Re: per-capita NBA contribution, by state and ethnicity
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:is
> > Your stuff doesn't show that white guys can play the game. How
> > the NBA "suffering" for lack of white Americans?aspirations.
> 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
Your stuff isn't showing participation. It's showing success. Very
> The NBA is suffering by lack of interest and lack of participationby
> the majority of Americans. What if southern blacks had not taken aimpact
> strong interest in the game? From almost zero impact to huge
> in 15-20 years.You need a lot of different data to show this. Yours shows white
> At the same time, southern whites abandoned the game.
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 minutesper-
> capita. If 1.6 million white people can produce 3084 NBA minutesper
> year, why do Michigan's 7.8 million whites produce only 618? AtI guess I haven't seen the generation turning its back on the game.
> 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 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
> > over the summer. That black players are now possibly being paid
> > than equivalently talented white players -- having swung
> > from where it was in the 70's. Actually, no one said it swungWhites have always had many more options than blacks, so they tend to
> > 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.
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
> By what measure were guys being rated as 'equivalently talented'?There are all sorts of measures floating around, most of which are
> That would seem to be crucial to forming such a consensus.
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.