Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: per-capita NBA contribution, by state and ethnicity

Expand Messages
  • HoopStudies
    My growin up state of Hawaii had a player? Who was that? I thought I was the only person outside of Chaminade who played over there. ... data).
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      My growin' up state of Hawaii had a player? Who was that? I thought
      I was the only person outside of Chaminade who played over there.

      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
      > Units are NBA minutes per 1000 population.
      >
      > Yearly averages since 1990, divided by 1990 population (census
      data).
      >
      > per
      > 1000 R State (NBA min./1000 pop.)
      >
      > 115. B Oregon (5318/46,)
      > 76.2 B Utah 882/12,
      > 33.7 B Oklahoma 7882/234,
      > 31.2 B Arizona 3446/111,
      > 26.8 B Wisconsin 6550/245,
      >
      > 25.6 B Arkansas 9568/374,
      > 24.5 B Connecticut 6719/274,
      > 24.4 B Hawaii 664/27,
      > 24.1 B Nevada 1898 79,
      > 21.3 B Virginia 24784/1163,
      >
      > 20.7 B Illinois 35016/1694,
      > 20.1 B Michigan 26017/1292,
      > 20.1 B Louisiana 26168/1299,
      > 19.9 B Indiana 8603/432,
      > 19.8 B D.C. 7912/400,
      >
      > 18.6 B California 41123/2209,
      > 16.1 B Kansas 2301/143,
      > 16.0 B Kentucky 4194/263,
      > 15.5 B Mississippi 14168/915,
      > 15.5 B Ohio 17851/1153,
      >
      > 15.2 B Georgia 26614/1747,
      > 14.4 B West Virginia 811/56,
      > 14.3 B Alabama 14602/1021,
      > 14.3 B Pennsylvania 15537/1090,
      > 13.6 B North Carolina 19828/1456,
      >
      > 13.6 B Washington 2036/150,
      > 12.0 B New Jersey 12463/1037,
      > 11.7 B Florida 20642/1760,
      > 11.5 B New York 32906/2859,
      > 9.9 B Massachusetts 2979/300,
      >
      > 9.8 B Texas 19897/2022,
      > 9.8 B Tennessee 7600/778,
      > 9.7 B Maryland 11595/1190,
      > 8.5 B South Carolina 8853/1040,
      > 8.3 B Rhode Island 322/39,
      >
      > 6.1 B Colorado 819/133,
      > 4.6 B Maine 24/5,
      > 4.0 B Missouri 2219/548,
      > 2.8 B Delaware 316/112,
      > 2.7 B Nebraska 158/57,
      >
      > 1.9 B New Hampshire 14/7,
      > 1.9 W Utah 3084/1616,
      > 1.5 B Minnesota 143/95,
      > 1.4 W D.C. 248/180,
      > 1.1 W Washington 4795/4309,
      >
      > 1.1 W Oklahoma 2774/2584,
      > 0.8 W Iowa 2092/2684,
      > 0.8 W Connecticut 2193/2859,
      > 0.7 W New York 9419/13385,
      > 0.7 W Indiana 3398 5021,
      >
      > 0.7 W California 13489/20524,
      > 0.6 B Iowa 28/48,
      > 0.6 W Minnesota 2351/4130,
      > 0.5 W South Dakota 343/637,
      > 0.5 W Kentucky 1732/3392,
      >
      > 0.5 W Oregon 1322/2637,
      > 0.5 W Maryland 1682/3394,
      > 0.5 W Colorado 1310/2905,
      > 0.4 W Kansas 970/2232,
      > 0.4 W Illinois 3866/8953,
      >
      > 0.4 W Massachusetts 2027/5405,
      > 0.4 W Maine 441/1208,
      > 0.3 W Wisconsin 1542/4513,
      > 0.3 W Texas 4208/12775,
      > 0.3 W New Jersey 1605/6130,
      >
      > 0.3 W Florida 2793/10749,
      > 0.3 W Nebraska 377/1481,
      > 0.2 W Arizona 702/2963,
      > 0.2 W Missouri 1047/4486
      > 0.2 W Arkansas 423/1945,
      >
      > 0.20 W Ohio 1882/9522,
      > 0.18 W Alabama 523/2976,
      > 0.17 W South Carolina 406/2407,
      > 0.14 W West Virginia 235/1726,
      > 0.12 W Pennsylvania 1242/10520,
      >
      > 0.08 W Michigan 618/7756,
      > 0.06 W North Carolina 300/5008,
      > 0.05 W Virginia 248/4791,
      > 0.05 W Georgia 225/4600
      > 0.03 W North Dakota 19/604,
      > 0.03 W Nevada 30/1012,
      > 0.02 W Idaho 24/950,
      > 0.02 W Tennessee 75/4048,
      > 0.01 W Louisiana 22/2839,
      >
      > There hasn't been a white player from Mississippi who played 100 NBA
      > minutes, since the 70s. These states haven't produced a white NBA
      > player in over 10 years:
      >
      > Mississippi
      > New Mexico
      > New Hampshire
      > Rhode Island
      > Vermont
      > Delaware
      > Wyoming
      > Alaska
      > Hawaii
      >
      > And these states haven't had a black player in that time:
      >
      > Alaska
      > Wyoming
      > North Dakota
      > Idaho
      > South Dakota
      > Vermont
    • Michael K. Tamada
      ... Interesting stats. I don t know what conclusions to draw, but I believe it is the case that those Top 5 states all have relatively low percentages of
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 4, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, mikel_ind wrote:

        > Units are NBA minutes per 1000 population.
        >
        > Yearly averages since 1990, divided by 1990 population (census data).
        >
        > per
        > 1000 R State (NBA min./1000 pop.)
        >
        > 115. B Oregon (5318/46,)
        > 76.2 B Utah 882/12,
        > 33.7 B Oklahoma 7882/234,
        > 31.2 B Arizona 3446/111,
        > 26.8 B Wisconsin 6550/245,

        Interesting stats. I don't know what conclusions to draw, but I believe
        it is the case that those Top 5 states all have relatively low percentages
        of Blacks living within their borders. Indeed I think that's true of 2 or
        3 of the next 5 too.

        > 25.6 B Arkansas 9568/374,
        > 24.5 B Connecticut 6719/274,
        > 24.4 B Hawaii 664/27,
        > 24.1 B Nevada 1898 79,
        > 21.3 B Virginia 24784/1163,

        VA and Arkansas I presume have relatively large Black populations; don't
        know about Connecticut.

        [...]

        > 0.08 W Michigan 618/7756,
        > 0.06 W North Carolina 300/5008,
        > 0.05 W Virginia 248/4791,
        > 0.05 W Georgia 225/4600
        > 0.03 W North Dakota 19/604,
        > 0.03 W Nevada 30/1012,
        > 0.02 W Idaho 24/950,
        > 0.02 W Tennessee 75/4048,
        > 0.01 W Louisiana 22/2839,

        These bottom states, I don't know what to say. A preponderance of
        southeastern states: LA, TN, GA, VA, and NC. But also 2 or 3 of what I
        think are the most lily-white states: ID, NV, and ND. And one sort of
        middle of the road state, MI.


        --MKT
      • mikel_ind
        (DeanO wrote:) ... Hawaii had a player? Who was that? ... Red Rocha (1948-57) was from Hawaii. Cedric Ceballos ( 91-00) was born there and went to HS in
        Message 3 of 9 , Sep 4, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          (DeanO wrote:) ... Hawaii had a player? Who was that? ...

          Red Rocha (1948-57) was from Hawaii.

          Cedric Ceballos ('91-00) was born there and went to HS in Calif., so
          his minutes are assigned 1/2 to each.


          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, mikel_ind wrote:
          >
          > > Units are NBA minutes per 1000 population.
          > >
          > > Yearly averages since 1990, divided by 1990 population (census
          data).
          > >
          > > per
          > > 1000 R State (NBA min./1000 pop.)
          > >
          > > 115. B Oregon (5318/46,)
          > > 76.2 B Utah 882/12,
          > > 33.7 B Oklahoma 7882/234,
          > > 31.2 B Arizona 3446/111,
          > > 26.8 B Wisconsin 6550/245,
          >
          > .... I believe
          > it is the case that those Top 5 states all have relatively low
          percentages
          > of Blacks living within their borders. Indeed I think that's true
          of 2 or
          > 3 of the next 5 too.

          The denominator is total black population within the state, in
          thousands. Oregon's blacks are only 1/60th as numerous as the whites
          in that state. Yet their minutes are 4 times as great.

          An Oregon black is 240 times as likely as a white is, to reach the
          NBA!

          Of course, these low-% states are more likely to be at the
          statistical edges at any given time. In the case of Oregon, there
          are exactly 3 major players of the '90s: A.C. Green, Terrell
          Brandon, and Damon Stoudamire. These 3 players' coming from
          a 'community' of 46,000 are quite impressive, though not
          statistically profound.

          > > 25.6 B Arkansas 9568/374,
          > > 24.5 B Connecticut 6719/274,
          > > 24.4 B Hawaii 664/27,
          > > 24.1 B Nevada 1898 79,
          > > 21.3 B Virginia 24784/1163,
          >
          >
          > > 0.08 W Michigan 618/7756,
          > > 0.06 W North Carolina 300/5008,
          > > 0.05 W Virginia 248/4791,
          > > 0.05 W Georgia 225/4600
          > > 0.03 W North Dakota 19/604,
          > > 0.03 W Nevada 30/1012,
          > > 0.02 W Idaho 24/950,
          > > 0.02 W Tennessee 75/4048,
          > > 0.01 W Louisiana 22/2839,
          >
          > These bottom states, I don't know what to say. A preponderance of
          > southeastern states: LA, TN, GA, VA, and NC. But also 2 or 3 of
          what I
          > think are the most lily-white states: ID, NV, and ND. And one
          sort of
          > middle of the road state, MI.
          >

          The scarcely-populated states, I presume, aren't good for a game,
          because you can't get enough guys together -- between ranching
          chores, etc.

          Michigan is a bit of an anomaly, in that it is a midwestern state
          with a long basketball tradition. But it has gone the way of
          Tennessee: whites have ceased to play, for some time now.

          Those southern states: I guess there just weren't any hoops around,
          until the 60s, when blacks began to take up the game there. Whites
          just never have done so.
        • HoopStudies
          ... Actually Michigan gets a lot of whites to play, having finished HS there. There are actually quite a few good whites, but they don t get the exposure that
          Message 4 of 9 , Sep 4, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            > Michigan is a bit of an anomaly, in that it is a midwestern state
            > with a long basketball tradition. But it has gone the way of
            > Tennessee: whites have ceased to play, for some time now.
            >

            Actually Michigan gets a lot of whites to play, having finished HS
            there. There are actually quite a few good whites, but they don't
            get the exposure that those near Detroit get. Flint HS dominates,
            which I think is mostly black now. The competition outside of the
            Detroit area (and maybe Lansing) is not quite as good, but there is
            talent. I think there also is

            > Those southern states: I guess there just weren't any hoops around,
            > until the 60s, when blacks began to take up the game there. Whites
            > just never have done so.

            A lot of those southern states are football states, which is
            perceived by whites as not black-dominated so they seem more willing
            to play it.

            It looks like blacks are generally about 50 times more likely to get
            a minute of playing time per capita? I can think of a million ways
            for politicos to spin that, for good, for bad, for votes.

            Let me ask the question then: What are we hoping to get out of these
            numbers? Not as a criticism of what you've done, which is
            interesting info, but what was your goal when you looked to get it?
            Is it some socioeconomic goal? If so, are you interested in
            publishing it in a journal (I may be able to hook you up)? You may
            want to focus what you've got into something that isn't so vague.
            It's nice to say that numbers are numbers and do with 'em what you
            want, but what did YOU want to see?

            DeanO
          • mikel_ind
            ... This is a bogus issue. Exposure doesn t get you into the NBA; being good enough does. A great player dominates in high school, stars in college, etc.
            Message 5 of 9 , Sep 4, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
              > ... Michigan gets a lot of whites to play, having finished HS
              > there. There are actually quite a few good whites, but they don't
              > get the exposure that those near Detroit get.

              This is a bogus issue. Exposure doesn't get you into the NBA; being
              good enough does. A great player dominates in high school, stars in
              college, etc. Larry Bird didn't come from a showcase basketball
              program.

              > ... The competition outside of the
              > Detroit area (and maybe Lansing) is not quite as good, but there is
              > talent.

              I am thinking that if there is a genuine pool of talent, there will
              be players good enough to play pro. In other words, a pyramid of
              talent will have some percent of players starring at all levels.

              > A lot of those southern states are football states, which is
              > perceived by whites as not black-dominated so they seem more
              willing
              > to play it.

              Now we are getting to what makes me wonder. Do whites really feel
              universally alienated by a preponderance of blacks in a sport?
              I would prefer to believe there would be guys out to prove they can
              do it. What stops a white guy in Michigan or Louisiana from
              developing a game?


              > It looks like blacks are generally about 50 times more likely to
              get
              > a minute of playing time per capita?

              It might be that much.


              > what was your goal when you looked to get it?
              > Is it some socioeconomic goal?

              To alert the general public; to say: look, white guys can play this
              game. The NBA is suffering for lack of white American players. The
              college game is robbed of all its talent, the Euros are contributing,
              and the talent level is still suspect.

              Larry Bird didn't jump to the rafters; he just played. Somewhere,
              there is a statistic like: There are more white guys over 6'6" in
              Wisconsin than there are black guys. And so why aren't there more
              white players?
            • HoopStudies
              ... don t ... being ... in ... It s not a bogus issue until you prove it is. The world is loaded with people who assume that information is perfect. It
              Message 6 of 9 , Sep 4, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                > > ... Michigan gets a lot of whites to play, having finished HS
                > > there. There are actually quite a few good whites, but they
                don't
                > > get the exposure that those near Detroit get.
                >
                > This is a bogus issue. Exposure doesn't get you into the NBA;
                being
                > good enough does. A great player dominates in high school, stars
                in
                > college, etc. Larry Bird didn't come from a showcase basketball
                > program.
                >

                It's not a bogus issue until you prove it is. The world is loaded
                with people who assume that information is perfect. It ain't. Nor
                do people always behave rationally in light of good information.

                Example: Jeff Hornacek didn't get noticed. If he hadn't taken it on
                himself to walk on at Iowa St., he would have been the best #%@#% gym
                rat I'd ever played against.


                > > ... The competition outside of the
                > > Detroit area (and maybe Lansing) is not quite as good, but there
                is
                > > talent.
                >
                > I am thinking that if there is a genuine pool of talent, there will
                > be players good enough to play pro. In other words, a pyramid of
                > talent will have some percent of players starring at all levels.
                >
                > > A lot of those southern states are football states, which is
                > > perceived by whites as not black-dominated so they seem more
                > willing
                > > to play it.
                >
                > Now we are getting to what makes me wonder. Do whites really feel
                > universally alienated by a preponderance of blacks in a sport?
                > I would prefer to believe there would be guys out to prove they can
                > do it. What stops a white guy in Michigan or Louisiana from
                > developing a game?

                I have run into the overt attitude among some whites in some places
                where it matters how many blacks or latinos are playing a sport. I
                have more often run into the situation where friendships are drawn
                along racial lines and friends do what their friends are doing, which
                can cause sport-base segregation.


                >
                > > what was your goal when you looked to get it?
                > > Is it some socioeconomic goal?
                >
                > To alert the general public; to say: look, white guys can play this
                > game. The NBA is suffering for lack of white American players.

                Your stuff doesn't show that white guys can play the game. How is
                the NBA "suffering" for lack of white Americans?

                There was speculation on this issue up at the econ meetings I went to
                over the summer. That black players are now possibly being paid more
                than equivalently talented white players -- having swung completely
                from where it was in the 70's. Actually, no one said it swung
                completely. It was pretty bad in the 70's. It's only slight the
                other way now, the consensus seemed to be.

                DeanO
              • mikel_ind
                ... My stuff is showing that in certain parts of the country, there is some white participation in the game of basketball, while in others there is not. It
                Message 7 of 9 , Sep 5, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                  > Your stuff doesn't show that white guys can play the game. How is
                  > the NBA "suffering" for lack of white Americans?

                  My stuff is showing that in certain parts of the country, there is
                  some white participation in the game of basketball, while in others
                  there is not. It doesn't seem logical that being born in Louisiana
                  or Michigan or Tennessee makes you ineligible to have NBA aspirations.

                  Obviously, Larry Bird and John Stockton are the guys who show what
                  white guys can do.

                  The NBA is suffering by lack of interest and lack of participation by
                  the majority of Americans. What if southern blacks had not taken a
                  strong interest in the game? From almost zero impact to huge impact
                  in 15-20 years.

                  At the same time, southern whites abandoned the game.

                  Among white sub-populations, Utah leads the nation in NBA minutes per-
                  capita. If 1.6 million white people can produce 3084 NBA minutes per
                  year, why do Michigan's 7.8 million whites produce only 618? At
                  Utah's rate, Michigan could be getting some 15,000 minutes.

                  (An NBA team totals about 20,000 player-minutes, regular-season.)

                  How can we not be alarmed that a generation has turned its back on
                  the greatest game in the universe?


                  > There was speculation on this issue up at the econ meetings I went
                  to
                  > over the summer. That black players are now possibly being paid
                  more
                  > than equivalently talented white players -- having swung completely
                  > from where it was in the 70's. Actually, no one said it swung
                  > completely. It was pretty bad in the 70's. It's only slight the
                  > other way now, the consensus seemed to be.

                  In the '70s, I guess Pete Maravich made more than Walt Frazier, or
                  some such thing. Yet this didn't cause blacks to leave the game.

                  By what measure were guys being rated as 'equivalently talented'?
                  That would seem to be crucial to forming such a consensus.
                • HoopStudies
                  ... is ... aspirations. Your stuff isn t showing participation. It s showing success. Very big distinction. ... by ... impact ... You need a lot of different
                  Message 8 of 9 , Sep 5, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                    > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                    > > Your stuff doesn't show that white guys can play the game. How
                    is
                    > > the NBA "suffering" for lack of white Americans?
                    >
                    > My stuff is showing that in certain parts of the country, there is
                    > some white participation in the game of basketball, while in others
                    > there is not. It doesn't seem logical that being born in Louisiana
                    > or Michigan or Tennessee makes you ineligible to have NBA
                    aspirations.

                    Your stuff isn't showing participation. It's showing success. Very
                    big distinction.

                    > The NBA is suffering by lack of interest and lack of participation
                    by
                    > the majority of Americans. What if southern blacks had not taken a
                    > strong interest in the game? From almost zero impact to huge
                    impact
                    > in 15-20 years.
                    >
                    > At the same time, southern whites abandoned the game.
                    >

                    You need a lot of different data to show this. Yours shows white
                    just not reaching the NBA as much. In what part of the country were
                    blacks most repressed -- the South. When laws changed to overcome
                    that repression, the South would have been most affected. That would
                    have made your statistics the way they are.


                    > Among white sub-populations, Utah leads the nation in NBA minutes
                    per-
                    > capita. If 1.6 million white people can produce 3084 NBA minutes
                    per
                    > year, why do Michigan's 7.8 million whites produce only 618? At
                    > Utah's rate, Michigan could be getting some 15,000 minutes.
                    >
                    > (An NBA team totals about 20,000 player-minutes, regular-season.)
                    >
                    > How can we not be alarmed that a generation has turned its back on
                    > the greatest game in the universe?
                    >

                    I guess I haven't seen the generation turning its back on the game.
                    I still go to plenty of HS games with white kids and, in the Bay
                    Area, asian kids (fewer hispanics than would be expected). Frankly,
                    if the ratio of NBA minutes for blacks and whites is 50-1, it should
                    also be high in HS (not as high) because there is also competition at
                    that level for minutes.

                    >
                    > > There was speculation on this issue up at the econ meetings I
                    went
                    > to
                    > > over the summer. That black players are now possibly being paid
                    > more
                    > > than equivalently talented white players -- having swung
                    completely
                    > > from where it was in the 70's. Actually, no one said it swung
                    > > completely. It was pretty bad in the 70's. It's only slight the
                    > > other way now, the consensus seemed to be.
                    >
                    > In the '70s, I guess Pete Maravich made more than Walt Frazier, or
                    > some such thing. Yet this didn't cause blacks to leave the game.
                    >

                    Whites have always had many more options than blacks, so they tend to
                    have gone to them quicker. Again, I don't know if whites are leaving
                    the game, though I have seen anecdotal evidence of it. They're just
                    getting beaten.

                    > By what measure were guys being rated as 'equivalently talented'?
                    > That would seem to be crucial to forming such a consensus.

                    There are all sorts of measures floating around, most of which are
                    pretty lame. But it seemed like a reasonable thing based upon a lot
                    of data -- qualitative assessments of who's good and bad (all-star)
                    or quantitative (minutes played) etc.


                    DeanO
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.