaches like Rider, Bradley, Colorado State, Nevada, BC, St. Bonnie's, Iowa State and VCU (Shaka and his staff had no others).

So, the common denominator of Danny leads all others by at least a 5/2 margin.
 
RJKarl said:
The most anyone else had was two:

FL
KY
UConn
AZ

Before you say anything, other players came from teams that didn't have much upward motion of coaches like Rider, Bradley, Colorado State, Nevada, BC, St. Bonnie's, Iowa State and VCU (Shaka and his staff had no others).

So, the common denominator of Danny leads all others by at least a 5/2 margin.
Click to expand...

Drop the mic, RJ wins, end thread.
 
RJKarl said:
The most anyone else had was two:

FL
KY
UConn
AZ

Before you say anything, other players came from teams that didn't have much upward motion of coaches like Rider, Bradley, Colorado State, Nevada, BC, St. Bonnie's, Iowa State and VCU (Shaka and his staff had no others).

So, the common denominator of Danny leads all others by at least a 5/2 margin.
Click to expand...

So, you’re comparing Manning as an assistant and a head coach with other head coaches?
 
birdman said:
I am saying exactly what I said. The 20% metric is impressive. Actual data on the subject can definitely sway my opinion and conclusions. A series of quotes from Manning's co-workers and students ,and anecdotal references to the success of two or three of his former players are not, in my view, actual data. The data you provided here are far more convincing, to me at least. Do you see what happened there RJ? You provided actual data to support your point (instead of just stating your opinion as fact over and over again) and it actually nudged my opinion in favor of yours.
Click to expand...

Que? You might not think it’s very good data, but it is certainly data. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence.
 
birdman said:
Did you actually demonstrate that he is the only one that that did this? That he had more than anyone else. I think you showed that 20% of them were associated with Danny (most of them were when Danny was an assistant under Bill Self), but you showed no data on who the other coaches were for the other 80%.

RJ, you've already gone a long way to providing the data that is changing my conclusion. Most people would say that is a pretty good achievement on a sports message board. You don't have to be so dramatic about this whole thing; if I were you, I'd declare victory in this discussion and move on. I've been skeptical, but now I am a little less skeptical knowing that Manning has been involved with coaching 20% of those big men draftees that you pointed out. That is really impressive.
Click to expand...

About 15 minutes of research/thought would have led you to an educated guess somewhere in that ballpark. Maybe RJ’s being “dramatic” because you’ve been arguing against a commonly held view supported by plenty of evidence apparently without doing any research of your own.

And arguing might be a strong word. Throwing out the equivalent of “prove God DOESN’T exist!” hardly qualifies as an argument.
 
1170403838296sx3.jpg
 
RChildress107 said:
About 15 minutes of research/thought would have led you to an educated guess somewhere in that ballpark. Maybe RJ’s being “dramatic” because you’ve been arguing against a commonly held view supported by plenty of evidence apparently without doing any research of your own.

And arguing might be a strong word. Throwing out the equivalent of “prove God DOESN’T exist!” hardly qualifies as an argument.
Click to expand...

You obviously struggle with the concepts of inference and proof and data. Your hypothesis is backwards, it is far more parsimonious to assume that Manning is average and then prove that he is not, then to assume he is exceptional and try to determine if he's not. If you start with exceptional then you always default to exceptional even when the data don't say anything one way or another. And even if you insist on setting up the assessment that way, the differences between us come down to what is adequate proof and what is the definition of exceptional. I think it is pretty reasonable to stakeout a very skeptical position regarding the quality of our basketball coaching given the garbage Welman trotted out on the sidelines for 4 years, while repeatedly assuring us everything was fine. Lots of people said Bz was a great X and O's coach. There were anecdotes about how when he was in Miami as an assistant he designed the in-bounds play that Prosser used years later from Chris Paul to score a buzzer beating layup against NC State, or there was that time he was coaching Navy and beat the shit out Wake. There were plenty of quotes from other coaches and players about what great hire Welman made. But no matter how many anecdotes and quotes you thrown together it's pretty undeniable that Bz sucked.

That 20% stat that RJ provided today is really impressive, but it's not conclusive. Four of those 5 guys were drafted when Manning was an assistant. It is highly probable that Bill Self did a little bit of coaching at Kansas too. Either way Manning has yet to replicate that success here except for JC. Manning has had 5 or 6 post players (depending on if you count Washington) here for more than one season and JC is the only one of 6 to show remarkable development, though after the last few games, Doral looks like he is on that path now, which is why I came here to post. It is not unreasonable to retain the suspicion that Manning got lucky with JC, like Odom did with Duncan, and his other players are performing pretty much as expected. I am, frankly, not as impressed with Dinos as RJ is. It's only been 3.2 seasons since he started here and I think it's is too early to conclude definitively if he is amazing and any aspect of the coaching job.
 
birdman said:
You obviously struggle with the concepts of inference and proof and data. Your hypothesis is backwards, it is far more parsimonious to assume that Manning is average and then prove that he is not, then to assume he is exceptional and try to determine if he's not. If you start with exceptional then you always default to exceptional even when the data don't say anything one way or another. And even if you insist on setting up the assessment that way, the differences between us come down to what is adequate proof and what is the definition of exceptional. I think it is pretty reasonable to stakeout a very skeptical position regarding the quality of our basketball coaching given the garbage Welman trotted out on the sidelines for 4 years, while repeatedly assuring us everything was fine. Lots of people said Bz was a great X and O's coach. There were anecdotes about how when he was in Miami as an assistant he designed the in-bounds play that Prosser used years later from Chris Paul to score a buzzer beating layup against NC State, or there was that time he was coaching Navy and beat the shit out Wake. There were plenty of quotes from other coaches and players about what great hire Welman made. But no matter how many anecdotes and quotes you thrown together it's pretty undeniable that Bz sucked.

That 20% stat that RJ provided today is really impressive, but it's not conclusive. Four of those 5 guys were drafted when Manning was an assistant. It is highly probable that Bill Self did a little bit of coaching at Kansas too. Either way Manning has yet to replicate that success here except for JC. Manning has had 5 or 6 post players (depending on if you count Washington) here for more than one season and JC is the only one of 6 to show remarkable development, though after the last few games, Doral looks like he is on that path now, which is why I came here to post. It is not unreasonable to retain the suspicion that Manning got lucky with JC, like Odom did with Duncan, and his other players are performing pretty much as expected. I am, frankly, not as impressed with Dinos as RJ is. It's only been 3.2 seasons since he started here and I think it's is too early to conclude definitively if he is amazing and any aspect of the coaching job.
Click to expand...

1.
giphy.gif



2. Yeah you were actually doing alright til the bold. Is that really your argument for assuming Manning is not a good big man coach with such certainty that the overwhelming amount of data pointing in the opposite direction hasn’t yet changed that assption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top