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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.