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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Sep 5 1:26 AM
    • 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 2 of 9 , Sep 5 11:40 AM
      • 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.