• 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

My starting position is skeptcism and the evidence should disprove the Null. I don't think there is enough evidence to support the hypothesis that he is exceptional. It is possible that he got really lucky with JC, like Odom did with Duncan, and that all his other protegees performed, more or less, as expected. It is not unusual for a 6'10" 30th ranked player out of high school to end up in the NBA. The fact that Manning helped half a dozen 6'10" or greater, 50th ranked or higher guys get to the NBA doesn't blow me away as amazing.

That’s an illogical position to take.
 
My starting position is skeptcism and the evidence should disprove the Null. I don't think there is enough evidence to support the hypothesis that he is exceptional. It is possible that he got really lucky with JC, like Odom did with Duncan, and that all his other protegees performed, more or less, as expected. It is not unusual for a 6'10" 30th ranked player out of high school to end up in the NBA. The fact that Manning helped half a dozen 6'10" or greater, 50th ranked or higher guys get to the NBA doesn't blow me away as amazing.

We're not just talking about making the NBA . FOUR were LOTTERY PICKS.

It's also about consistency. His players consistently out performed their projections. You'd be correct if was one guy. Here it was year after year after year.

You aren't acting like a scientist. You are acting like a depressed fan.
 
We're not just talking about making the NBA . FOUR were LOTTERY PICKS.

It's also about consistency. His players consistently out performed their projections. You'd be correct if was one guy. Here it was year after year after year.

You aren't acting like a scientist. You are acting like a depressed fan.

Just look at 2017 alone. Quick research shows that Zach Collins drafted 10th by Sacramento was ranked 37th out of high school according to 247, Justin Patton drafted 16th by the Bulls was ranked 85th out of high school. So big men getting into the lottery happens. Manning doing something that other coaches have done as well doesn't blow me away as exceptional. But if he keeps doing it, my skepticism will decline.
 
Just look at 2017 alone. Quick research shows that Zach Collins drafted 10th by Sacramento was ranked 37th out of high school according to 247, Justin Patton drafted 16th by the Bulls was ranked 85th out of high school. So big men getting into the lottery happens. Manning doing something that other coaches have done as well doesn't blow me away as exceptional. But if he keeps doing it, my skepticism will decline.

He has done it over and over again, but still don't lose your skepticism. He's done it in FIVE NBA drafts and with the #1 team in Greece (a top international league).

It's inconceivable to me that doing it FIVE times in about a decade doesn't qualify to you.

The reality is you don't give him the respect he has clearly earned. No one is saying he's Jay Wright or Bill Self or Tom Izzo during games. All we are saying is by any fair rules of evidence, Danny has proven to be an excellent coach of bigs (PF/C).
 
No it's not. Disproving the null is the basis of statistical inference in science for the last 100 years.

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.
 
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.

My statistical rationale is that Manning is so large - he looks really weird crossing his arms across his blazer when he is walking the sidelines. Only a statistical anomaly of a large human could make arm crossing look so strange. Therefore, Manning is a big man. Therewithin, he is a great big man coach. Done.
 
My statistical rationale is that Manning is so large - he looks really weird crossing his arms across his blazer when he is walking the sidelines. Only a statistical anomaly of a large human could make arm crossing look so strange. Therefore, Manning is a big man. Therewithin, he is a great big man coach. Done.

Finally, someone makes a cogent argument in this discussion.
 
To be fair, you should come from the position that you don't know if he's average or excellent. If you start from a position that is negative you show you have a point of view to prove, Thus, you will look for evidence to prove it.

Again, it's one thing if a coach gets one lower player into the NBA. Danny has done it FIVE times. That is way above the norm.

Being a scientist and one who uses numbers, why don't you see how many bigs ranked 30-50 became NBA players and how many became lottery picks. Then see how many coaches have done it as often as Danny.

BTW, Collins was 5* and #21 on Rivals. He's ranked higher than any of Danny's players on Rivals.

As to why we have difference of opinion. it's very simple. I started from a point of zero. you started from a defined and negative point.
 
My starting position is skeptcism and the evidence should disprove the Null. I don't think there is enough evidence to support the hypothesis that he is exceptional. It is possible that he got really lucky with JC, like Odom did with Duncan, and that all his other protegees performed, more or less, as expected. It is not unusual for a 6'10" 30th ranked player out of high school to end up in the NBA. The fact that Manning helped half a dozen 6'10" or greater, 50th ranked or higher guys get to the NBA doesn't blow me away as amazing.
Well look at the numbers and maybe you'll see something different. That's the only way you can even establish a "null" anyway.

From the recruiting classes of 2010-2013, 19 players in top 50 were ~6'10" or taller (using 247). 8 play in the NBA. 2 others were drafted and have played a few games but never stuck (McGary and Jerrett). But of the 8 that are in the game, 6 were top 13 players so there is a pretty striking cutoff.

So 6/7 top 13 players were drafted and are in the NBA...pretty much a slam dunk. But only 2/12 from 14th to 50th were drafted and play, plus the 2 players who played games but never stuck. So 33% of 14-50th get drafted, but only 16% actually play more than just a few games. That Manning got most of his bigs who weren't slam dunk top 13 into the NBA says quite a lot.
 
To be fair, you should come from the position that you don't know if he's average or excellent. If you start from a position that is negative you show you have a point of view to prove, Thus, you will look for evidence to prove it.

Again, it's one thing if a coach gets one lower player into the NBA. Danny has done it FIVE times. That is way above the norm.

Being a scientist and one who uses numbers, why don't you see how many bigs ranked 30-50 became NBA players and how many became lottery picks. Then see how many coaches have done it as often as Danny.

BTW, Collins was 5* and #21 on Rivals. He's ranked higher than any of Danny's players on Rivals.

As to why we have difference of opinion. it's very simple. I started from a point of zero. you started from a defined and negative point.

Thanks for explaining to me how science should work. Didn't know you had expertise on study design and statistical analyses. I'll take this perspective into my next round of grant proposals and try revising previous proposals. As for the "why don't you see how many bigs ranked 30-50 became NBA players and how many became lottery picks." I really don't have time to go and collect these data and analyze them. I am busy rewriting the stats design on my grant proposals.
 
It's totally inconsistent with saying you are scientific methods and not including all the data. All you are doing is giving an emotional response not a scientific one.
 
Well look at the numbers and maybe you'll see something different. That's the only way you can even establish a "null" anyway.

From the recruiting classes of 2010-2013, 19 players in top 50 were ~6'10" or taller (using 247). 8 play in the NBA. 2 others were drafted and have played a few games but never stuck (McGary and Jerrett). But of the 8 that are in the game, 6 were top 13 players so there is a pretty striking cutoff.

So 6/7 top 13 players were drafted and are in the NBA...pretty much a slam dunk. But only 2/12 from 14th to 50th were drafted and play, plus the 2 players who played games but never stuck. So 33% of 14-50th get drafted, but only 16% actually play more than just a few games. That Manning got most of his bigs who weren't slam dunk top 13 into the NBA says quite a lot.

That's helpful, thanks. Comparing to the success rate of other players and coaches on this issue is really the key to establishing whether Manning is exceptional or not. The tidbits of data presented here and the elicited quotes from experts were not sufficient to sway my opinion...but these kids of data might be.
 
Well look at the numbers and maybe you'll see something different. That's the only way you can even establish a "null" anyway.

From the recruiting classes of 2010-2013, 19 players in top 50 were ~6'10" or taller (using 247). 8 play in the NBA. 2 others were drafted and have played a few games but never stuck (McGary and Jerrett). But of the 8 that are in the game, 6 were top 13 players so there is a pretty striking cutoff.

So 6/7 top 13 players were drafted and are in the NBA...pretty much a slam dunk. But only 2/12 from 14th to 50th were drafted and play, plus the 2 players who played games but never stuck. So 33% of 14-50th get drafted, but only 16% actually play more than just a few games. That Manning got most of his bigs who weren't slam dunk top 13 into the NBA says quite a lot.

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.
 
It's totally inconsistent with saying you are scientific methods and not including all the data. All you are doing is giving an emotional response not a scientific one.

About sports, remember. I don't have any data except the things you've posted here, and when those tidbits are posted here and compared to my own memories, they are not overwhelming.
 
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.

Also, a couple guys listed as 6'10 in college were drafted as small forwards.
 
To be fair, you should come from the position that you don't know if he's average or excellent. If you start from a position that is negative you show you have a point of view to prove, Thus, you will look for evidence to prove it.

Again, it's one thing if a coach gets one lower player into the NBA. Danny has done it FIVE times. That is way above the norm.

Being a scientist and one who uses numbers, why don't you see how many bigs ranked 30-50 became NBA players and how many became lottery picks. Then see how many coaches have done it as often as Danny.

BTW, Collins was 5* and #21 on Rivals. He's ranked higher than any of Danny's players on Rivals.

As to why we have difference of opinion. it's very simple. I started from a point of zero. you started from a defined and negative point.

I am starting from a position of neutrality. "Manning is no different from other big men coaches." Then we run tests to see if that premise still holds true as data are accumulated. The data you have provided here, in my opinion, are not conclusive enough to reject the premise that Manning is no different from other big men coaches...however, if Doral gets drafted next year (and if he keeps playing like he has the last 5 games or so I think he will) I'd be more convinced that the null was wrong.
 
That's helpful, thanks. Comparing to the success rate of other players and coaches on this issue is really the key to establishing whether Manning is exceptional or not. The tidbits of data presented here and the elicited quotes from experts were not sufficient to sway my opinion...but these kids of data might be.
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.
 
About sports, remember. I don't have any data except the things you've posted here, and when those tidbits are posted here and compared to my own memories, they are not overwhelming.

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?
 
Back
Top