WWE lies about their attendance figures. To people in the IWC (Internet Wrestling Community) this shouldn't come as a surprise. During Wrestlemania they announce an attendance number during the show, and then maybe a week or so later, you get the real attendance figure. Dave Meltzer is usually the guy depended on to give the true attendance figures. There has been some debate, though, about how accurate Meltzer is. Many want to believe the WWE"s attendance figures, or at the least want to believe that the real attendance is higher than the number Meltzer gives. I trust Meltzer, but I decided to look at some numbers, to see what I can figure about Wrestlemania attendance figures. Using the WWE's Key Performance Indicators (KPI), I will make some estimates on the WWE's attendance for Wrestlemania, or at least their paid attendance
First let's look at Wrestlemania 30. It happened during the second quarter of 2014. In that quarter there were 54 shows with a listed average of 7,000. Not counting Wrestlemania, the 53 other shows have an average attendance of about 6,000. Those numbers are obviously rounded, but if I were to use those numbers to estimate the attendance for Wrestlemania 30, it would be 60,000, but that could just be paid attendance. Still the numbers are rounded. Let's say they are rounding to the nearest hundred. a 7000 average can represent an average just under 7050, or as low as 6950. The 6000 average could represent a number just under 6050, or as low as 5950. I wanted to come up with high, and low estimates. I did the same for my Wrestlemania 31 estimates
Quarter Q. Avg/shows Avg. w/o mania/shows Estimate High Est. Low
Wrestlemania 30 2014Q2 7000/54 6,000/53 60,000 65,349 54,651
Wrestlemania 31 2015Q1 7400/73 6,700/72 57,800 65,049 50,551
The announced attendance for Wrestlemania 30 was 75,167, but the real attendance was around 65,000. If you look at my estimate as representing paid attendance, that 65,000 number makes sense. In terms of Wrestlemania 31, announced attendance was 76,976, real attendance was around 67,000. That 67,000 number makes a lot more sense than the 76,976 number when you look at my estimates based on the WWE's own data.
WWE KPI
http://corporate.wwe.com/~/media/Files/W/WWE/documents/events/revised-kpi-measures-final.pdf
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
KKK vs BLM
The Klu Klux Klan has an estimated 5,000 members. That's a lot less than the 20,000-50,000 estimate given for the Nation of Islam in 2007. People talk about the KKK, as if they are this powerful organization. It's like they use the past of the Klan to make their point of how bad white racism is. The current KKK, which is split into different independent branches, is a relic of what the group used to be. They aren't respected. The simple implication that a white person is a Klan member is a hugely derogatory thing to insinuate. They have trouble having marches without getting beaten up. Compare this to the racist Nation of Islam, which regularly has big events. Louis Farrakhan's Million Man March drew an estimated crowd of 837,000 in 1995. Just last year he led a "Justice or Else" event that drew a significant crowd, though I couldn't find an estimate on how many people were there. Imagine a known member of the KKK trying to throw some shit like that, in Washington D.C. just like Farrakhan's marches. They wouldn't get away with some shit like that. What political power does the Klan have?
Tomi Lahren got into an argument with Trevor Noah on The Daily Show. Her most controversial point was saying that Black Lives Matter was the new KKK. I can see why people think the comparison is stupid. BLM is portrayed in the mainstream as if it is some freedom fighting movement. Like that shit is just like the civil rights movement of the 60s. To take this group, and then compare them to a group with a reputatuion as bad as the Klan, could seem like a ridiculous comparison., but it isn't. BLM is a racist movement. The Black Lives Matter group is racist, just like the Klan. The difference is their race, and who they are racist against. Blacks being racist against whites is more acceptable than whites being racist against blacks. One problem this causes is that black racism isn't checked. Black people can say some racist shit about white people, without facing criticism. Not only that, but they can gain a reputation as being a conscious person. While the KKK has caused much harm over the past 150 or so years, recently BLM has been more of a problem. That's the reason so many people arguing against Lahren's comparison, go back to the distant past to tell us why it doesn't make sense. What about dealing with the recent years? What group presently is more of a danger. In terms of body count BLM has done more in this one calendar year, than the Klan has in years. They have real political power like the Klan used to have. They are more powerful, and more respected than the Klan, and guess what they are also more dangerous, and I'm not talking about the early 1900s. Fuck it, you can say the same thing about the Nation of Islam compared to the KKK. The Klan has fallen that hard. Look the KKK is a stupid, and racist group. It's a good thing to see their numbers dwindle, but Black Lives Matter is also racist, divisive, and are dangerous. They have a strong anti-police/anti-white theology that often goes unchecked. They shouldn't be respected the way they are.
References
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KUyc16Kow8&t=1658s
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/257808/profound-racism-black-lives-matter-john-perazzo
http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/default.html
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Barry Sanders
It's hard to say that someone is the consensus greatest running back of all time. Many old sports analyst think that Jim Brown is the best ever. He averaged 5.22 yards per carry, and an NFL record 104.34 yards per game. He did play in a weak era. At 230 lbs he was bigger than most of the linebackers, and many of the defensive linemen he played against. He also played in the weaker of 2 NFL divisions. That being the NFL east. If you were to have a poll on ESPN on who the greatest running back of all time is, I think that Barry Sanders would win, though it would be close between him and Walter Payton. No doubt, Barry Sanders' highlight reel is amazing. He juked, spinned, and embarrassed NFL defenders during his 10 year career. I wanted to take another look at his career.
One misconception is that he did what he did without much help. It is constantly done in comparisons between him and Emmitt Smith. The quality of Sanders' teammates is diminished in order to help the argument for his own greatness. The fact was that the lines he ran behind weren't terrible. It wasn't like he constantly had guys in the backfield as soon as he got the ball. I've looked at the highlights looking for full runs, and while it is not a good idea to measure the quality of an offensive line by a highlight reel, Barry often had a hole to run through. I noticed that he would hesitate when he got the ball, as if he were looking around for an opening. This was part of his style. He was a home run hitter, who was constantly looking to make the big play, and sometimes because of his incredible physical ability, he would make that play happen, and sometimes he would lose yards. It wasn't that he had a poor offensive line, it was his style of running. Detroit's offenses were a mixed bag during his career. Sometimes they were good, with their best year being 1995, sometimes they were bad, and sometimes they were around average. While Detroit had trouble finding a number 1 quarterback, Herman Moore was a really good receiver. I think Barry had an average group of players around him during his career.
Then there is the fact that he was a boom or bust running back. To look into that, I'll look to Football Outsiders, and their metrics. Two important statistics they have are DYAR (Defense Adjusted Yards Above Replacement), and DVOA (Defense Adjusted Volume of Attempt). I don't t know their full formula for getting DYAR, but they are seen as a dependable source. Their advanced metric statistics value consistency. Sure you get more credit for big runs, but it is not linear. The value for each yard is less past a certain point. In football when you get a first down, you start a whole new sets of downs, where you usually have to gain another 10 (unless it's goal to go). So it's important to be able to consistently move the ball. That is something that you can depend on to score points, more than depending on a big play. Let's look at a hypothetical situation. A team gets the ball at their own 20 yard line. Let's say the running back gains 20 yards on the first play, but then he loses 4 on the next play. His team throws the ball on the next two downs. They then punt. The back was successful in getting his team in better position to punt the ball, but that's about it. He had 2 carries for 16 yards, which is good for an 8 yard average, but his 4 yard loss helped kill the drive. While Sanders gained 15,269 yards in his career, he lost yards on a lot of carries. Now let's look at Barry's career in terms of DYAR. Despite winning 4 rushing titles in his career, he led the league in DYAR only one season. That was in 1990. That was the year he had the second lowest total for rushing yards in his career (1304). Though he did average over 5 yards per carry that season, and led the league in rushing. That season he had a 55% success rate. It is hard to explain success rate, but it is based on down and distance to go. Obviously a 3 yard gain on 3rd, and 10, isn't the same as one on a 3rd and 1. 55% is uncharacteristically high for Sanders. During his two biggest seasons, he finished 2nd in DYAR. In 1997 when he gained 2053 yards, he was behind Terrell Davis in DYAR, while Davis gained 1750. Even more surprising is that Emmitt Smith gained 1484 yards in 1994, and finished over 100 yards ahead of Barry Sanders who gained 1883 yards. I'm am going to look at Sanders DYAR, and DVOA, and Success Rate for each season, as well as where he ranked among running backs with at least 100 rush attempts.
Season DYAR Rank DVOA Rank Suc Rate Rank
1989 239 3 12.1% 5 50% 15
1990 330 1 21.7% 3 55% 6
1991 254 5 8.7% 15 55% 8
1992 93 19 0.3% 23 43% 35
1993 70 22 0.7% 20 44% 34
1994 348 2 18.5% 2 46% 19
1995 200 7 6.8% 12 44% 32
1996 380 2 22.7% 2 51% 10
1997 447 2 25.3% 2 46% 16
1998 15 29 -6.4% 28 39% 35
In 1998 Sanders had a negative DVOA, but a positive DYAR. Football Outsiders does give some extra credit to a back that carry the ball a lot. Now I want to compare him to Emmitt Smith in terms of basic running stats, and in DYAR. To make it an apples, apples comparison I want to compare Smith's first 10 seasons to Sanders' career
Attempts Yards Avg Rush TD DYAR
Barry Sanders 3062 15269 4.98 99 2376
Emmitt Smith 3243 13963 4.31 139 2900
Smith led the league in DYAR 4 seasons, which is the same number of seasons he led the league in rushing. He led in both for the 1992, 1993, and 1995 seasons. Smith led the league in rushing yards during 1991, and was 2nd in DYAR in 1991. He was second in the league in rushing yards, and 1st in DYAR for the 1994 season. Barry Sanders had the advantage in basic run stats. He ran for more yards over 10 seasons, and averaged almost 0.7 yards more per carry than Smith. Smith did score 40 more rushing touchdowns, and was the better short yardage runner. It's hard to factor in teammates and offense. The Cowboys offense was usually good during Smith's first 10 seasons, but that wasn't always the case. They peaked as an offense from 1992-95, but had mixed results in the other 6 seasons. It's hard to know how much his teammates contributed to Smith's success, or how much he contributed to the greatness of their offense when he was at this best. My feeling is that he contributed greatly to the team's offensive success during those years. He may have been the most important player on the team.
One misconception is that he did what he did without much help. It is constantly done in comparisons between him and Emmitt Smith. The quality of Sanders' teammates is diminished in order to help the argument for his own greatness. The fact was that the lines he ran behind weren't terrible. It wasn't like he constantly had guys in the backfield as soon as he got the ball. I've looked at the highlights looking for full runs, and while it is not a good idea to measure the quality of an offensive line by a highlight reel, Barry often had a hole to run through. I noticed that he would hesitate when he got the ball, as if he were looking around for an opening. This was part of his style. He was a home run hitter, who was constantly looking to make the big play, and sometimes because of his incredible physical ability, he would make that play happen, and sometimes he would lose yards. It wasn't that he had a poor offensive line, it was his style of running. Detroit's offenses were a mixed bag during his career. Sometimes they were good, with their best year being 1995, sometimes they were bad, and sometimes they were around average. While Detroit had trouble finding a number 1 quarterback, Herman Moore was a really good receiver. I think Barry had an average group of players around him during his career.
Then there is the fact that he was a boom or bust running back. To look into that, I'll look to Football Outsiders, and their metrics. Two important statistics they have are DYAR (Defense Adjusted Yards Above Replacement), and DVOA (Defense Adjusted Volume of Attempt). I don't t know their full formula for getting DYAR, but they are seen as a dependable source. Their advanced metric statistics value consistency. Sure you get more credit for big runs, but it is not linear. The value for each yard is less past a certain point. In football when you get a first down, you start a whole new sets of downs, where you usually have to gain another 10 (unless it's goal to go). So it's important to be able to consistently move the ball. That is something that you can depend on to score points, more than depending on a big play. Let's look at a hypothetical situation. A team gets the ball at their own 20 yard line. Let's say the running back gains 20 yards on the first play, but then he loses 4 on the next play. His team throws the ball on the next two downs. They then punt. The back was successful in getting his team in better position to punt the ball, but that's about it. He had 2 carries for 16 yards, which is good for an 8 yard average, but his 4 yard loss helped kill the drive. While Sanders gained 15,269 yards in his career, he lost yards on a lot of carries. Now let's look at Barry's career in terms of DYAR. Despite winning 4 rushing titles in his career, he led the league in DYAR only one season. That was in 1990. That was the year he had the second lowest total for rushing yards in his career (1304). Though he did average over 5 yards per carry that season, and led the league in rushing. That season he had a 55% success rate. It is hard to explain success rate, but it is based on down and distance to go. Obviously a 3 yard gain on 3rd, and 10, isn't the same as one on a 3rd and 1. 55% is uncharacteristically high for Sanders. During his two biggest seasons, he finished 2nd in DYAR. In 1997 when he gained 2053 yards, he was behind Terrell Davis in DYAR, while Davis gained 1750. Even more surprising is that Emmitt Smith gained 1484 yards in 1994, and finished over 100 yards ahead of Barry Sanders who gained 1883 yards. I'm am going to look at Sanders DYAR, and DVOA, and Success Rate for each season, as well as where he ranked among running backs with at least 100 rush attempts.
Season DYAR Rank DVOA Rank Suc Rate Rank
1989 239 3 12.1% 5 50% 15
1990 330 1 21.7% 3 55% 6
1991 254 5 8.7% 15 55% 8
1992 93 19 0.3% 23 43% 35
1993 70 22 0.7% 20 44% 34
1994 348 2 18.5% 2 46% 19
1995 200 7 6.8% 12 44% 32
1996 380 2 22.7% 2 51% 10
1997 447 2 25.3% 2 46% 16
1998 15 29 -6.4% 28 39% 35
In 1998 Sanders had a negative DVOA, but a positive DYAR. Football Outsiders does give some extra credit to a back that carry the ball a lot. Now I want to compare him to Emmitt Smith in terms of basic running stats, and in DYAR. To make it an apples, apples comparison I want to compare Smith's first 10 seasons to Sanders' career
Attempts Yards Avg Rush TD DYAR
Barry Sanders 3062 15269 4.98 99 2376
Emmitt Smith 3243 13963 4.31 139 2900
Smith led the league in DYAR 4 seasons, which is the same number of seasons he led the league in rushing. He led in both for the 1992, 1993, and 1995 seasons. Smith led the league in rushing yards during 1991, and was 2nd in DYAR in 1991. He was second in the league in rushing yards, and 1st in DYAR for the 1994 season. Barry Sanders had the advantage in basic run stats. He ran for more yards over 10 seasons, and averaged almost 0.7 yards more per carry than Smith. Smith did score 40 more rushing touchdowns, and was the better short yardage runner. It's hard to factor in teammates and offense. The Cowboys offense was usually good during Smith's first 10 seasons, but that wasn't always the case. They peaked as an offense from 1992-95, but had mixed results in the other 6 seasons. It's hard to know how much his teammates contributed to Smith's success, or how much he contributed to the greatness of their offense when he was at this best. My feeling is that he contributed greatly to the team's offensive success during those years. He may have been the most important player on the team.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Those Donald Trump Rape Rumors
Donald Trump is now President elect, and will take office in January. I was already researching this one before he won the election, and I, like many, was expecting him to lose.
A woman going by the name of Katie Johnson said that Donald Trump raped her when she was 13 years old. She filed a suit against Trump asking for 100 million dollars. She claimed that Trump and Jeffrey Epstein used her as a sex slave. Epstein was convicted, in 2008, for soliciting an underage prostitute. As election day got close, these charges gained some steam, through leftist talking about it on social media. It had a lot to do with the release of audio, in which Trump talked about grabbing women by the pussy. After that various women accused Trump of acts of sexual misconduct. When it came to Katie Johnson some seem to take the charges seriously and wondered why the mainstream media seemed to be avoiding the issue. One reason for them avoiding it might be that the charges were so obviously bogus from the beginning. The address on the court documents was that of an abandoned home. People in the neighborhood said that the home hadn't been occupied since a person living there had died The phone number given was disconnected, and had previously belonged to a dentist. That lawsuit was dismissed. Johnson then filed a second lawsuit against Trump for the same charge. The second time there were two eyewitnesses, but no one knew who either of them was. Both kept their identity secret. The first lawsuit contained accusations, and details that were not there in the second one. More importantly, there was no evidence that the rape had occurred.
There was more mystery surrounding this Katie Johnson. She would not show her face. She claimed that she was afraid of threats on her life. There was also someone going by the name Al Taylor. Taylor was helping Johnson out, and was shopping a tape of Johnson speaking about the charges. According to an article from The Guardian, Al Taylor is actually Norm Lubow. Lubow once worked on The Jerry Springer Show. He was accused of asking people on the show to stage fights (of course that show is fake), and from what I've read about him, he is on the far far left. As in the looney left. His shady past included his participation in a controversial documentary called Kurt and Courtney. In the documentary he appeared in a disguise. It is a documentary in which ridiculous claims are made that you can read about for yourself. The video that Taylor was shopping around had a woman claiming to be Katie Johnson giving her side of the story. Her face was blurred out. There was word of a status hearing coming up on December 16th. There was a press conference scheduled for Tuesday November 2nd, in which she supposedly would show up, but that press conference was cancelled. Shortly after that the charges were dropped.
So maybe I'll read some more post like the one I read from Chrissy Teigen, in which she said that Trump was going to trial those rap charges. If I do, I've got plenty info to use against someone saying something like that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914012/Troubled-woman-history-drug-use-claimed-assaulted-Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-party-age-13-FABRICATED-story.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3894806/Woman-alleged-raped-Donald-Trump-13-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-party-DROPS-case-casting-doubt-truth-claims.html
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow
Friday, November 4, 2016
Those For And Against Black Lives Matter
One thing that bothers people in the black lives matter movement is the saying "all lives matter". Seems like a nice little saying to combat the obvious racism of BLM, and Black Lives Matter is a racist movement. A movement of people who seem determined to make white people, and especially white men feel guilty as fuck. Yet they complain about people, not being racist, and saying all lives matter. Some will argue that they are simply saying that black lives matter too. They'll try to make the case like saying all lives matter is like saying all cancers matter to those who are concerned about breast cancer. It is not that way. One of the main reasons that it isn't that way is because of the racism of the Black Lives Matter movement. Several of the arguments made against the BLM movement make sense largely because of just that. For instance those who bring up black on black crime. Talking about black on black crime is more than a distraction, used by those who don't support BLM. It is a way of trying to expose what BLM is all about. What's the point in them causing a fuss over black people killing other black people, unless the black killer is a cop. They've got to make the white man feel guilty, and talk shit about the system.
The pattern of Black Lives Matter is to assume a police officer is guilty of murder before due process. How is that justice? Evidence supports the story of Darren Wilson. It was Michael Brown who instigated the altercation with him, and punched Wilson in his face. Brown tried to take Wilson's gun, and shoot him with it. Brown wasn't done either. The blood trail evidence backs up Wilson's account that Brown was moving towards him, right before he was killed. Yet, many believe that Wilson got away with murder. Many believe that other officers got away with murder, even when the evidence doesn't support it. It means so much to them to believe this. What about those who still believe Sandra Bland was murdered, when she committed suicide, and the evidence backs that up. When black people were all over social media arguing that she was dead in the mug shot, the arguments went to another level of stupid. These are the types of arguments made by people who really want to believe that those officers are guilty. Yet it is people like this who are being treated as if they are right. Like they somehow are fighting for justice, and against racism, when they are being racist themselves.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Are police less likely to kill black people: Some Numbers Crunching
So I'm on twitter earlier today, and I see a link to this http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/5/police-officers-more-hesitant-to-shoot-black-suspe/.
The study doesn't look into actual data on police killings. It's more of a look into the mentality of police officers. Still I wanted to do some numbers crunching. I wanted to look at some data. The FBI's statistics on arrest in 2015, and the Washington Post data on police killings from 2015, were two key pieces to the puzzle. I've read stories that mention that black men being more likely to be killed by police. While that is true when you adjust for population, it is deceiving. Police are more likely to shoot people they interact with, and more specifically criminals. You would have to adjust for crime, and more importantly violent crime.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/
Let me mention one important thing. The Washington Post counts Hispanic as a race, while the FBI data doesn't. Hispanics get added on to the population of other races, and most of them are white.
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
Let's go to the census data on the U.S. population in 2015. Going by that data 61.6% of the countries' population are non hispanic whites. Counting hispanics brings the white population up to 77.1%, so doing some math about 15.5% of the countries' population is white hispanics. Hispanics make up 17.6% of the population. So I can estimate that 88.1% of hispanics in this country are white. The census doesn't give data for how many black people in the country aren't hispanic. Total blacks in the country are 13.3% of the population. I'll instead use data from 2010 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html. This counts Hispanic separately from races. 12.2% of the country was non hispanic blacks in 2010. Counting black hispanics like the 2015 census link does, gives the black population for 2010 at 12.6%. The hispanic population in 2010 was 16.3%, meaning blacks made up just 2.45% of the hispanics in the United States in 2010. I'll use that estimate for 2015. Going by that data black hispanics would still make up about 0.4% of the population, and non hispanic blacks 12.9%. I'll estimate that there were 198 million non hispanic whites, 41.5 million non hispanic blacks here in 2015, and 25.4 million who weren't black, white, or hispanic. Those would be in the other category according to the Washington Post.
According to the Washington Post's data 495 whites were killed by police shooters in 2015, compared to 258 blacks, and 172 Hispanics. I wanted to guess what number of those Hispanics killed by police who would count as white according to the FBI. Time to go into some complex math. Based on census bureau statistics I estimated that there were 198 million non hispanics whites in the country. The 495 deaths equals ~0.23 per 100,000. 258 blacks being killed means 0.62 per 100,000. Just based on population non hispanics blacks were 2.7 times more likely to be killed than non hispanic whites. When it comes to others 38 deaths mean 0.15 per 100,000. That means blacks were around 4 times more likely than them to be killed by police Let's say the ratio is similar for white and hispanics, which they might not be. If I were to act as if white and black hispanics were killed by police at equal rates, it would actually project to more whites being killed relative to blacks, than if I do things the way I am. Without going over all of the math, I estimated the black hispanic population at 1.3 million, and the white hispanic population at 49.8 million. The closest I could get to the ratios was with 150 white hispanics, and 10 black hispanics, and 11 others. Those estimates would mean 608 whites, and 248 blacks, a ratio of 2.45/1. Does that fit arrest statistics?
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43
Whites were arrested 2.6 times as much as blacks, so that isn't great evidence of police bias against blacks, but lets look at violent crime. The ratio goes down to 1.65/1. That is very important. I am just going to guess that someone arrested for a violent crime is more likely to get into a confrontation with police, than some arrested for embezzlement. In terms of murders blacks committed more, and were arrested more. 4347 for blacks, and 3908 for whites were arrest for murder. The overall data doesn't give a clear picture of police bias against black people, but the argument that police are more careful with black people isn't some stupid idea. The numbers offer it some support. There is also the fact that black people are more likely to resist arrest.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/08/stefan_molyneux_lies_about_the_dangers_of_white_racism_do_a_massive_amount_of_damage_to_the_black_community.html
This article says blacks are 9.6 times more likely to resist arrest than whites. They may be adjusting for population, and not for police encounters, but blacks aren't close to 9.6 times more likely to be arrested than whites, and I don't think that number is just made up. Black people are more anti police than white people, so it makes sense that black people would be more likely to resist. If you factor that in, the argument that police are actually more likely to kill whites (adjusting for encounters with police), isn't that far fetched. Even without it, we have a picture that doesn't back up the narrative that police are racist against black people.
The study doesn't look into actual data on police killings. It's more of a look into the mentality of police officers. Still I wanted to do some numbers crunching. I wanted to look at some data. The FBI's statistics on arrest in 2015, and the Washington Post data on police killings from 2015, were two key pieces to the puzzle. I've read stories that mention that black men being more likely to be killed by police. While that is true when you adjust for population, it is deceiving. Police are more likely to shoot people they interact with, and more specifically criminals. You would have to adjust for crime, and more importantly violent crime.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/
Let me mention one important thing. The Washington Post counts Hispanic as a race, while the FBI data doesn't. Hispanics get added on to the population of other races, and most of them are white.
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
Let's go to the census data on the U.S. population in 2015. Going by that data 61.6% of the countries' population are non hispanic whites. Counting hispanics brings the white population up to 77.1%, so doing some math about 15.5% of the countries' population is white hispanics. Hispanics make up 17.6% of the population. So I can estimate that 88.1% of hispanics in this country are white. The census doesn't give data for how many black people in the country aren't hispanic. Total blacks in the country are 13.3% of the population. I'll instead use data from 2010 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html. This counts Hispanic separately from races. 12.2% of the country was non hispanic blacks in 2010. Counting black hispanics like the 2015 census link does, gives the black population for 2010 at 12.6%. The hispanic population in 2010 was 16.3%, meaning blacks made up just 2.45% of the hispanics in the United States in 2010. I'll use that estimate for 2015. Going by that data black hispanics would still make up about 0.4% of the population, and non hispanic blacks 12.9%. I'll estimate that there were 198 million non hispanic whites, 41.5 million non hispanic blacks here in 2015, and 25.4 million who weren't black, white, or hispanic. Those would be in the other category according to the Washington Post.
According to the Washington Post's data 495 whites were killed by police shooters in 2015, compared to 258 blacks, and 172 Hispanics. I wanted to guess what number of those Hispanics killed by police who would count as white according to the FBI. Time to go into some complex math. Based on census bureau statistics I estimated that there were 198 million non hispanics whites in the country. The 495 deaths equals ~0.23 per 100,000. 258 blacks being killed means 0.62 per 100,000. Just based on population non hispanics blacks were 2.7 times more likely to be killed than non hispanic whites. When it comes to others 38 deaths mean 0.15 per 100,000. That means blacks were around 4 times more likely than them to be killed by police Let's say the ratio is similar for white and hispanics, which they might not be. If I were to act as if white and black hispanics were killed by police at equal rates, it would actually project to more whites being killed relative to blacks, than if I do things the way I am. Without going over all of the math, I estimated the black hispanic population at 1.3 million, and the white hispanic population at 49.8 million. The closest I could get to the ratios was with 150 white hispanics, and 10 black hispanics, and 11 others. Those estimates would mean 608 whites, and 248 blacks, a ratio of 2.45/1. Does that fit arrest statistics?
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43
Whites were arrested 2.6 times as much as blacks, so that isn't great evidence of police bias against blacks, but lets look at violent crime. The ratio goes down to 1.65/1. That is very important. I am just going to guess that someone arrested for a violent crime is more likely to get into a confrontation with police, than some arrested for embezzlement. In terms of murders blacks committed more, and were arrested more. 4347 for blacks, and 3908 for whites were arrest for murder. The overall data doesn't give a clear picture of police bias against black people, but the argument that police are more careful with black people isn't some stupid idea. The numbers offer it some support. There is also the fact that black people are more likely to resist arrest.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/08/stefan_molyneux_lies_about_the_dangers_of_white_racism_do_a_massive_amount_of_damage_to_the_black_community.html
This article says blacks are 9.6 times more likely to resist arrest than whites. They may be adjusting for population, and not for police encounters, but blacks aren't close to 9.6 times more likely to be arrested than whites, and I don't think that number is just made up. Black people are more anti police than white people, so it makes sense that black people would be more likely to resist. If you factor that in, the argument that police are actually more likely to kill whites (adjusting for encounters with police), isn't that far fetched. Even without it, we have a picture that doesn't back up the narrative that police are racist against black people.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
FBI Murder Data For 2015
The FBI released their crime statistics for 2015, and murders have gone up 10.8%. This is not a surprise to me, as I read an article about murder rates going up in major cities. I haven't read much on possible explanations for this, as it goes against what has been the general pattern for around 2 decades.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2015.xls
The link above shows a table that looks at incidence of single victim/single offender homicide. Based on the data on this chart here are some stats.
White Offenders-2897
Black Offenders-2934
500 whites killed by black offenders
229 blacks killed by white offenders
3167 white victims 2574 killed by whites 81.3
2664 black victims 2380 killed by blacks 89.3
It's interesting that according to the table blacks killed whites at over 2 times as much as vice versa. As someone who looked at data from previous years this is no surprise. It's been that way for a while. Each year I've checked it's been that way. Mainstream media coverage could lead you to believe that it's the other way around. Incidence of blacks killing whites doesn't get the same attention.
According to the 2015 census white people made up 77.1% of the U.S. population, while blacks made up 13.3%. Based on that data there are about 5.8 times as many white people in the country as black. Both the census data, and FBI data doesn't count hispanic as a race, and white hispanics are counted as white, black hsipanics as black, etc. Based on that data blacks are 5.9 times as likely to commit murders as whites, but that's not the complete data. I'll get to the more complete data later. There is also the question of black on black crime, or in this case black on black murder. About 89% of blacks who were murdered were murdered by other blacks according to this data, while 81% of whites murdered were murdered by other whites. Those percentage are deceiving, because they don't look at the rate in which each happened. Black were 5.4 times more likely to kill another, at least in single victim/single offender homicides.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_3_murder_offenders_by_age_sex_and_race_2015.xls
That gets me to the above table, which looks at Murder offenders. There were 5620 black offenders, and 4636 white offenders in cases where the race of the offender was known. Blacks made up 53.3% of those offenders. That's 13.3% of the country committing around 53% of the murders. That is a huge over representation. A black person was 7 times more likely to murder than a white person.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_2_murder_victims_by_age_sex_and_race_2015.xls
The third link is to a table that gives data on murder victims. There were 7039 black victims, and 5854 white victims. Unlike single victim/single offender data, this doesn't break down the race of those whom killed them.
What if I applied the percentages from my first link, when it came to how the percentage of black murder victims who were killed by blacks, and the percentage of white murder victims killed by whites. That would translate to 6289 blacks killed by blacks 4758 whites killed by whites. Those are just estimates, though it gives you an idea of how more complete data victim/offender data would look.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2015.xls
The link above shows a table that looks at incidence of single victim/single offender homicide. Based on the data on this chart here are some stats.
White Offenders-2897
Black Offenders-2934
500 whites killed by black offenders
229 blacks killed by white offenders
3167 white victims 2574 killed by whites 81.3
2664 black victims 2380 killed by blacks 89.3
It's interesting that according to the table blacks killed whites at over 2 times as much as vice versa. As someone who looked at data from previous years this is no surprise. It's been that way for a while. Each year I've checked it's been that way. Mainstream media coverage could lead you to believe that it's the other way around. Incidence of blacks killing whites doesn't get the same attention.
According to the 2015 census white people made up 77.1% of the U.S. population, while blacks made up 13.3%. Based on that data there are about 5.8 times as many white people in the country as black. Both the census data, and FBI data doesn't count hispanic as a race, and white hispanics are counted as white, black hsipanics as black, etc. Based on that data blacks are 5.9 times as likely to commit murders as whites, but that's not the complete data. I'll get to the more complete data later. There is also the question of black on black crime, or in this case black on black murder. About 89% of blacks who were murdered were murdered by other blacks according to this data, while 81% of whites murdered were murdered by other whites. Those percentage are deceiving, because they don't look at the rate in which each happened. Black were 5.4 times more likely to kill another, at least in single victim/single offender homicides.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_3_murder_offenders_by_age_sex_and_race_2015.xls
That gets me to the above table, which looks at Murder offenders. There were 5620 black offenders, and 4636 white offenders in cases where the race of the offender was known. Blacks made up 53.3% of those offenders. That's 13.3% of the country committing around 53% of the murders. That is a huge over representation. A black person was 7 times more likely to murder than a white person.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_2_murder_victims_by_age_sex_and_race_2015.xls
The third link is to a table that gives data on murder victims. There were 7039 black victims, and 5854 white victims. Unlike single victim/single offender data, this doesn't break down the race of those whom killed them.
What if I applied the percentages from my first link, when it came to how the percentage of black murder victims who were killed by blacks, and the percentage of white murder victims killed by whites. That would translate to 6289 blacks killed by blacks 4758 whites killed by whites. Those are just estimates, though it gives you an idea of how more complete data victim/offender data would look.
Thursday, September 15, 2016
More About This Colin Kaepernick Guy
What's going on with Colin Kaepernick? It's about more than his protest of the National Anthem, which if you go by his reasoning, is pretty much a protest of the country. It's how he has become a radical. The transformation happened before he protested the anthem. He was showing what he was about on his social media sites, but people weren't paying attention. If you don't believe me check out his twitter, and instagram accounts. They are full of controversial, and often racist shit. He has jumped on the BLM bandwagon, and his beliefs, often times, goes right along with theirs, even when it's proven wrong. According to his instagram he doesn't believe Sandra Bland committed suicide. He likes the original Black Panthers, and apparently Assata Shakur as well. He believes that Martin Luther King's murder was part of a government conspiracy according to this post https://www.instagram.com/p/BAs7z23NBMs/?hl=en. He has posted an anti police message from Malcolm X, and he likes Nat Turner. He might not like integration that much, but I'm not sure about that. Pretty strange for a guy who looks more white than black, and was adopted by a white couple. Some people think the media is going tough on him, but I think the media is going easy on him. Maybe it's the soft bigotry of low expectations, or maybe something else. If you want to go after him, you can go further than some socks with pigs in police hats. His twitter and instagram accounts give you plenty more to criticize him for. Some people believe that it was his girlfriend Nessa Diab who was changed his ways. She is a black muslim woman, who is BLM. Colin converted to Islam, and is now protesting, and speaking on police brutality. I don't know how true it is, but it's realistic to think that she was influential in changing his mindset.
The socks with the pigs in police hats was one thing. Even the media couldn't agree with him on that one. They have mainly tried take the focus away from that. It happened before he protested the anthem. Then there was that shirt with the image of Malcolm X, and Fidel Castro. Just after protesting the anthem because of the perceived oppression of non whites in this country, he wore a shirt with an image of a man who really oppressed people. It seems like the decision of a person lacking in knowledge, or just lacking in self awareness.
Kaepernick hasn't been commenting much since his protest. He is being careful, and trying to look out for his image. The problem is, before he even protested, he already showed his hand on his social media accounts. He has gotten away with it, but I would really like for someone to ask him the tough questions. Right now they are so afraid of offending black people, and I can understand that. People who have criticized him have been called all types of shit. Blacks who have gone against his stance have been called coons, and whites have been considered racist for it. If anything he is being protected by a mostly white media, which is very different from how many activists/complainers thought it would be. In fact it's different from how many of them portray it. Some of one act as if he's getting it worse than Ryan Locte. Kap's jersey is the highest selling in the league, and he's a backup quarterback that hasn't been good in a few years. It would be nice to give him the benefit of the doubt, but if I am being honest, I can't. Despite how white he looks, and the fact that his adoptive parents are white, i will say this. (Kanye West voice) Colin Kaepernick don't like white people.
The socks with the pigs in police hats was one thing. Even the media couldn't agree with him on that one. They have mainly tried take the focus away from that. It happened before he protested the anthem. Then there was that shirt with the image of Malcolm X, and Fidel Castro. Just after protesting the anthem because of the perceived oppression of non whites in this country, he wore a shirt with an image of a man who really oppressed people. It seems like the decision of a person lacking in knowledge, or just lacking in self awareness.
Kaepernick hasn't been commenting much since his protest. He is being careful, and trying to look out for his image. The problem is, before he even protested, he already showed his hand on his social media accounts. He has gotten away with it, but I would really like for someone to ask him the tough questions. Right now they are so afraid of offending black people, and I can understand that. People who have criticized him have been called all types of shit. Blacks who have gone against his stance have been called coons, and whites have been considered racist for it. If anything he is being protected by a mostly white media, which is very different from how many activists/complainers thought it would be. In fact it's different from how many of them portray it. Some of one act as if he's getting it worse than Ryan Locte. Kap's jersey is the highest selling in the league, and he's a backup quarterback that hasn't been good in a few years. It would be nice to give him the benefit of the doubt, but if I am being honest, I can't. Despite how white he looks, and the fact that his adoptive parents are white, i will say this. (Kanye West voice) Colin Kaepernick don't like white people.
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Colin Kaepernick's Protest: Are Blacks (And Other Non Whites) In America Oppressed
This Colin Kaepernick shit has been all over the news. Watching ESPN, it constantly comes up. Some people think that he was being disrespectful, to there are many who agree with him, and have SJW like veiwpoints. I wanted get beyond that, and to the point he was trying to make. I agree with his right to protest, but don't agree with his point. Are non-whites, and specifically blacks oppressed in the United States. Let me get this out of the way now. I don't believe it. If the Powers that be, are using institutional racism to oppress blacks, they are doing a bad job of it. The average salary for a black American is about 27,000, which is much more than the average USD of 2,000 in Africa. White Europeans are closer to white Americans in terms of income, life expectancy, and lifestyle, than black Americans are to black Africans. Just based on that, I would have to say that blacks in the U.S., are prospering. How are whites oppressing blacks in this country, yet allowing blacks to live a much better lifestyle than blacks in Africa. Black people here are benefiting from Economic powerhouse that is the United States, you can argue more so than whites. Even though whites make more money on average, my point is to compare whites Americans to White Europeans, and black Americans to black Africans. Whites do make more on average than blacks, but they achieve more academically. They get better grades, and have higher college graduation rates http://hechingerreport.org/college-graduation-rates-rise-racial-gaps-persist-men-still-earn-women/. The high achievement of Asians also seems to go against the idea of systematic oppression. They routinely achieve higher academically than whites. Their average salary is higher, and they have lower crime rates. Does Colin want to complain about Asian privilege. See how that one works out. Better academic achievement in a races usually results in higher salary. You can talk about the reason for low achieve among blacks, but the where is the proof of oppression.
Jim Crow segregation is over. Slavery was abolished 151 years ago. We have the right to vote, and there are anti discrimination laws, as well as shit like affirmative action. The best argument for the oppression of blacks is talking about institutional racism, and the affects of slavery. Neither one actually points the finger at individuals, and neither one helps offer solutions. It's excuse making. Blacks Lives Matter is largely about blaming whites, and taking accountability away from blacks. Colin hasn't stated that he is part of BLM, but he is talking similar shit. He wants to talk about police getting away with murder (almost all police killings are justified), but doesn't talk about the high crime rates in the black community that makes blacks more likely to be killed by police per capita. What about the fact that about 2 times as many whites are killed by police as blacks. Adjusting for violent crime, and for those who resist arrest, you can argue that whites are unrepresented in terms of police shootings.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Colin. I heard about Jesse Williams' speech at the BET Awards, and was very disappointed when I heard it. It had extremists talk, and he put his own spin on things. When that speech gets huge positive responses among black people, it is disappointing to me. Where is the reasonable inquiry into the truth of these cases, and how come when someone does make a reasonable point against the BLM narrative, they are discredited them for simply having that opinion? I looked at Jesse Williams twitter page, and found that he was knee deep in the extremist BLM ideology. One issue for Black Lives Matter, is all those white people who know they are wrong, but who are afraid to say anything. More extremist behavior will make it easier for them to stand up, and give their opinions. It's possible Kaepernick could expose himself as anti-white. There is another interesting dynamic. Colin is biracial, and looks more white than black. In fact I thought he was white at first. He was raised by two whites who adopted him. Look at the pics in this article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243429/Colin-Kaepernick-Biological-mother-Heidi-Russo-wants-relationship-quarterback-son-gave-up.html. Does he look black? It seems like the "black thing" is in right now, and many biracial people would rather identify as black. How many biracial people do you know who identify as white? I mean Shaun King is as white as Rachel Dolezal, identifies as black.
Jim Crow segregation is over. Slavery was abolished 151 years ago. We have the right to vote, and there are anti discrimination laws, as well as shit like affirmative action. The best argument for the oppression of blacks is talking about institutional racism, and the affects of slavery. Neither one actually points the finger at individuals, and neither one helps offer solutions. It's excuse making. Blacks Lives Matter is largely about blaming whites, and taking accountability away from blacks. Colin hasn't stated that he is part of BLM, but he is talking similar shit. He wants to talk about police getting away with murder (almost all police killings are justified), but doesn't talk about the high crime rates in the black community that makes blacks more likely to be killed by police per capita. What about the fact that about 2 times as many whites are killed by police as blacks. Adjusting for violent crime, and for those who resist arrest, you can argue that whites are unrepresented in terms of police shootings.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Colin. I heard about Jesse Williams' speech at the BET Awards, and was very disappointed when I heard it. It had extremists talk, and he put his own spin on things. When that speech gets huge positive responses among black people, it is disappointing to me. Where is the reasonable inquiry into the truth of these cases, and how come when someone does make a reasonable point against the BLM narrative, they are discredited them for simply having that opinion? I looked at Jesse Williams twitter page, and found that he was knee deep in the extremist BLM ideology. One issue for Black Lives Matter, is all those white people who know they are wrong, but who are afraid to say anything. More extremist behavior will make it easier for them to stand up, and give their opinions. It's possible Kaepernick could expose himself as anti-white. There is another interesting dynamic. Colin is biracial, and looks more white than black. In fact I thought he was white at first. He was raised by two whites who adopted him. Look at the pics in this article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243429/Colin-Kaepernick-Biological-mother-Heidi-Russo-wants-relationship-quarterback-son-gave-up.html. Does he look black? It seems like the "black thing" is in right now, and many biracial people would rather identify as black. How many biracial people do you know who identify as white? I mean Shaun King is as white as Rachel Dolezal, identifies as black.
Friday, August 5, 2016
Black Lives Matter And Their Demands
https://policy.m4bl.org/
This shit is broken into six sections
End the War on Black People
This consist of a bunch of bullshit as you would suspect by the title. The first demand in this section is for the end to criminalization and dehumanization of black youth. I guess it doesn't really matter that blacks commit crimes at a much higher rate than other races, and that black male youth have an especially high crime rate. Are Asians being criminalized? #2 ask for an end to capital punishment. Reasonable enough, but a peace loving hippy could've given you that shit. #3 ask for an end to moneybail, mandatory fees, and other expenses that go with getting in trouble with the law. Total bullshit. #4 is one of dumbest ones out of this section. It ask for an end to the use of prior criminal history in consideration for housing, licenses, loans, employment, and a bunch of other shit. Complete stupidity. You look at someone's past history when it comes to shit like that, and you are supposed to. Prior history helps give you an indication of future behavior. Past criminal history should be considered, and it is unrealistic, and stupid to ask for an end to that type of consideration. #5 ask to for an end to the war on black immigrants. I didn't know there was a war on black immigrants. Obviously they use some very inflammatory language. What about that war on Asian immigrants? Not quite the same for some reason. #6 ask for the end to the war on black gay, queer, trans, whatever other fucking titles they want to add. I'm for LGBT rights, but to say there is a war on them is bullshit. The seventh one seems to be a strange one. It ask for an end to surveillance of black communities. Included in this this for some reason is police body cameras. If you really want to expose all of these bad cops, shouldn't you want them to wear body cameras. From the standpoint of pushing the BLM narrative this one actually makes sense. If anything the use of body cameras has helped clear officers, and makes it less likely for BLM to fill in the gaps with their anti police narrative. More often than not, body cameras, and or a thorough investigation doesn't expose the police. It exposes the person killed by police. 8 ask for demilitarization of police, which is complete bullshit. It also doesn't explain how they want the demilitarized. Do you they want police to not work in groups, or not carry weapons? It's not specific. #9 ask for the end to privatization of police, prisons, etc. Bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. They just like to take shit away from law enforcement. #10 in another stupid one. This one asking for things such as the end of the shackling of pregnant people (that would mean women obviously), end to solitary confinement, and some other garbage. The biggest detail in this demand is when they ask for the end of public jails. Just making things easier for criminals.
This sections is largely about limiting law enforcement, while taking away blame, and many punishments for black criminals. It mentions the end to numerous things without addressing why those punishments are needed, and why black people face those harsh punishments more often. It's not about fixing up issues in the black community, but then again BLM hasn't been very good at addressing those issues.
Reparations
To make this shit shorter I'll give a quick review of this part instead of going one by one through the different demands. It ask for reparations for numerous things. Slavery, wealth extracted from the black community, criminalization, among other things. Slavery was abolished in 1865. That was over 150 years ago. Sure whites owned black slaves, but blacks owned black slaves in Africa, and sold them to whites. Arabs owned African slaves, blacks owned white slaves in Africa, and whites were enslaved by whites. When it comes to slavery, and the different races, everybody enslaved everybody. If anything white people were ahead of blacks in realizing that slavery was wrong. They are still are ahead of most people as you can see here https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/11/18/map-the-worlds-36-million-slaves/. Look at the U.S. doing very good compared to Africa, and the Middle East in terms of slavery. Then there is the fact that black Americans benefit from living in a nation that is such an economic powerhouse. The average income for a black person in the United States is about 27,000, which is much higher than the $2,000USD that is about the average income for someone in Africa.
Invest-divest
#1 ask for a relocation of funds allocated from various programs to community based shit. The government already uses tax money for schools, and various other programs, so this is basically pleading for special treatment. #2 ask for the decriminalization, release, and record expungement of drug offenses, and prostitution. Mostly bullshit. I understand that the war on drugs hasn't worked, and marijuana is being decriminalized, but let's not take this shit too far. I can understanding not wanting hoes to get arrested, but that's another issue. #3 ask for real meaningful universal health care. We do have Obamacare, that should be good enough. #4 is asking for far too much. Why do queer and trans people need special rights in school. Don't they have the same rights under the law. Then there is rest of the shit. Free daycare, and school curriculum that acknowledges students cultural needs. More well worded garbage. 5, and 6 are short and I'll show them fully worded.
5. A divestment from industrial multinational use of fossil fuels and investment in community- based sustainable energy solutions.
What community based energy solutions? This one is beyond stupid, and unrealistic.
6. A cut in military expenditures and a reallocation of those funds to invest in domestic infrastructure and community well-being.
Yeah just take away power from our military. More stupid and unreasonable shit. Maybe those who are interested in helping the "community" can give some money. Then again many already do.
Economic Justice
1. A progressive restructuring of tax codes at the local, state, and federal levels to ensure a radical and sustainable redistribution of wealth.
Can someone say communism. That shit doesn't work. Capitalism inspires hard work, creativity, and production. It's not perfect, but provides the best economic systems in the world.
#2 ask for funding for programs for marginalized black youth, or something to that effect. The thing is we already have those programs. There are plenty programs we have to help out poor people. There is welfare. Poor people are taxed at a lower rate. No child left behind. Affirmative Action. White folk have gone out of their way to provide these types of programs. The third one is beyond silly. Democratic control over how resources are distributed? I'm not saying they are communist or anything, but a communist system would be a nice way to get the type of distribution they would like. When it comes to #4 workers already have the right to organize. If BLM wants more, they could be more specific. #5 ask for the breakup of big banks, and also demands for the creation of black banks. This is shit is real simple. If a black person has enough money to open a bank, they can do so, and what do they mean by black banks? Would that mean black owned, or black owned with black customers.
6. An end to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and a renegotiation of all trade agreements to prioritize the interests of workers and communities. Yeah this would certainly help out the black community (sarcasm). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership
#7 is asking for more special treatment. They want U.S. to facilitate trade among black communities globally. Talk about asking for too much. You want to trade with blacks outside the U.S. go right ahead, just don't demand the government to help make it happen. It also ask for all funds used to facilitate this to go to black owned businesses, as determined by the community, which would obviously mean the black community. Sounds like they want some more special treatment. #8 ask for support for black alternative institutions, which is another case of asking for special treatment. #9 is about more rights for workers, which includes those imprisoned. I thought those people were imprisoned because they committed crimes, but nevermind that. BLM seems to believe in the theology of the Prison Industrial Complex. This rhetoric sounds similar to the "Prison is the new slavery" bullshit.
Community Control
This part is rather small, consisting of just 3 demands. The first ask for direct democratic control of local, state, and federal law enforcement. They want people in a community to have the power to hire and fire law enforcement, among other things like controlling budget. This is one of the dumbest demands they have, if not the dumbest. Under these rules, some officers would have probably gotten fired after Sandra Bland's suicide. A majority of the black community has been wrong about cases like Mike Brown, Alton Sterling, Tamir Rice, etc. One can only imagine the problems that would arise if a community had the power to hire and fire police officers, that are supposed to have authority over them. #2 ask for the end to privitization of education, which isn't a good demand considering how good private schools tend to be. It also ask for community control by parents and students over curriculum, hiring, firing, and discipline policies. This is like the police shit. These aren't the type of things that the "community" should have control over. You can a get group of qualified people to have control over this. People like government, the school district, etc. Not the fucking community. #3 ask for participatory budgeting, which I had to look at their explanation further down the page. I guess they want more community control over budgeting to ensure racial and economic justice. Sounds real nice in theory, but it's another garbage demand. Why should the community have that type of control of budgeting. You aren't qualified to control budgeting just because you are an adult in the community.
Political Power
We get to the last section, which another short one. Just five demands. The first ask the end of criminalization of black political activity, and the release of all political prisoners. Who would count as a political prisoner? Would Mumia Abu-Jamal, who murdered a cop, count as one. What about Assata Shakur? Even though she isn't a prisoner, she is hiding in Cuba. There is quite a lot of appreciation for her among black activists. I clicked to get the What's the Problem portion of the page, and they want Assata Shakur off of the international terrorist list. Shakur got into a shootout with troopers in 1973, in which she killed State Trooper Werner Foerster. #2 ask for the end of money controlling politics. In other words they don't like major businesses funding politicians. If a person is rich, and wants to donate money to a political campaign, why shouldn't they be able to. It's their money, and they should be able to use it to fund campaigns. It's still up to the people to vote, and they can always vote for the politician who they like the most. Money certainly helps a person get to that spot, but you are still voting for values. If the vast majority of the country were democrat, then that would favor democratic candidates. Funding might help determine what candidate got to that spot, but it would still be likely to be a democrat elected, whose values were similar to most of the country. #3 is about more voting rights, which sounds nice in theory. They want greater voting rights for formerly incarcerated people, and it seems like they want incarcerated people to vote. They want same day registration, which would cause a mess. #4 ask for full access to technology, including universal internet access. The problem with is that internet service is sold by companies, who make money off of that. You just don't give that shit out for free. #5 ask for increased funding for black colleges and universities. This is another instance of them asking for special treatment
So there you have it. A list ridiculous demands that ask for unrealistic things, and often times ask for special treatment for black people. There are a lot of people who don't believe that Black Lives Matter is an extremist, and racist group. It's best for BLM not to focus too much on their demands, before they turn more of their politically correct apologists against them.
This shit is broken into six sections
End the War on Black People
This consist of a bunch of bullshit as you would suspect by the title. The first demand in this section is for the end to criminalization and dehumanization of black youth. I guess it doesn't really matter that blacks commit crimes at a much higher rate than other races, and that black male youth have an especially high crime rate. Are Asians being criminalized? #2 ask for an end to capital punishment. Reasonable enough, but a peace loving hippy could've given you that shit. #3 ask for an end to moneybail, mandatory fees, and other expenses that go with getting in trouble with the law. Total bullshit. #4 is one of dumbest ones out of this section. It ask for an end to the use of prior criminal history in consideration for housing, licenses, loans, employment, and a bunch of other shit. Complete stupidity. You look at someone's past history when it comes to shit like that, and you are supposed to. Prior history helps give you an indication of future behavior. Past criminal history should be considered, and it is unrealistic, and stupid to ask for an end to that type of consideration. #5 ask to for an end to the war on black immigrants. I didn't know there was a war on black immigrants. Obviously they use some very inflammatory language. What about that war on Asian immigrants? Not quite the same for some reason. #6 ask for the end to the war on black gay, queer, trans, whatever other fucking titles they want to add. I'm for LGBT rights, but to say there is a war on them is bullshit. The seventh one seems to be a strange one. It ask for an end to surveillance of black communities. Included in this this for some reason is police body cameras. If you really want to expose all of these bad cops, shouldn't you want them to wear body cameras. From the standpoint of pushing the BLM narrative this one actually makes sense. If anything the use of body cameras has helped clear officers, and makes it less likely for BLM to fill in the gaps with their anti police narrative. More often than not, body cameras, and or a thorough investigation doesn't expose the police. It exposes the person killed by police. 8 ask for demilitarization of police, which is complete bullshit. It also doesn't explain how they want the demilitarized. Do you they want police to not work in groups, or not carry weapons? It's not specific. #9 ask for the end to privatization of police, prisons, etc. Bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. They just like to take shit away from law enforcement. #10 in another stupid one. This one asking for things such as the end of the shackling of pregnant people (that would mean women obviously), end to solitary confinement, and some other garbage. The biggest detail in this demand is when they ask for the end of public jails. Just making things easier for criminals.
This sections is largely about limiting law enforcement, while taking away blame, and many punishments for black criminals. It mentions the end to numerous things without addressing why those punishments are needed, and why black people face those harsh punishments more often. It's not about fixing up issues in the black community, but then again BLM hasn't been very good at addressing those issues.
Reparations
To make this shit shorter I'll give a quick review of this part instead of going one by one through the different demands. It ask for reparations for numerous things. Slavery, wealth extracted from the black community, criminalization, among other things. Slavery was abolished in 1865. That was over 150 years ago. Sure whites owned black slaves, but blacks owned black slaves in Africa, and sold them to whites. Arabs owned African slaves, blacks owned white slaves in Africa, and whites were enslaved by whites. When it comes to slavery, and the different races, everybody enslaved everybody. If anything white people were ahead of blacks in realizing that slavery was wrong. They are still are ahead of most people as you can see here https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/11/18/map-the-worlds-36-million-slaves/. Look at the U.S. doing very good compared to Africa, and the Middle East in terms of slavery. Then there is the fact that black Americans benefit from living in a nation that is such an economic powerhouse. The average income for a black person in the United States is about 27,000, which is much higher than the $2,000USD that is about the average income for someone in Africa.
Invest-divest
#1 ask for a relocation of funds allocated from various programs to community based shit. The government already uses tax money for schools, and various other programs, so this is basically pleading for special treatment. #2 ask for the decriminalization, release, and record expungement of drug offenses, and prostitution. Mostly bullshit. I understand that the war on drugs hasn't worked, and marijuana is being decriminalized, but let's not take this shit too far. I can understanding not wanting hoes to get arrested, but that's another issue. #3 ask for real meaningful universal health care. We do have Obamacare, that should be good enough. #4 is asking for far too much. Why do queer and trans people need special rights in school. Don't they have the same rights under the law. Then there is rest of the shit. Free daycare, and school curriculum that acknowledges students cultural needs. More well worded garbage. 5, and 6 are short and I'll show them fully worded.
5. A divestment from industrial multinational use of fossil fuels and investment in community- based sustainable energy solutions.
What community based energy solutions? This one is beyond stupid, and unrealistic.
6. A cut in military expenditures and a reallocation of those funds to invest in domestic infrastructure and community well-being.
Yeah just take away power from our military. More stupid and unreasonable shit. Maybe those who are interested in helping the "community" can give some money. Then again many already do.
Economic Justice
1. A progressive restructuring of tax codes at the local, state, and federal levels to ensure a radical and sustainable redistribution of wealth.
Can someone say communism. That shit doesn't work. Capitalism inspires hard work, creativity, and production. It's not perfect, but provides the best economic systems in the world.
#2 ask for funding for programs for marginalized black youth, or something to that effect. The thing is we already have those programs. There are plenty programs we have to help out poor people. There is welfare. Poor people are taxed at a lower rate. No child left behind. Affirmative Action. White folk have gone out of their way to provide these types of programs. The third one is beyond silly. Democratic control over how resources are distributed? I'm not saying they are communist or anything, but a communist system would be a nice way to get the type of distribution they would like. When it comes to #4 workers already have the right to organize. If BLM wants more, they could be more specific. #5 ask for the breakup of big banks, and also demands for the creation of black banks. This is shit is real simple. If a black person has enough money to open a bank, they can do so, and what do they mean by black banks? Would that mean black owned, or black owned with black customers.
6. An end to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and a renegotiation of all trade agreements to prioritize the interests of workers and communities. Yeah this would certainly help out the black community (sarcasm). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership
#7 is asking for more special treatment. They want U.S. to facilitate trade among black communities globally. Talk about asking for too much. You want to trade with blacks outside the U.S. go right ahead, just don't demand the government to help make it happen. It also ask for all funds used to facilitate this to go to black owned businesses, as determined by the community, which would obviously mean the black community. Sounds like they want some more special treatment. #8 ask for support for black alternative institutions, which is another case of asking for special treatment. #9 is about more rights for workers, which includes those imprisoned. I thought those people were imprisoned because they committed crimes, but nevermind that. BLM seems to believe in the theology of the Prison Industrial Complex. This rhetoric sounds similar to the "Prison is the new slavery" bullshit.
Community Control
This part is rather small, consisting of just 3 demands. The first ask for direct democratic control of local, state, and federal law enforcement. They want people in a community to have the power to hire and fire law enforcement, among other things like controlling budget. This is one of the dumbest demands they have, if not the dumbest. Under these rules, some officers would have probably gotten fired after Sandra Bland's suicide. A majority of the black community has been wrong about cases like Mike Brown, Alton Sterling, Tamir Rice, etc. One can only imagine the problems that would arise if a community had the power to hire and fire police officers, that are supposed to have authority over them. #2 ask for the end to privitization of education, which isn't a good demand considering how good private schools tend to be. It also ask for community control by parents and students over curriculum, hiring, firing, and discipline policies. This is like the police shit. These aren't the type of things that the "community" should have control over. You can a get group of qualified people to have control over this. People like government, the school district, etc. Not the fucking community. #3 ask for participatory budgeting, which I had to look at their explanation further down the page. I guess they want more community control over budgeting to ensure racial and economic justice. Sounds real nice in theory, but it's another garbage demand. Why should the community have that type of control of budgeting. You aren't qualified to control budgeting just because you are an adult in the community.
Political Power
We get to the last section, which another short one. Just five demands. The first ask the end of criminalization of black political activity, and the release of all political prisoners. Who would count as a political prisoner? Would Mumia Abu-Jamal, who murdered a cop, count as one. What about Assata Shakur? Even though she isn't a prisoner, she is hiding in Cuba. There is quite a lot of appreciation for her among black activists. I clicked to get the What's the Problem portion of the page, and they want Assata Shakur off of the international terrorist list. Shakur got into a shootout with troopers in 1973, in which she killed State Trooper Werner Foerster. #2 ask for the end of money controlling politics. In other words they don't like major businesses funding politicians. If a person is rich, and wants to donate money to a political campaign, why shouldn't they be able to. It's their money, and they should be able to use it to fund campaigns. It's still up to the people to vote, and they can always vote for the politician who they like the most. Money certainly helps a person get to that spot, but you are still voting for values. If the vast majority of the country were democrat, then that would favor democratic candidates. Funding might help determine what candidate got to that spot, but it would still be likely to be a democrat elected, whose values were similar to most of the country. #3 is about more voting rights, which sounds nice in theory. They want greater voting rights for formerly incarcerated people, and it seems like they want incarcerated people to vote. They want same day registration, which would cause a mess. #4 ask for full access to technology, including universal internet access. The problem with is that internet service is sold by companies, who make money off of that. You just don't give that shit out for free. #5 ask for increased funding for black colleges and universities. This is another instance of them asking for special treatment
So there you have it. A list ridiculous demands that ask for unrealistic things, and often times ask for special treatment for black people. There are a lot of people who don't believe that Black Lives Matter is an extremist, and racist group. It's best for BLM not to focus too much on their demands, before they turn more of their politically correct apologists against them.
Saturday, July 30, 2016
Looking At The Washington Post's Data On Police Shootings
According to Data from the Washington Post there were 990 fatal police shootings in 2015. I looked through this data to find patterns. In terms of race, as I mentioned before whites outnumbered blacks in terms of fatal shootings. There were 494 whites shot dead, compared to 258 blacks. This doesn't count Hispanics who are incorrectly counted as a race. According to the 2015 census data close to 90% of Hispanics in the country are white. That is an important point because the FBI's crime data doesn't count Hispanic as a race. I already did an article about how the data doesn't make it clear that police are racist against blacks, in terms of using lethal force. Blacks are more likely to be killed per capita, but are also more likely to commit crime, and especially violent crime.
For this article I wanted to look at details of the police shootings. I looked at the unarmed category, in which 38 of those killed were black, and 32 white. There were a total of 93, out of which 34 involved an attack in progress. There were some 9 undetermined, and 50 listed as Other. If there was one category to look at to criticize police officers it would be the unarmed category, and in that category, it would seem` it would be best to look at other, as opposed to undetermined, and attack in progress. The problem for the BLM supporters is that looking at that category doesn't do much to back up their case, at least not in my view. There were some accidents. One involved police in a shootout with a suspect in a vehicle, in which they shot a passenger. Another involved Felix Kumi , a bystander who was shot by an officer who was trying to shoot someone else that pointed a gun at their head. There were a few instances of police thinking someone had a weapon when they didn't, but those were by far the minority of the 50. There were instances of people reaching in their waistband, and or pretending they had a gun. In some cases the Post didn't provide much data. Like the case of David Kassick (who was white btw). I looked up his name on google, and found an article about charges being dropped against the officer who killed him. Kassick was on the ground when he was shot, but a video showed that Kassick's hands repeatedly disappeared under his body, even as officer Lisa Mearkle told him to put his hands where she could see them. In some other instances there was a struggle, or some confrontation, but further information is not given. In some of these cases the "unarmed" person had a weapon. One rushed at officers with a large tree branch. Another refused to drop a broomstick. One man was throwing rocks at a police car. Another rammed his vehicle into cars of police, and the U.S. Marshal's Service. In another incident Joshua Omar Garcia, who was a 24 year old Hispanic man, was handcuffed in the front seat of a patrol car, and still tried to drive away, before he was shot. These are those "unarmed" people who aren't listed as an attack in progress, and even those 50 cases don't make much of a case that police are the bad guys, or racist, and certainly none of them look like premeditated murder. What would happen if I looked at the instances of those who had a deadly weapon and were shot dead by police? If the 50 instances of "unarmed" in the Others category doesn't paint a clear picture of evil police, why would the other 940 do so? I am getting ready to look some of those instances of armed people being killed by police.
References
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3305916/Cop-fatally-shot-motorist-cleared-charges.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/
For this article I wanted to look at details of the police shootings. I looked at the unarmed category, in which 38 of those killed were black, and 32 white. There were a total of 93, out of which 34 involved an attack in progress. There were some 9 undetermined, and 50 listed as Other. If there was one category to look at to criticize police officers it would be the unarmed category, and in that category, it would seem` it would be best to look at other, as opposed to undetermined, and attack in progress. The problem for the BLM supporters is that looking at that category doesn't do much to back up their case, at least not in my view. There were some accidents. One involved police in a shootout with a suspect in a vehicle, in which they shot a passenger. Another involved Felix Kumi , a bystander who was shot by an officer who was trying to shoot someone else that pointed a gun at their head. There were a few instances of police thinking someone had a weapon when they didn't, but those were by far the minority of the 50. There were instances of people reaching in their waistband, and or pretending they had a gun. In some cases the Post didn't provide much data. Like the case of David Kassick (who was white btw). I looked up his name on google, and found an article about charges being dropped against the officer who killed him. Kassick was on the ground when he was shot, but a video showed that Kassick's hands repeatedly disappeared under his body, even as officer Lisa Mearkle told him to put his hands where she could see them. In some other instances there was a struggle, or some confrontation, but further information is not given. In some of these cases the "unarmed" person had a weapon. One rushed at officers with a large tree branch. Another refused to drop a broomstick. One man was throwing rocks at a police car. Another rammed his vehicle into cars of police, and the U.S. Marshal's Service. In another incident Joshua Omar Garcia, who was a 24 year old Hispanic man, was handcuffed in the front seat of a patrol car, and still tried to drive away, before he was shot. These are those "unarmed" people who aren't listed as an attack in progress, and even those 50 cases don't make much of a case that police are the bad guys, or racist, and certainly none of them look like premeditated murder. What would happen if I looked at the instances of those who had a deadly weapon and were shot dead by police? If the 50 instances of "unarmed" in the Others category doesn't paint a clear picture of evil police, why would the other 940 do so? I am getting ready to look some of those instances of armed people being killed by police.
References
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3305916/Cop-fatally-shot-motorist-cleared-charges.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/
Monday, July 11, 2016
Police And Black People: Going to the Stats
Police shootings of black men have been in the news lately, in case you haven't noticed. The shooting deaths of Alton Sterling, and Philando Castile have given Black Lives Matter protestors more reason to rally. There was also the shooting deaths of five police officers at the hands of Micah Xavier Johnson, who said that he wanted to kill white people, especially white cops. I have seen numerous people picking out instances of a black man being killed by cops, and a white man not being killed for somewhat similar behavior. Even though most of these that I saw were bad equivalents, that is not the point. The point I wanted to make was to focus on the totality of police shootings to see if there is a pattern which shows police racism against blacks. The total numbers give us a better picture than some facebook post, or some video compilation.
On the FBI's page when looking for statistics on race and crime the latest stats I could find were from 2013. I did find Washington Post's data on police shooting deaths by race in the time they have been counting it, but that data is about what happened in 2015. I wanted to get an idea of what went on recently, so I can assume that the race and crime ratios from 2013 are similar to what they were in 2015. According to the Washington Post's 2015 statistics there was 990 fatal police shootings in 2015. In most of them the person killed had a weapon. 494 whites were shot dead by police, while 258 blacks were. That's a ratio of 1.91/1. There are far fewer black people than white people in the country, and many adjust for population to try and prove that pattern of racial bias by police. The problem with that is that those that commit crime are most likely to encounter police. I wanted to look at crime, and especially violent crime. Going back to the 2013 there were 2.44 times more whites arrested in than blacks. Using data estimates for population based on the 2015 census, that
would mean that blacks are 2.38 times more likely to be arrested than whites. Now I am using 2013 crime statistics, and 2015 population statistics, but the ratio should be similar if I had 2015 crime statistics. It is important to look at violent crime. I'll just guess that a person arrested for murder or robbery, is more likely to get into a confrontation with police than one arrested by embezzlement.
In terms of violent crime that white/black ratio drops to 1.51/1. That is a ratio lower than the police shooting death ratio. If we just adjust for violent crime whites are more likely to be shot dead in a confrontation with police. Factoring in other crime doesn't give a clear picture. Adjusting for the 2015 population again, blacks are 3.84 times more likely to be arrested for violent crime than whites, and 6.68 times more likely to be arrested for murder and non negligent manslaughter.
My data isn't quite good enough to either show a correlation, or disprove one, since I am using 2013 crime data, and 2015 population data. I also cannot adjust for the types of crime, at least not in the way I want to. There is also the fact that the Washington Post article falsely list Hispanic as a race. There was a study done at Harvard that I just found out about today. According to the study data police are bias to blacks in terms of use of force, but not in terms of shooting. The fact that police are more likely to use force against blacks they encounter can be explained by that fact that blacks are more anti police, but what about the other finding. The study doesn't show bias against blacks by police in terms of shootings. The study adjust for how, when and where they encounter police, it least it does for use or force, and most likely for shootings as well. This goes along with other data I've found on fatal police shootings, and police killings. When you get past pointing out an example here or there, we don't have strong evidence of racial bias against blacks by police when comes to police killing.
The Blacks Lives Matter movement arose behind a false story. The false 'Hands up don't shoot' Michael Brown narrative that has been proven wrong by the evidence. It also is motivated by an inaccurate narrative of police targeting black men. BLM is like a religion though, so I don't expect something as awful as the facts to get in the way of their movement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43
Harvard Study
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bias-found-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings/ar-BBubfce?li=BBnb7Kz
On the FBI's page when looking for statistics on race and crime the latest stats I could find were from 2013. I did find Washington Post's data on police shooting deaths by race in the time they have been counting it, but that data is about what happened in 2015. I wanted to get an idea of what went on recently, so I can assume that the race and crime ratios from 2013 are similar to what they were in 2015. According to the Washington Post's 2015 statistics there was 990 fatal police shootings in 2015. In most of them the person killed had a weapon. 494 whites were shot dead by police, while 258 blacks were. That's a ratio of 1.91/1. There are far fewer black people than white people in the country, and many adjust for population to try and prove that pattern of racial bias by police. The problem with that is that those that commit crime are most likely to encounter police. I wanted to look at crime, and especially violent crime. Going back to the 2013 there were 2.44 times more whites arrested in than blacks. Using data estimates for population based on the 2015 census, that
would mean that blacks are 2.38 times more likely to be arrested than whites. Now I am using 2013 crime statistics, and 2015 population statistics, but the ratio should be similar if I had 2015 crime statistics. It is important to look at violent crime. I'll just guess that a person arrested for murder or robbery, is more likely to get into a confrontation with police than one arrested by embezzlement.
In terms of violent crime that white/black ratio drops to 1.51/1. That is a ratio lower than the police shooting death ratio. If we just adjust for violent crime whites are more likely to be shot dead in a confrontation with police. Factoring in other crime doesn't give a clear picture. Adjusting for the 2015 population again, blacks are 3.84 times more likely to be arrested for violent crime than whites, and 6.68 times more likely to be arrested for murder and non negligent manslaughter.
My data isn't quite good enough to either show a correlation, or disprove one, since I am using 2013 crime data, and 2015 population data. I also cannot adjust for the types of crime, at least not in the way I want to. There is also the fact that the Washington Post article falsely list Hispanic as a race. There was a study done at Harvard that I just found out about today. According to the study data police are bias to blacks in terms of use of force, but not in terms of shooting. The fact that police are more likely to use force against blacks they encounter can be explained by that fact that blacks are more anti police, but what about the other finding. The study doesn't show bias against blacks by police in terms of shootings. The study adjust for how, when and where they encounter police, it least it does for use or force, and most likely for shootings as well. This goes along with other data I've found on fatal police shootings, and police killings. When you get past pointing out an example here or there, we don't have strong evidence of racial bias against blacks by police when comes to police killing.
The Blacks Lives Matter movement arose behind a false story. The false 'Hands up don't shoot' Michael Brown narrative that has been proven wrong by the evidence. It also is motivated by an inaccurate narrative of police targeting black men. BLM is like a religion though, so I don't expect something as awful as the facts to get in the way of their movement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43
Harvard Study
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bias-found-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings/ar-BBubfce?li=BBnb7Kz
Friday, July 8, 2016
Old Emmitt Smith Shit
Emmitt Smith outperformed his running back teammates in average per carry during his 15 year career, but not by a bunch. He averaged 4.16 yards per carry, while the other running backs on his teams averaged 3.94. If we look at his 13 seasons with the Cowboys his average is 4.24, and his teammates' is 4.01. The difference is 0.23. That would be middle of the line for an all time great. Pro football Insiders has his teammates average as being 4.00 for his 13 seasons with the Cowboys, so my stats are pretty accurate. Smith outdid his teammates' averages in 10 of his 15 seasons, and outdid his team's number 2 runner (determined by attempts) in 8 or his 15, but those numbers are skewed by what happened when he was well past his best. In his first 10 seasons Smith averaged 4.31 yards per carry while his teammates averaged just 3.70. The reason I look at the first 10 seasons is because that was the length of Barry Sanders' career. The surprising thing is that the Cowboys other runners didn't do that good in years when the team was at their most dominant. The gap between Smith, and his teams' other runners closed when he was past his prime, and his teammates performed better running the ball. So the .23 difference doesn't give you a good idea what Smith meant to the Cowboys at his best. When looking at the stats of Smith's running back teammates, it seems to me that the changes in average was determined more by who the runners were
than who the blockers were. Daryl Johnston, Derrick Lassick, and Sherman Williams didn't do that great behind "The Great Wall of Dallas", but Chris Warren who had proven himself in Seattle did pretty well running behind the Cowboys line. The one anamoly is Troy Hambrick. He backed up Smith for two years with the Cowboys, and one with the Cardinals. In those three seasons he averaged 4.6 yards per carry, but when he was the number 1 runner for the Cowboys in the 2003 season, he averaged just 3.5.
One of Smith best qualities was his consistency. Pro Football Outsides' DYAR(Defense Adjusted Yards Above Replacement), and DVOA (Defense Adjusted Value of Attempt) statistics reward consistency. Comparing Smith's DYAR to his teammates is not a good comparison, because he got a lot more carries, but the DVOA comparison is a good one, and in those comparisons Smith does better than he does in yards per carry comparisons. Even in some years where a backup was close to him or ahead of him in yards per carry they weren't close in DVOA. In 1995 Smith averaged 4.7 yards per carry, while Sherman Williams averaged 4.3, but in terms of DVOA, Smith's was 21.5% (higher than average), while Williams' was -17.0%. In 1996 Smith averaged 3.7, while Williams averaged 4.0, but Smith outdid Williams in DVOA with -0.9% to Williams' -21.1%. In 1998 Chris Warren averaged 4.9 yards per carry, but had a DVOA of only -21.0%, while Smith produced 9.9% DVOA, while averaging 4.2 yards per carry. The two were close in yards per carry the next season when Smith averaged 4.2, and Warren averaged 4.1, but they weren't close in DVOA. Smith's was 9.5%, and Warren's was -14.5% So Smith helped the Cowboys by averaging higher than average yards per carry, while at the same time carrying a heavy workload, being consistent, and being a great short yardage, and goal line runner.
Below is a year by year look at Smith's yards per carry, and those of his running back teammates. Next RB, means the running back with on the team with the most carries outside of Smith. Next NFB means next Non Fullback, or the runner with the most yards other than Smith who isn't listed by pro football reference as a fullback. Those runners are the same person in the last 13 years of Smith's career, and different people in the first two. OtherRB is simply the yards per carry for the other running backs on his teams. The Next NFB on the Cowboys got just 6 carries in 1990, and 15 in 1991.
Emmitt Next RB Next NFB OtherRB
1990 3.9 4.0 1.0 3.4
1991 4.3 3.2 5.3 3.7
1992 4.6 3.6 3.6 3.5
1993 5.3 3.6 3.6 3.5
1994 4.0 2.8 2.8 2.9
1995 4.7 4.3 4.3 4.4
1996 3.7 3.9 3.9 4.0
1997 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.8
1998 4.2 3.4 3.4 4.0
1999 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1
2000 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.0
2001 3.9 5.1 5.1 5.6
2002 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.6
2003 2.8 3.6 3.6 3.6
2004 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.8
The averages for Smith and his teammates' through his first 10, and 13 seasons, and then for his full career.
Smith OtherRBs
10 seasons 4.31 3.70
13 seasons 4.24 4.01
15 seasons 4.16 3.94
Rushing Attempts-Effective Yards-Avg (Using Football Outsiders)
First 10 seasons
Smith 3243-16737-5.16
NextRBs 642-2023-3.15
First 13 seasons
Smith 4052-19748-4.87
Teammates 834-2882-3.46
Career
Smith 4409-20745-4.71
NextRBs 1125-3822-3.51
Data from Pro Football Reference, and Football Outsiders
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Lebron And His Place In History
Lebron James brought a championship to Cleveland. The first one in a major sports league since 1964. It was very impressive, and has people questioning where he belongs amongst the greats. I think the experts now see him as being almost eye to eye with Michael Jordan. I've felt, for a while, that his is the 2nd greatest basketball player of all time, and while I still feel that way, this championship further cements his legacy. While Jordan is still considered the greatest basketball player of all time, Lebron has closed the gap. He is ahead of Larry Bird. I've had him ahead of Bird as the greastest Small Forward ever, for some seasons now, but now I don't think it's a good argument. He's played 13 seasons like Bird, his individual accomplishments are better, and now he has just as many championships. He's ahead of Kobe, though many Kobe fans might now think so. Even though I would probably put Tim Duncan ahead of Kobe, Kobe is the guy that many see as being the Michael Jordan of his generation. I understand that Kobe has 5 championships, while Lebron has 3, but championships are a team accomplishment. Kobe had Shaq for the first three, and Shaq was clearly the most dominant player in the league at that time. If two players are close to even in terms of invidual success, I can understand giving the advantage to the guy with more rings, but Lebron is well ahead of Kobe in terms of what he's has done individually. He's won 3 more regular season MVP's, one more finals MVP, and has been the best player on 3 championship teams, compared to 2 for Kobe using stats from basketball reference.
Let's compare their per game stats through 13 seasons
Regular Season
PPG RPG APG SPG BPG MPG
Kobe 25.1 5.3 4.6 1.5 0.6 36.4
Lebron 27.2 7.2 6.9 1.7 0.8 39.0
Playoffs
PPG RPG APG SPG BPG MPG
Kobe 25.0 5.1 4.7 1.4 0.7 39.4
Lebron 28.0 8.8 6.8 1.8 0.9 42.1
Now a look at the metrics
Regular Season
PER Trfg% Win Shares WS/Per 48
Kobe 23.6 .558 136.5 .190
Lebron 27.7 .581 192.5 .240
Playoffs
PER Trfg% Win Shares WS/48
Kobe 22.0 . 539 22.5 .157
Lebron 27.7 .567 41.6 .238
WS/48 is wins shares per 48 minutes, PER=Player Efficiency Rating
Lebron is cleary ahead of Kobe through the same number of seasons. Kobe's best PER in a single season was 28.0, but Lebron has had 4 seasons with a 30+ PER. Kobe statistical advantages have come because he's played longer, but Lebron is just a more dominant force, and dominates the game in more ways, and more consistently. The main argument Kobe fans have is rings, but Lebron has so many clear edges, that he should be ahead of Kobe.
Off topic, I would also put Shaq ahead of Kobe. When you compare the two, Shaq was better in his prime than Kobe, but the feeling many may have is that Kobe lasted longer as an elite player. Still Kobe finished his career as a shell of his former self, and he had been that for the past 3 seasons. In two more seasons Kobe only played 139 more games, and he has less career win shares than Shaq.
Right now Lebron James is looking right at Michael Jordan, and Jordan's legacy. That's the only thing between him, and the status of being the GOAT. They are almost mirror images in terms of peak success. James has a different style of play than Jordan. Jordan was more of a great scorer, who could also produce all around numbers when he had to. Lebron is a great all around player, who can score a lot of points if he needs to. Both had four seasons in which they finished with PERs of over 30. Jordan was more clutch, he had a greater edge in terms of consistency of his career, and he has 6 championships and 6 finals MVPs, but Lebron is right there with him. In my book he is the #2 basketball player of all time.
Let's compare their per game stats through 13 seasons
Regular Season
PPG RPG APG SPG BPG MPG
Kobe 25.1 5.3 4.6 1.5 0.6 36.4
Lebron 27.2 7.2 6.9 1.7 0.8 39.0
Playoffs
PPG RPG APG SPG BPG MPG
Kobe 25.0 5.1 4.7 1.4 0.7 39.4
Lebron 28.0 8.8 6.8 1.8 0.9 42.1
Now a look at the metrics
Regular Season
PER Trfg% Win Shares WS/Per 48
Kobe 23.6 .558 136.5 .190
Lebron 27.7 .581 192.5 .240
Playoffs
PER Trfg% Win Shares WS/48
Kobe 22.0 . 539 22.5 .157
Lebron 27.7 .567 41.6 .238
WS/48 is wins shares per 48 minutes, PER=Player Efficiency Rating
Lebron is cleary ahead of Kobe through the same number of seasons. Kobe's best PER in a single season was 28.0, but Lebron has had 4 seasons with a 30+ PER. Kobe statistical advantages have come because he's played longer, but Lebron is just a more dominant force, and dominates the game in more ways, and more consistently. The main argument Kobe fans have is rings, but Lebron has so many clear edges, that he should be ahead of Kobe.
Off topic, I would also put Shaq ahead of Kobe. When you compare the two, Shaq was better in his prime than Kobe, but the feeling many may have is that Kobe lasted longer as an elite player. Still Kobe finished his career as a shell of his former self, and he had been that for the past 3 seasons. In two more seasons Kobe only played 139 more games, and he has less career win shares than Shaq.
Right now Lebron James is looking right at Michael Jordan, and Jordan's legacy. That's the only thing between him, and the status of being the GOAT. They are almost mirror images in terms of peak success. James has a different style of play than Jordan. Jordan was more of a great scorer, who could also produce all around numbers when he had to. Lebron is a great all around player, who can score a lot of points if he needs to. Both had four seasons in which they finished with PERs of over 30. Jordan was more clutch, he had a greater edge in terms of consistency of his career, and he has 6 championships and 6 finals MVPs, but Lebron is right there with him. In my book he is the #2 basketball player of all time.
Friday, June 3, 2016
Durant's Decision
The popular opinion is that Durant should stay with the Thunder. The Thunder are in a complex situation. Their team was one win away from making it to the NBA Finals, but Durant, and Westbrook may well have peaked as a duo. Four years ago when they lost the NBA Finals
to the Heat, they were a very young team. Their future looked bright. Four years later, while they have been good since then, they have not won a championship. In their own conference is a young Golden State team that looks better prepared for the future than OKC. They had their chance this year, and they had a great chance. They got Golden State with an injured Steph Curry, who hadn't quite found his touch since coming back. They got out to a 3-1 lead, and then Golden State came back, and won the series. You have to wonder will the Westbrook-Durant dominated Thunder win any championships. If Durant goes to another team, it could be a team that isn't very good.
If he stays with the Thunder they might not win a championship. The championship is what is missing from Durant's resume.
There is also the issue, of Russell Westbrook. Durant is the best player on the team, but the team's second best player is the one who always has the ball in his hands. It's like Westbrook got addicted to dominating the offense when Durant was away, and not even Durant's return will make him change up his style of play. It was part of what hurt the Thunder in those last three games, though Durant also played a big role in the team's struggles. Late in game six Westbrook, and Durant tried to put the team on their shoulders, and it didn't work. The Thunder's had too
many turnovers late in the game, and too few passes. Westbrook especially was making bad mistakes. The feeling when they had the 3-1, lead was that they were going to lose game 5, and win game 6. When they were competitive in game 5, they were acting as if they were fine
with things, even though they lost the game. They knew their best chance to close the series was at home, and they blew that one. Westbrook wants his numbers, and I don't think he wants to step back, and let Durant be the man, even if that's what's better for the team.
What are my feelings on this decision? I think that unless Durant is going to jump the bandwagon of a really good team (which he might do), the best thing to do would be to stay where he is at. Now I don't think they have a great chance at winning a championship next season, but it seems like going back would at least give him a realistic shot. Besides I don't think he wants the backlash that would
happen if he left.
Saturday, May 14, 2016
WNBA's 20th Season What A Big Deal (Not)
The WNBA is going into their 20th season. With some help from the NBA, and a lot of political correctness, the league has reached a milestone that a male league with the same popularity would be very lucky to come close to. I remember the league's first game. It had been preceded by an ambitious promotional campaign. We were having a cookout on that day. We started off watching the game. There were about 4 or 5 of us, and after the others went out, I was the last one there actually watching the game. We had some excitement about it before the game started, but that was gone before halftime. The New York Liberty beat the Los Angeles Sparks that day, and the WNBA was off, and running, or maybe crawling.
The more I watched the WNBA the more it became obvious just how much different the women's game is from the men's. It goes well beyond the fact that they don't dunk, at least not very often. The game is played slow motion compared to the men's game. The passing, running, and dribbling are all done so slowly. They don't jump nearly as high. That makes the rebounding, layups, and blocked shots far entertaining. That doesn't even get to the dunking. Brittney Griner gets so much hype for doing dunks that would be shitty if an NBA player that height performed them. There is also this idea that women's players are better fundamentally, but how true is that? They shoot comparable percentages from the line, but with a smaller ball on the same size basket. They turn the ball over at a higher rate. The stats aren't that way, because the defense is better. Of course female tennis players aren't as good as the men, but at least they are stars, and they draw. The WNBA can't make the same argument. The league gets low ratings on television, their players aren't stars, and interest in the league in general is very low. Still the league gets major league treatment. They are on ESPN a whole lot. WNBA highlights are regularly shown on Sportscenter, and they play in big arenas.
I've had an idea for a big game. What about the U.S. Oympic Women's basketball team play the winning team of the boys McDonald's high school All American game. The idea would never work, but whatever. The boys team would win if it did happen.
The more I watched the WNBA the more it became obvious just how much different the women's game is from the men's. It goes well beyond the fact that they don't dunk, at least not very often. The game is played slow motion compared to the men's game. The passing, running, and dribbling are all done so slowly. They don't jump nearly as high. That makes the rebounding, layups, and blocked shots far entertaining. That doesn't even get to the dunking. Brittney Griner gets so much hype for doing dunks that would be shitty if an NBA player that height performed them. There is also this idea that women's players are better fundamentally, but how true is that? They shoot comparable percentages from the line, but with a smaller ball on the same size basket. They turn the ball over at a higher rate. The stats aren't that way, because the defense is better. Of course female tennis players aren't as good as the men, but at least they are stars, and they draw. The WNBA can't make the same argument. The league gets low ratings on television, their players aren't stars, and interest in the league in general is very low. Still the league gets major league treatment. They are on ESPN a whole lot. WNBA highlights are regularly shown on Sportscenter, and they play in big arenas.
I've had an idea for a big game. What about the U.S. Oympic Women's basketball team play the winning team of the boys McDonald's high school All American game. The idea would never work, but whatever. The boys team would win if it did happen.
Monday, April 25, 2016
Deflategate
Tom Brady's 4 game suspension was reinstated today. On twitter Brady is trending, and "Free Brady" is also trending. There is obviously plenty people who think that the 4 game suspension is stupid. I want to largely deal with the facts of the situation. Did Tom Brady know about the football being deflated, and the answer to that is yes. I think it's pretty damn obvious Brady knew about that. Why would those Patriot ball boys deflate the ball without the knowledge of the quarterback? How could Brady handle those deflated footballs on a regular basis, and not know they were deflated? While those questions don't provide actual evidence, it is still hard to believe that Brady, at the least, didn't have any knowledge of the footballs being deflated. Jim McNally called himself the deflator, and the Patriots didn't even deny that. They just said he was called that because he was trying to lose weight. If you want to believe that one than you can keep drinking the Tom Brady Kool-Aid. There were plenty texts sent back and forth between John Jastremski, and McNally in which they chat about Tom Brady, and the footballs. One text states 'Tom is acting crazy about the balls'. In another McNally seems to joke about the idea of inflating balls as revenge against Brady for his complaints. Brady and Jastremski began speaking to each other on the phone more frequently after the January 2015 AFC Championship Game. There is no real smoking gun. They didn't find any text from Brady admitting that he asked for the balls to be deflated. There is nothing of that sort, but why should there be. You should expect Tom Brady to do a pretty good job of covering his tracks.
There is also the "coincidence" that Brady destroyed his phone right before meeting Ted Wells. Now why would Brady do such a thing? It could have been for privacy but a Deadspin article stats, Wells only wanted someone to search the phone for Brady's text with certain key words in them. He didn't want to dig into Brady's personal life. Adding more suspicion to the destruction of cell phone is that Brady gave a forensic examiner two phones that he had used around the time, that he would have used the phone he destroyed. The Deadspin article mentions one phone probably being active between May 23, 2014, and November 5, 2014. The other was active from March 6, 2015, until April 8, 2015. March 6 is the date that Brady met up with Ted Wells. So he started using his new phone, on the same date he met with Wells, and not long after destroying the other phone. If Brady could hand over those phones, why wouldn't he hand over the phone that he destroyed, or at least give that to the forensic examiner?
There are still some people who hold on to the belief that Brady didn't know about the deflating of the footballs, but many arguing for Brady don't even bring up that point. They think that the 4 game suspension was too much. I think that a four game suspension is fair enough. It seems to me that the NFL players union is becoming more like social justice warriors, while the league can be seen as representative of the system. The players union bickers, and complains, about so much shit, and they often seem to get their way. The NFL seems to lose in court quite a bit, and Roger Goddell for some reason, seems to make the perfect whipping boy. I don't think Pete Rozell, and Paul Tagliabue had their authority stepped on the way that Goddell has. Players appeal even the most obvious suspensions, in which their actions are caught on camera. There are complaints about CTE, and the risk players, but then you hear a bunch of complaints about how they won't let the defenders be physical anymore. The league just can't do enough to make the players union happy.
References
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25185129/patriots-attendant-called-himself-deflator-because-he-was-trying-to-lose-weight
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=evidence+against+tom+brady
http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4420576-richard-sherman-seattle-seahawks-suspension-overturned-appeal-adderall
There is also the "coincidence" that Brady destroyed his phone right before meeting Ted Wells. Now why would Brady do such a thing? It could have been for privacy but a Deadspin article stats, Wells only wanted someone to search the phone for Brady's text with certain key words in them. He didn't want to dig into Brady's personal life. Adding more suspicion to the destruction of cell phone is that Brady gave a forensic examiner two phones that he had used around the time, that he would have used the phone he destroyed. The Deadspin article mentions one phone probably being active between May 23, 2014, and November 5, 2014. The other was active from March 6, 2015, until April 8, 2015. March 6 is the date that Brady met up with Ted Wells. So he started using his new phone, on the same date he met with Wells, and not long after destroying the other phone. If Brady could hand over those phones, why wouldn't he hand over the phone that he destroyed, or at least give that to the forensic examiner?
There are still some people who hold on to the belief that Brady didn't know about the deflating of the footballs, but many arguing for Brady don't even bring up that point. They think that the 4 game suspension was too much. I think that a four game suspension is fair enough. It seems to me that the NFL players union is becoming more like social justice warriors, while the league can be seen as representative of the system. The players union bickers, and complains, about so much shit, and they often seem to get their way. The NFL seems to lose in court quite a bit, and Roger Goddell for some reason, seems to make the perfect whipping boy. I don't think Pete Rozell, and Paul Tagliabue had their authority stepped on the way that Goddell has. Players appeal even the most obvious suspensions, in which their actions are caught on camera. There are complaints about CTE, and the risk players, but then you hear a bunch of complaints about how they won't let the defenders be physical anymore. The league just can't do enough to make the players union happy.
References
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25185129/patriots-attendant-called-himself-deflator-because-he-was-trying-to-lose-weight
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=evidence+against+tom+brady
http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4420576-richard-sherman-seattle-seahawks-suspension-overturned-appeal-adderall
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
The Bernie Sanders Guy
Bernie Sanders lost New York. I mean he got some delegates, but he is way behind
Hilary Clinton in terms of delegates. Looks like he has a slim chance of becoming
the Democratic candidate for president. Sanders is a favorite of some of my facebook
friends. I think of him as a Social Justice Warrior running for president. Back in
the day, like 50 years ago, he was marching for desegregation. Nowadays though, I have
no problem considering him an SJW. One example of what I don't like
about Sanders comes from when he was confronted by Blacks Lives Matter protesters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV-ZSP0zAuI
The women rudely interrupted Sanders during his speech, and got right in front of the
podium. They were completely disrespectful to whoever it was in the hat, that tried to
calm things down. What did Sanders do in this situation. He pandered to the women,
and kissed ass. He even offered a handshake at first, which wasn't accepted. He moved
aside, and let them speak. He let them take over what was supposed to be his time.
Even Bernie's ass kissing wasn't enough to get him out of this one. While some people
may see this as some great act of restraint , I thought that it went to far. They talked
down to him, and he didn't even speak to defend himself. This seems like the SJW way of
dealing with blacks. As many white SJWs appear afraid to criticize blacks, unless that black person is an extreme conservative.
I can see why some of my SJW facebook friends like Bernie so much. He wants to raise
minimum wage to 15$ an hour. I've read articles from financial experts on the topic, and none of
them thought that this was a good idea. It isn't a good idea to raise minimum wage that
high anytime in the near future. It would lead to massive layoffs, and even greater
economic inequality. He wants women to get equal salary, but hasn't addressed the main
causes for that wage gap. Women work less hours than men, and are more likely to work
in lower paying fields.
It isn't that Hilary Clinton is great. She's a liar, an opportunist, and her idea of
raising minimum wage to 12$ isn't realistic either. Still Clinton has an understanding
that change is brought about slowing. Sanders seems to not give a fuck. He wants to
change minimum wage to 15 bucks. He wants to change up Wall Street in a way that seems completely unrealistic for the next 4 or 8 years.
Maybe if Bernie can't become president he can tell those BLM women who protested his
event to bend over, while he chews their asses out.
Hilary Clinton in terms of delegates. Looks like he has a slim chance of becoming
the Democratic candidate for president. Sanders is a favorite of some of my facebook
friends. I think of him as a Social Justice Warrior running for president. Back in
the day, like 50 years ago, he was marching for desegregation. Nowadays though, I have
no problem considering him an SJW. One example of what I don't like
about Sanders comes from when he was confronted by Blacks Lives Matter protesters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV-ZSP0zAuI
The women rudely interrupted Sanders during his speech, and got right in front of the
podium. They were completely disrespectful to whoever it was in the hat, that tried to
calm things down. What did Sanders do in this situation. He pandered to the women,
and kissed ass. He even offered a handshake at first, which wasn't accepted. He moved
aside, and let them speak. He let them take over what was supposed to be his time.
Even Bernie's ass kissing wasn't enough to get him out of this one. While some people
may see this as some great act of restraint , I thought that it went to far. They talked
down to him, and he didn't even speak to defend himself. This seems like the SJW way of
dealing with blacks. As many white SJWs appear afraid to criticize blacks, unless that black person is an extreme conservative.
I can see why some of my SJW facebook friends like Bernie so much. He wants to raise
minimum wage to 15$ an hour. I've read articles from financial experts on the topic, and none of
them thought that this was a good idea. It isn't a good idea to raise minimum wage that
high anytime in the near future. It would lead to massive layoffs, and even greater
economic inequality. He wants women to get equal salary, but hasn't addressed the main
causes for that wage gap. Women work less hours than men, and are more likely to work
in lower paying fields.
It isn't that Hilary Clinton is great. She's a liar, an opportunist, and her idea of
raising minimum wage to 12$ isn't realistic either. Still Clinton has an understanding
that change is brought about slowing. Sanders seems to not give a fuck. He wants to
change minimum wage to 15 bucks. He wants to change up Wall Street in a way that seems completely unrealistic for the next 4 or 8 years.
Maybe if Bernie can't become president he can tell those BLM women who protested his
event to bend over, while he chews their asses out.
Monday, April 11, 2016
When mind reading is simply complex mathemathics
I've seen these types of videos before. Someone says that they can read your mind, and then gives you some math questions. You start off with a number, then do some other math, and end up with an answer that matches up to what the person in the video says it will. Usually these math tricks are very easy for me to figure out, but I ran into one that was a bit more complex. It was a video from SoFlo's facebook page that was shared by someone who is a friend of mine of facebook. The instructions went like this
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 2
Add 5
Multiply by 50
Add 1766 if you had your birthday this year, or 1765 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth
The first digit of the number will be the number you chose and the other two will be your age. The guy in the video says that you will get a 3 digit number. It works just fine, though if you start off with the number 10, you will get a four digit number, with the first two being the number 10. Still only a small portion of people are going to pick ten. Firstly it makes up just 10% of possible numbers for you to pick, and my guess would if you ask a large group people to think of a number between 1 and 10, less than 10% of them would think of 10.
I already knew before I did the math that it was a mathematics and not mind reading (which I don't believe in anyway), I just wanted to figure out how to break it down, and explain it, so I thought it provided a nice little challenge. In searching google I found a chat from 2004 in which someone broke down a similar problem using algebra. In their equation they used X to represent the number you started off with. I wanted to find a way to break the problem down in a less algebraic fashion. After some time of looking for patterns. I came to a conclusion. One important part of the formula is that the two numbers which you multiply in the equation are 2 and 50. If you multiply those numbers together you get 100. This assures you that the last two digits will be the same, no matter what number you start off with. If you start off with 2, then that number you end up with will be 100 greater than what you would end up with if you started with 1. You also need to make sure that the number you have before you subtract your age is one that will make the problem work. Here's a breakdown of what that number should be using some algebra, in which X represents the number you think of before doing the math, or, as I'll call it, the starting number
Current Year + 100X if your birthday has passed this year
(Current Year-1)+100X if it hasn't
The current year is 2016, lets make it more simple. The formula would then be 2016+100X, if your birthday has passed this year, or 2015+100X if it hasn't. If your starting number is 1, then the number you have before you subtract your year of birth should be 2116, or 2115 respectively. If it is 2, then it should be either 2216, or 2215. If it's 3 then you should have either 2316, or 2315. I came up with a similar formula that works
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 4
Add 5
Multiply by 25
Add 1891 if you had your birthday this year, or 1890 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth.
It works just the same. In fact if you take it beyond three digits numbers it works for numbers past 10. I tried the same for numbers 15, 25, 99, 100, and 1000. No matter what my starting number is, the last two digits in the answer are my the age, and the other digit(s), is the starting number. Here are some other ways to use the same math, and just changing numbers up.
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 5
Add 5
Multiply by 20
Add 1916 if you had your birthday this year, or 1915 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth.
Instead of adding 5 lets take the original formula, and add a different number, and come up with something that works
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 2
Add 4
Multiply by 50
Add 1816 if you had your birthday this year, or 1815 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth
Let's look at this problem as having different steps. Multiplying 2 is the first step, adding 4 is the second, and so on. The keys to the formula is that the numbers in step one, and three are numbers that when multiplied together give you 100, and then in step 4 you want to add a number that is going to make the problem workout.
It is also worth noting that it is no coincidence that this problem is being brought to us in a leap year. The chat about the similar equation, also came from a leap year (2004). If you were doing the problem in a year that wasn't a leap year, you may need to make a slight change for those who were born on a leap day. If the date is before March, then everything is fine. If it's after March then someone who was born on a leap day can just treat it as if their birthday has already passed in that year.
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 2
Add 5
Multiply by 50
Add 1766 if you had your birthday this year, or 1765 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth
The first digit of the number will be the number you chose and the other two will be your age. The guy in the video says that you will get a 3 digit number. It works just fine, though if you start off with the number 10, you will get a four digit number, with the first two being the number 10. Still only a small portion of people are going to pick ten. Firstly it makes up just 10% of possible numbers for you to pick, and my guess would if you ask a large group people to think of a number between 1 and 10, less than 10% of them would think of 10.
I already knew before I did the math that it was a mathematics and not mind reading (which I don't believe in anyway), I just wanted to figure out how to break it down, and explain it, so I thought it provided a nice little challenge. In searching google I found a chat from 2004 in which someone broke down a similar problem using algebra. In their equation they used X to represent the number you started off with. I wanted to find a way to break the problem down in a less algebraic fashion. After some time of looking for patterns. I came to a conclusion. One important part of the formula is that the two numbers which you multiply in the equation are 2 and 50. If you multiply those numbers together you get 100. This assures you that the last two digits will be the same, no matter what number you start off with. If you start off with 2, then that number you end up with will be 100 greater than what you would end up with if you started with 1. You also need to make sure that the number you have before you subtract your age is one that will make the problem work. Here's a breakdown of what that number should be using some algebra, in which X represents the number you think of before doing the math, or, as I'll call it, the starting number
Current Year + 100X if your birthday has passed this year
(Current Year-1)+100X if it hasn't
The current year is 2016, lets make it more simple. The formula would then be 2016+100X, if your birthday has passed this year, or 2015+100X if it hasn't. If your starting number is 1, then the number you have before you subtract your year of birth should be 2116, or 2115 respectively. If it is 2, then it should be either 2216, or 2215. If it's 3 then you should have either 2316, or 2315. I came up with a similar formula that works
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 4
Add 5
Multiply by 25
Add 1891 if you had your birthday this year, or 1890 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth.
It works just the same. In fact if you take it beyond three digits numbers it works for numbers past 10. I tried the same for numbers 15, 25, 99, 100, and 1000. No matter what my starting number is, the last two digits in the answer are my the age, and the other digit(s), is the starting number. Here are some other ways to use the same math, and just changing numbers up.
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 5
Add 5
Multiply by 20
Add 1916 if you had your birthday this year, or 1915 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth.
Instead of adding 5 lets take the original formula, and add a different number, and come up with something that works
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 2
Add 4
Multiply by 50
Add 1816 if you had your birthday this year, or 1815 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth
Let's look at this problem as having different steps. Multiplying 2 is the first step, adding 4 is the second, and so on. The keys to the formula is that the numbers in step one, and three are numbers that when multiplied together give you 100, and then in step 4 you want to add a number that is going to make the problem workout.
It is also worth noting that it is no coincidence that this problem is being brought to us in a leap year. The chat about the similar equation, also came from a leap year (2004). If you were doing the problem in a year that wasn't a leap year, you may need to make a slight change for those who were born on a leap day. If the date is before March, then everything is fine. If it's after March then someone who was born on a leap day can just treat it as if their birthday has already passed in that year.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Wrestlemania III attendance
Last night was WrestleMania 32. I didn't watch it, but twitter keeps you updated on what's going on. I wanted to find what attendance number the WWE was going to say they had, and also wanted to know the actual attendance. Last night's announced attendance was 101,763, and according to Brian Alvarez of the Wrestling Observer, Dave Meltzer got the real number from the stadium, and it was just under 94,000. I thought about WrestleMania III. The announced attendance was 93,173, but Meltzer said the real attendance was 78,000. Either way last night's WrestleMania beat out the 78,000 number, and if we are to believe what Meltzer was told it was higher than the billed 93,173. Because of that, this might be late, but I felt like looking at WrestleMania III and explaining why I believe Meltzer when it comes to the attendance at that event. Perhaps it speaks to the magnitude of the event that there has been heavy debate over what the actual attendance figure is. Now it's accepted that the WWE lies about their attendance figures, but it's so hard to believe that the attendance for WrestleMania III was as low as 78,000 (still a really high number).
When I read, years ago, about how Meltzer learned of the real attendance being 78,000 I didn't believe it. I had gone to Silverdome.com, and the site said that the arena seated 80,325 and had a capacity of about 90,000 for wrestling, and motocross (not sure if it was motocross). That was years ago, but today I looked up the Pontiac Silverdome on google, and the stadium which is set to me demolished this spring, is listed as having a capacity of 80,311. That capacity wouldn't include floor seats, and for those who believe in the 93,173 number, and for many who believe that it was at least in the 80,000s, that is the key. The argument for there being 93,173 in attendance goes something like this. There were 80,325 seats in the stands, and the stands were full. Add in a bunch of people in floor seats, and 93,173 makes sense. If you think about it that way the 78,000 number does not make sense, so how do you explain it. Well for one even if the stands were full, there is no way there were enough people on the floor for them to have 93,173 people in attendance. That would mean there would have to have been nearly 13,000 on the floor. That would be enough to make a nice looking crowd at Madison Square Garden. There weren't nearly that many people on the floor. Then there is the stands. Today the WWE uses a huge Titantron, which blocks a number of seats. They didn't have anything like that back then, but there were still seats being blocked. It isn't easy to catch, and I haven't read anything about it. I was playing WWE 2k14, and noticed at the WrestleMania III arena there was some yellow contraption right over the ring entrance. In the game there were people seated behind it, but I was wondering if I could spot the real one watching a video of WrestleMania III, and was anyone sitting behind it. So I watched, and there it was above the entrance, and the old WWF logo
Behind it was empty seats, and at top there is a camera. Sure there aren't thousands of empty seats behind, but I found something. Looking at the event I noticed other spots in which the same type of yellow structure was used, and there were either a good number of empty seats behind it, or I couldn't tell.
Here's a shot of another area, where you can see the same type of structure, and see the empty blue behind it, which are empty seats
I saw another while watching Aretha Franklin sing America The Beautiful, and there was another that you could see when you saw the footage from the hard cam. I'm sure those weren't the only ones. For the 78,000 number to be accurate there wouldn't need to be a ton of those structures around. The WWF
had cameras all over the place that night in the Silverdome, and obviously some of them were being mounted on structures that were right in front of empty seats, besides why would you want to seat audience members behind something like that. Whatever the case there certainly were not 80,000+ people in the stands. I already believed the 78,000 attendance figure given by Meltzer, but I was wondering how there weren't about 80,000 in the stands. Now there is less wondering for me to do about that.
When I read, years ago, about how Meltzer learned of the real attendance being 78,000 I didn't believe it. I had gone to Silverdome.com, and the site said that the arena seated 80,325 and had a capacity of about 90,000 for wrestling, and motocross (not sure if it was motocross). That was years ago, but today I looked up the Pontiac Silverdome on google, and the stadium which is set to me demolished this spring, is listed as having a capacity of 80,311. That capacity wouldn't include floor seats, and for those who believe in the 93,173 number, and for many who believe that it was at least in the 80,000s, that is the key. The argument for there being 93,173 in attendance goes something like this. There were 80,325 seats in the stands, and the stands were full. Add in a bunch of people in floor seats, and 93,173 makes sense. If you think about it that way the 78,000 number does not make sense, so how do you explain it. Well for one even if the stands were full, there is no way there were enough people on the floor for them to have 93,173 people in attendance. That would mean there would have to have been nearly 13,000 on the floor. That would be enough to make a nice looking crowd at Madison Square Garden. There weren't nearly that many people on the floor. Then there is the stands. Today the WWE uses a huge Titantron, which blocks a number of seats. They didn't have anything like that back then, but there were still seats being blocked. It isn't easy to catch, and I haven't read anything about it. I was playing WWE 2k14, and noticed at the WrestleMania III arena there was some yellow contraption right over the ring entrance. In the game there were people seated behind it, but I was wondering if I could spot the real one watching a video of WrestleMania III, and was anyone sitting behind it. So I watched, and there it was above the entrance, and the old WWF logo
Behind it was empty seats, and at top there is a camera. Sure there aren't thousands of empty seats behind, but I found something. Looking at the event I noticed other spots in which the same type of yellow structure was used, and there were either a good number of empty seats behind it, or I couldn't tell.
Here's a shot of another area, where you can see the same type of structure, and see the empty blue behind it, which are empty seats
I saw another while watching Aretha Franklin sing America The Beautiful, and there was another that you could see when you saw the footage from the hard cam. I'm sure those weren't the only ones. For the 78,000 number to be accurate there wouldn't need to be a ton of those structures around. The WWF
had cameras all over the place that night in the Silverdome, and obviously some of them were being mounted on structures that were right in front of empty seats, besides why would you want to seat audience members behind something like that. Whatever the case there certainly were not 80,000+ people in the stands. I already believed the 78,000 attendance figure given by Meltzer, but I was wondering how there weren't about 80,000 in the stands. Now there is less wondering for me to do about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)