It is not racist to have a discussion about something like this. Understandably the NBA is 90% black, just because there are so many athletic guys out there, but its not an unasked question why there is a lack of White american born players in this league. I really dont think it has anything to do with defense. I think that there are so many athletic players out there who are not white, that the % of athletic guys in the draft versus the total number of players that are white is not high, thus there are not as many white players drafted. To say that the NBA is racist is not true, but I do feel that its not about who's white or black, but who is more adapt to play todays NBA versus 30 years ago. I feel thats why there a more European players drafted nowadays versus american born white players......
At the end of the day this discussion gets you nowhere. To put it as PC as possible for whatever reason african americans are, statistically, much more athletic at a time when athleticism and potential are what GMs look for when hanging their hopes (and jobs) on a player. Does anyone think that Larry Legend would have been drafted above Stromile Swift or Tyrus Thomas after each's sophomore yr? Yet, Bird would still be as dominant, I believe, in today's NBA. In the end, there are not many athletes, white or black, that could hang in the NBA. Of those, most are black so there is no real surprise that the decline of the white players in general, and white americans in particular, is what it is.
pretty much spot on. the guy is too short to shoot over other guards and too slow to get around them for a drive. unless he has the playmaking ability of Nash, he will forever be in the D league bombing the 3 ball.
Which is more likely? A white American NBA superstar? Or a women superstar NBA player? Im going with the latter... lol
I think there are physical differences between races, that go beyond simple appearance. I haven't researched it much, but I've been told that black people have denser/stronger/heavier muscles. Why are black runners usually the fastest? Why are white people usually better swimmers? Part of it is exposure to the sport as a kid, sure. Another theory is that black slaves were bred to be strong, and the genes have carried through. For the evolution theory crowd, supposedly we evolved from apes. We know that many apes are far stronger than a man, many times over. Why should we expect that along our evolution, our strength characteristics lessened at an equal rate? You might even find that certain races have longer arms than others. Aren't apes equiped with longer arms than legs? Obviously, there are physical appearance traights that distinguish races, why should there not be subtle ones we don't want to acknowledge? We're told as kids that skin color is the only difference, but it's probably not.
People understandably dodge this issue. Because it leads to wildly subjective negative stereotyping of races. But I've believed that to be true to an extent. That if skin color and hair type can be different amongst different races, why cant other things physiologically be different? Just men and women are noticeably different physically and hormonally. But again that just leads to more narrow mindedness like saying __ race are bad drivers, __ race are not smart, etc... Speaking of dearth of white players at a position, how about white cornerbacks in football? I think of what Jason Sehorn said about it, white players just have to be dedicated, trust their abilities, trust their athleticism, make the plays, know for sure their ability will tell the story. Dont even think about the sterotype in any way. I dont think Sehorn saw ANY color in anything he did. All about talent, dedication and focus. But then its how does a player develop that? I mean, sure the top track sprinters are mostly all black. But its not like the fastest white guy tops out at a 4.7 forty. Chase Budinger isnt the only white 40 inch vertical guy out there.
That's a good question. Unfortunately, it probably stems from dated ideology (one-drop rule, etc.). Other than that the players themselves may identify more with their black side. For whatever reason most of the mixed race people I've known (the ones that are atleast half black) tend to think this way.
No doubt there are differences in terms of muscle structure between the races, but I doubt the story is as simple as "white people don't have the bodies to play bball well." Have you guys read Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers"? I think the explanation comes more along the line of what's proposed there. (Here's my paraphrased version, may miss on a couple details). Gladwell cites the example of Canadian hockey, where a disprortionally huge number of national team players were born in the months January, February and March. He argued that the reason was that January 1st was the "cut off" date for youth hockey's age divisions. So, the players born in the earlier months have a big advantage over their peers in terms of size, strength, etc. in yough hockey, especially in the early years. As such, they tend to have more success early, and then practice more (being good at something makes you enjoy it, and working hard at it), get selected to All Star teams, receive better coaching, etc. As a result of the extra work, they end up as better adult players. Gladwell also has a theory that to master any skill, it takes 10,000 hours of practice time. To me, while black players might indeed have an advantage in terms of muscle, the bigger thing is that more black kids with potential to be NBA players actually devote the time to master the skills needed. Whether that's because their initial physical advantage and success make them enjoy balling more, and thus devote time to do it, and the white kids who got frustrated in 4th grade basketball deciding "it's a black game anyway" or other social economic or cultural factors (i.e. more atheletically gifted white kids went to play soccer or hockey or do whatever that they do), you end up losing more of the American white kids with NBA potential becaue they didn't put in the 10,000 hours or whatever it takes to become good enough. In Europe, on the other hand, there might be less of a loss to those other activities because white kids who have potential stayed in basketball either because they don't have a better alternative (i.e. if Darko does not ball, Darko works at factory while Kirk Hinrich might have the opportunity to make good money with his college degree) or there's no thinking of basketball as a "black sport" (because there aren't many black people in some of these countries). As far as genetics goes at guys like Bibby, Kidd, etc. Some of these guys might be more "white" than "black" genetically. I don't think there's any proof the "blacker" player succeed at a higher rate in the NBA than guys who are "not as black." I am guessing it's because that guys like Kidd, Prince, and Bibby grew up in a culture that encouraged pursuit of basketball, which didn't tell them "hoops is not for your kind" and thus ended up putting the time in to master the skills. Kind of related to it is the question of "what happened to the American heavyweight boxing champs"? Well, Ron Artest didn't put enough time in training to become the next Ali because playing hoops is a better alternative-- more money, no brain beating.
Do we really have to consider Steve Nash an international player? He played HS ball in Canada, played college ball at Gonzaga, meaning that he didn't receive the European training. He's a white American, at least a white North American. The video makes no mention of Nash at all, completely ignoring him and grouping him in with the internationals. The video is also bordering on ridiculous with the undertone that somehow 'white americans' are discriminated by the league (an assertion made by McAlarney in the piece that the producers seemed to agree with). JJ. Redick, Adam Morrison, Mike Dunleavy Jr. disagree about white americans not getting a chance in the draft. The topic that white americans are not good NBA players is a legit one. But this piece does not address it properly.
