How Donald Trump Lost The Election

 Before Coronavirus hit, it seemed liked the Democrats weren't ready for Donald Trump.  From Trump's election win until early 2020, the Democrats just repeated the same mistakes.  Social Justice bullshit, and the identity politics that goes along with it.  Some things changed from the beginning of this year until election night that turned things around.  It's possible that we underestimated how much support the Democrats would have even before COVID became a big story.  Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote 4 years ago.

COVID

In Donald Trump's defense, we were being told in January that it wasn't a matter of if, but a matter of when in terms of the Coronavirus becoming a major problems in our country.  I can name plenty sound reasons other than plain incompetence.  We have the third largest population of any country.  We have great stat tracking, and a great capacity for testing,  and unlike China, we aren't a communist country.  In terms of population the only countries with a higher population are China, India.  China is a communist country that isn't transparent with it's data.  It was that lack of transparency that caused the virus to spread even further from Wuhan.  Their number of listed cases and deaths are incredibly low, and honestly we can't trust their numbers.  India is a poorer country that despite.  With all of that being said Trump hasn't seemed to take this virus seriously.  He has downplayed it, and regularly shows support for groups that have had big gatherings during the pandemic.  Have the Democrats been hypocritical on this?  Yes they have.  They supported BLM/Antifa riots that were far worse than any conservative gatherings, but the Dems don't get called on their bullshit that often, so Trump took a hit in terms of public perception.

Those Riots

The Riots which peaked right after the death of George Floyd set off a crazy reaction of white guilt, and black radicalism.  It was everywhere.  We were constantly being reminded of it whether it was on news stations, sports channels, or even channels like the Disney Channel.  After this it was easy for the democrats to sell how big this election was.  They went out of their way to do it.  Commercials telling people to vote were clearly aimed at those on the left.  

The Tide Changed A While Ago 

The 2020 election marks the 7th time in the past 8 elections that the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote, and only one of those, Gore vs Bush in 2000, was really close.  The tied has been in their favor for a while, and the identity politics have worked.  In that way a Trump loss should have been the expected result, just based on recent history, or at least him losing the popular vote.  Other factors swung the polls even more in favor of Joe Biden.  The mainstream clearly leans left, and that has been the case for a long time now.  They effectively push their political viewpoints.  The top social media sites show favorability towards the left.  The tide has been going against the right wing for decades now.

He Has Lost The Election

Trump is yet to concede, and those on his side continue to push conspiracy theories, but all indication from the counting, and recounting is that Joe Biden has clearly won this election.  

2019 Crime Statistics Breakdown

 The crime stats for 2019 are out, having been released four days ago, so it's time for another breakdown of crime by race, more specifically murder by race.  

 

 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls

First the single victim/single offender numbers.  Based on this chart  there were 3299 known instances of a white person being murdered in a single victim/single offender situation.  Of the 3216 in which the race of the offender is known  2594 have white offender.  That 80.7%, which is down from 82.3% last year, and the lowest from 2015-2019.  When it comes to black people it's 2574 of  2843, which is 90.5%, which is right in line with previous years.  It's also interesting that despite the fact that black people only make up 13.4% of the population, compared to white people making up 76.3%, black people black people still killed each other at an almost equal number to white people when just looking at the single victim/offender numbers.  In total there were 2948 of these murders with a known white offender, and 3218 with a black offender.   So in murders with 1 victim, and one perpetrator, black people are 6.2 times more likely to be the killer than white people.  Things are even worse when looking at the total stats for murders. This doesn't even take into the account the hispanic factor.  Despite hispanics not generally being considered white, according to the demographics from last year about 88% of hispanics in this country are listed as white.  In terms of black on white murder compared to white on black the chart shows 566 instances of a black person murdering a white person compared to just 246 the other way around.  A ratio of 2.3/1. 

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls

Next up is the numbers for total murder offenders.  Out of the 11493 in which a race is known, blacks made up 6425, which is 55.9%.   That is the worst I've even seen.  That percentage has gone up slightly, but steadily every year I've been checking.  It was 53.3% in 2015, 53.5 in 2016, 54.2 in 2017, and 54.9 in 2018.  Whites made up 4728 of murderers in those cases.   That means that black people were 7.7 times more likely to be murderers than white people in 2019.  I'm used to it being about 7 times more likely.

The mainstream portrays black people as the victims, and white as the perpetrators.  That's the where the focus has been.  That's where the attention has gone, but the numbers say otherwise.  That data makes the majority of mainstream, BLM, and SJWs look out of touch with reality when it comes to who tends to victimize who.  

United States Demographics

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219

Nick Cannon Controversy

Nick Cannon recent comments calling white people " a little less", and talking about them lacking compassion, because they lack melanin hasn't come out of nowhere.  This guy has been a Hotep for a while now.  It was like he could switch it off, and on.  Sometimes he got his Sikh on, and his reading the Isis Papers by Frances Cress Welsing, and other times he is hosting Wild -N- Out, and the Masked Singer.  On the Masked Singer, especially, Cannon is around mostly white people.  He able to switch back, and forth from Hotep racist Nick Cannon to the safe Nick Cannon, without consequence.  Imagine a white celebrity being an open white supremacist, yet still hosting a mainstream show.


If Nick Cannon would've just kept talking shit about white people things probably would be fine now, but he just had to bring the Jews into it.  It's interesting I listened to the full podcast of Cannon with Professor Griff, and he said much worse things about white, than about Jews, but that has gotten little attention in the mainstream.  Some black people have gotten on Cannon, and Desean Jackson for what they said about Jewish people, and Stephen Jackson for defending Desean, and some black people have taken their side.  Though most that take Cannon's side focus on their hatred of white people.  Anti Semetism, and Anti Whiteness are connected in the minds of Hoteps, Hebrew Israelites, and the NOI.  See these groups of black people view white Jews, and non black Jews in general as being imposters, and not real Jews.  They seem to have high reverence for the Bible, and ancient Hebrew culture, but they don't want to think that those people weren't black.  Trying to claim other people's identities isn't new in the black power movement.   It creates an interesting situation as these black supremacists celebrate and claim ancient group who weren't black.  Anti semitism in the black community is nothing new.  It's been going for a long time, and it is connected to anti whiteness.   It would be tough to find a mainstream article willing to connect the dots.  As hatred for white people has become more and more accepted it has led to more hatred of Jews.  I just wonder how things would've turned out if he said what he said about white people without bringing up Jews.

Yes Those Riots Played A Role In The Rising Of Coronavirus Cases

I guess when people aren't practicing social distancing, but doing it for "the right causes" the virus goes out of it's way not to spread.  Sense the sarcasm.
.
You may or may not have read about a study saying that the protest following the death of George Floyd haven't caused the increase of coronavirus cases.

This is that study
https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf

The popular thing to blame is reopening.  It's easy to blame white Republicans, especially Donald Trump.  There is a serious problem with that theory though.  The White House revealed the plan for reopening in April.  Reopening really began gaining momentum after April 30, and in May it became common, but the numbers didn't go up.  In fact when the weather got warm in May the number of new cases went down.  So if reopening is the main cause for the spike in coronavirus cases, why did it take so long?  We were staying steady until the middle of June when the numbers began spiking.  This is according to the CDC's data.  If it was reopening itself that caused this then why it take two months for the numbers to just spike up?

We know happened in June.  The protest/riots were out of control.  It seems more likely to me that is what's behind the rise of cases, than it is that reopening is to blame.  So what to make of the study that says it wasn't to blame?  The study's data is really conclusive.  The graphs on pages 48, and 49 show that all of those cities had an increase in cases after the riots, but most, if not all, had similar increases before. It's also too early to know the real impact of the riots in terms of spreading coronavirus in those areas.  If, as the study says, other people were more likely to stay at home, then it's still possible that many protestors, who tended to be young and healthy, are asymptomatic, and spreading the virus unknowingly.

 The biggest effect that the protest/riots had on the number coronavirus cases was in how it changed the culture.  Before the death of George Floyd became big news, coronavirus was the biggest story.  It was being thrown in our faces over and over again.  You couldn't escape it.  After the chaos started following the Floyd's death, coronavirus took a backseat.  Now we were being bombarded with stories of supposed police brutality, systematic racism, and people were hunting for stories of evil, racist, white people.  The riots were constantly in the news, and spreading all over the world, sort of the COVID-19 ironically enough.  All of a sudden the virus wasn't big news anymore, and it's easy to see how people took their eye off the ball.  

The Riots themselves was partially the product of people not caring that much about COVID, especially the looters, and those that fought with other people.  Many people were ready to move on from virus, and for the anti racism movement, causing havoc, and regularly demonizing white people may have been them getting back to normal.  The weather was hot, and until the protests cases had gone down substantially from where it was at in April.  The chaos, and all the attention it got exacerbated the issue, and caused people to care less about the coronavirus.  There could be room for two hot button issues to get good attention, but lockdown, and race riots are very different.  Lockdown succeeded in lowering numbers due to the fear of the virus.  The riots went as far as they did because there was less fear of the virus among those participants.

Left wingers who were so adamant about social distancing and quarantine in April, were usually quiet or in agreement with BLM.  They showed their hand.  I guess we found out what can make them not stand by their convictions in terms of coronavirus.  Black People!   Predictably the mainstream got right back to coronavirus panic.  Conveniently it was after the riots had calmed down.  It was so easy for them to talk that shit, and shame people when those people were white Trump supporters.   Right wingers were ready to move on before the left wingers were, but focus on race took the political party that was most concerned with the coronavirus, and turned their attention elsewhere.

The news isn't all bad.  Though the numbers of daily cases has gone over 50,000 the past couple days, the number of deaths have yet to go up.  Perhaps that number will go up in the upcoming weeks, but even before the increase in cases the percentage of diagnosed cases that resulted in deaths had been going down.  The number of people who recovered from the virus is going up. While the true number of COVID-19 cases in our country is a lot higher than the listed number, it's also true that the number of people who have recovered is also a lot higher.  It makes sense that those who are asymptomatic, or only have mild symptoms are less likely to be tested.


https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/stay-top-stay-home-list-statewide

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/us/states-reopen-coronavirus-trnd/

Using Stats To See If Black People Are Being Targeted By Police

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-databas

While the death of George Floyd wasn't a shooting it still gives into the idea that police are targeting black men.  Now of course, you aren't going to change the minds of idiots on this subject, anymore than you are going to convince religious people that there is no god.  Their belief in it goes beyond evidence.  There are cases to go either way.  Not all cops are good.  Some innocent black people are killed by police, and some innocent white people are killed by police.  It's important to go beyond a story here or there, and beyond what the mainstream highlights, and look at more complete data to get a better look at the big picture.  

The Washington Post has been keeping track of police shootings since 2015, and now they've got all their numbers from 2015 to now on one page.  I've looked at the numbers, and the pattern is consistent. About 1.9 times as many white people have been killed in police shootings as black people.  When I last checked today there had been 2358 white people killed in police shootings, and 1252 black people.  Another important detail how likely is how likely black people, and white people are to resist arrest.

One issue with the FBI's crime stats is that we don't have the 2019 stats, let alone those for 2020 so far.  The 2019 data will be released in September of this year.  Still we have the 2015-18 data to look at.  I added up the arrest numbers for those 4 years.   In terms of total arrests there were 2.56 times as many instances of white people being arrested than black people, but when it came to violent crime that ratio dropped to 1.56/1.  In terms of murder black people, who make up just 13% of the population commit over 50% of the murders.  From 2015-18 black people were arrested for murder 1.18 times as much as white people.  That data doesn't give a clear picture to show that police are targeting black men, or that the there is an epidemic of police killing black people.  There are other things to the don't fit that narrative.  Only 234 women were killed in police shootings according to the Post's numbers.  Only 47 of those women were black, compared to 132 that were white.  If police are just racist, and targeting black people then why are so few black women being killed by police.  A white man is more likely to be viewed as a threat than a black woman.  You know why?  It's because men are more likely to commit crime.  Yet when it comes to race it's so tough to people to use the same reasoning.  

In terms of resisting arrests studies tend to show that black people are more likely to resist arrest than whites, but there isn't a bunch of data on this, and one of my links is from 2014.

Correction: Factoring In Hispanics
One thing that I forgot is that the FBI, and Washington Post count Hispanic differently.  The Washington Post counts it as a race, while the FBI correctly counts it as an ethnicity.  The problem that while most Hispanic look Native American, most of them identify as white, and that increase the arrest numbers for whites.  Looking at the 2019 Census data 76.5% of the population is white, while 60.4% is non Hispanic white.  So, about 16.1% of the country are listed as white Hispanics, and Hispanics make up 18.3% of the population.  Based on those percentages about 88% of the country's Hispanics are listed as white.  According to the FBI crime data from 2015-18 there were 4,807,933 arrests of Hispanics, 22,557,336 for whites, and 8,797,330 for blacks.  The data doesn't break down Hispanic arrests by race, but if I were to assume it's 88%, then that would lower the arrest totals for whites over those same years, and the ratio arrest would go down to 2.1/1 for crime, and just 1.1/1 for violent crime.  This doesn't factor in the very small percentage of Hispanics that are black, and is based on the assumption that the percentage of Hispanics arrested who are identified as white, is equal to the what the percentage is in the census. So the estimates are flawed.  It still gives some very serious evidence against the narrative of police being racist against black people.  If anything police might be less likely to kill black people under similar circumstances.  

Links

Resisting Arrest

https://www.wnyc.org/story/resisting-arrest-black-white/

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/african-americans-arrested-for-resisting-arrest-at-a-larger-rate-in-san-diego/2260289/

Crime

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/table-43 

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/tables/table-43

Demographics
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219












+ 

Kobe Bryant Overrated

Even before Kobe Bryant died, his reputation as a basketball player exceeded his statistics.  Since he's died it's gone to another level.  ESPN ranked the 74 greatest basketball players of all time, and had him ranked 9th.  This caused a lot of controversy from people thinking he should be ranked higher.  Jamal Crawford even said he couldn't respect a list that didn't have Bryant in the top 5. 

So is Kobe a top 5 player.  No.  In my opinion he's borderline top 10.  There are several reasons that Kobe is thought so highly relative to what the numbers say.  

Let's go back to 1998.  Michael Jordan is playing a season that many believe will be his last.  In this season Kobe really emerges.  He holds his own to showdowns with Jordan, and Jordan gives Kobe his seal of approval.  They were on camera having a conversation in which was giving Bryant advice.  Michael said Kobe was the future of the league.  When Michael retired in January of 1999, a lot of people were looking for a Michael Jordan replacement.  Kobe Bryant fit the mold.  He went out of his way to copy Jordan, from his use of the fadeaway jumper, the same footwork, and even the mannerisms.  He was the right person at the right time.  Kobe rode the Michael Jordan wave, and his fandom is closely related to Jordan's.  Because Kobe was copied Jordan, and was athletic, and skilled, his game was aesthetically pleasing.  Not in the way Jordan's game way (who's is), but good enough to give the popularity edge of Shaq, who dominated by brute force.  Even though Shaq was the better player during the Lakers' threepeat, Kobe was the one fans wanted to be better.  Now years later, many of them act as if he was better.

The numbers don't back up Kobe's reputation.  His PER ranks 27th all time.  He ranks 29th all time in Box Plus Minus, and that stat is only used for season starting in 1973-74.  Even metric categories that reward longevity aren't that favorable to him.  He's 19th all time in Win Shares, and 12th in Value Over Replacement Player.  When you consider that he player over 48,000 minutes those rankings really don't back up his reputation as a player.  I like advanced metrics.  Sure they aren't perfect.  What stat is perfect for letting you know how good a player is?  

 

Looking at scoring numbers shows that Kobe was one of the greatest scorers of all time.  He averaged 35.8 points per 100 possessions in his career, good enough for 5th all time according to basketball reference.  His points per 100 was 36.1 before the dip in his last 3 seasons.  Still the 4 players ahead of him all have higher true shooting percentages.  Some of the players close to him also are/were more efficient scorers.  Still Kobe was one of the greatest scorers ever.  The problem is that he doesn't stand out in any other category.  His rebound number aren't that special.  There were several shooting guards who were better rebounders than him.  His assists numbers are okay for a guy with so much scoring responsibility, but they aren't great.  He wasn't great at getting steals either.  So statistically he wasn't one of the 10 greatest players of all time.  Was he better than his stats?  Relative to his era, I don't think he was.  He was a good defender, but not a great one.  He was named first team all defense in several seasons in which he didn't deserve it.  If you want to bring up eras, then it's tough comparing Bill Russell, or Wilt Chamberlain to Kobe, because the players were so inferior in their era.  Obviously we give those old legends the benefit of the doubt.  

Kobe was one of the greatest basketball players of all time.  In my opinion he wasn't a top five player ever, and might not have been a top 1o players.  He certainly isn't a top 10 player based on statistics.  Besides borderline top 10 isn't bad.

About Wilt Chamberlain Michael Jordan And Rule Changes

Wilt Chamberlain once mentioned that rules were changed to stop him, while rules were changed to help Michael Jordan.  It's one of those things that Chamberlain, and some other just accept as fact.  I decided to look at NBA rules changes through history to see just how accurate Chamberlain's take was.

http://archive.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

The only major rule change that was done to slow Chamberlain down was the widening of the lane before the 1964-65.  There were a number of other rules changes, but they probably didn't have much affect on Wilt.  So Wilt should've said that one rule was changed to slow him down, but Wilt wasn't known for his honesty.  One rule brought up by Jordan detractors is the flagrant foul rule.  Before the 1990-91 the penalty was increased for flagrant fouls, but what was the prior punishment, and how did it make things easier for Jordan.  The flagrant foul was established in the NBA for the 1980-81 season, but all the rules history states is that the coach of the offended team could choose the free throw shooter.  Punishment was increased in 1990, allowing the offended team to get two free throws, and possession of the ball, which equates to another offensive possession.  Overall that rule change didn't have much affect on the league, as flagrant fouls weren't called that often, and played remained physical in the 90's.  In fact it probably got more physical as players got bigger and stronger than they were in the 1980's.  One rule that I've read being attributed to protecting Jordan from the Bad Boy Pistons was the rule against hand checking, but that rule wasn't added until the 1994 offseason, when Jordan was playing baseball, and after he won NBA 3 championships.  The 3 point line was shortened at the top of the key starting with the 1994-95 season, and that helped Jordan's 3 point percentage, but Jordan wasn't playing when the change was made. That change lasted 3 seasons before it was changed back to it's original distance for the 1997-98 season. While there were some rules added in the mid to late 90s, they weren't estabhlised to help Michael Jordan.  Those changes were made to help make the games higher scoring.  The league scoring average was going down every season at that point, and league really wanted to increase the pace, and scoring of the game.  One major proof of his is how rules were changed even when Jordan was retired.  I mentioned a couple of them from the 1994 offseason.  Jordan had the best seasons of his career before any of these rule changes were established.  

Most rules were changed to help offense, and a few went against the offense, but the rules history doesn't back up this idea that the NBA changed the rules to help their golden boy win championships.  It also doesn't show a pattern of rules being changed against Wilt Chamberlain.  

Greatest NBA Draft Classes (1976-2003) Based On Win Shares

What is the greatest draft class in NBA history?  Well that's a debatable subject, that people use very different criteria to determine.  I decided to look at 28 drafts from 1976-2003, and use wins shares, and win shares per 48 minutes to rank the draft classes.  I looked at the top 20 players from each draft in career win shares.

Why 1976-2003?  Well 1976 was the year of the NBA/ABA merger  You don't have to deal with how many of a player's win shares came in the ABA, and what to do with those.  Another factor is that more teams equals more roster spots for the players drafted.  Counting those years in which the league didn't have many teams would be unfair.   In seasons in which the league had 8 teams, a draft class might have 1 or 2 dominant players, but then there are a number of players who didn't do very much in their careers.  In the 50's, and 60's, the #20 player for each draft would usually have around 0 win shares, and numerous times they had a negative amount of career win shares.  2003 is the year that Lebron, D-Wade, Chris Bosh, and Carmelo Anthony were drafted, and going into drafts after that would lead to the problem of more, and more players still playihng, and not having long careers.  That would be unfair to later drafts.  It's an issue with the 2003 draft, but not much of one.

Why wins shares?  That because basketball reference's pages for drafts has the win shares, and win shares per 48 minutes for players, so that makes the process quicker.  Win shares isn't my favorite metric for judging a player.  Part of the problem is that being on a winning team helps with win shares, and great players on bad teams get penalized.  There is also the longevity thing.  One player might have more career win shares than a better player, because he played significantly longer.  Factoring in more players decreases the chance of the stats being inaccurate for the group.  I am only counting regular season wins shares, which is another issue.

As I mentioned I looked at the top 20 players from the 28 drafts based on career win shares.  Going past 20 would be beneficial for later years in which the league had more teams.  I calculated the average in win shares for the top 10 players of that 20, and also for all 20.  In the table those are represented by WS/10, and WS/20.  Then I took those same top 20, still listed in order of career win shares, and calculated the average win shares per 48 for the top ten, and then the top 20.  Those averages are represent by WS48/10, and WS/48/20.

Formula

1. Add together the average win shares of the top 10, and 20

2. Add together wins average win shares per 48 or top 10, and top 20, and multiply by 400

3. Add totals from first two parts

Rank	Draft	WS/10	Rank	WS/20	Rank	WS48/10	Rank	WS48/20	Rank	Points
1	1984	125.13	1	75.33	1	.156	1	.1219	2	311.62
2	1985	107.64	2	75.21	2	.1328	7T	.12255	1	287.19
3	1987	100.17	3	63.995	4	.1428	2	.11915	4	268.945
4	1996	99.17	4	67.715	3	.1384	3	.11515	5	268.305
5	2003	92.51	5	62.215	5	.1341	5	.11315	6	253.625
6	1999	88.42	7	62.07	6	.1329	6	.12175	3	252.35
7	1998	91	6	61.025	7	.1211	15	.1051	15	242.505
8	2001	85.36	8	58.935	8	.1258	10	.10805	12	237.835
9	1995	80.22	9	54.73	9	.1198	19	.109	11	226.47
10	1979	73.97	12	49.945	14	.1349	4	.1122	7	222.755
11	1977	70.25	15	53.92	10	.1286	9	.11185	8	220.35
12	1981	77.17	10	53.165	11	.1192	20	.1035	17	219.415
13	1992	74.02	11	51.5	12	.1232	13	.10605	14	217.22
14	1997	72.88	13	47.04	17	.1206	17	.10935	10	211.9
15	1988	68.24	18	49.96	13	.1220	14	.10705	13	209.82
16	1989	72.67	14	48.28	16	.1209	16	.0964	25	207.87
17	1983	69.58	16	48.94	15	.1147	22	.10035	19	204.54
18	1986	63.16	23	43.21	21	.1328	7T	.11135	9	204.03
19	1982	64.96	20	44.49	18	.1204	18	.10415	16	199.27
20	1994	68.3	17	44.205	19	.1089	26	.0994	22	195.825
21	1976	67.29	19	40.545	25	.1187	21	.0984	23	194.675
22	1991	64.22	22	40.875	24	.1234	12	.0997	21	194.335
23	2002	61.69	24	40.15	26	.1249	11	.1011	18	192.24
24	1978	64.41	21	44.1	20	.1109	25	.0953	26	190.99
25	1990	60.54	25	41.665	23	.1143	23	.09975	20	187.825
26	1993	56.29	26	41.83	22	.1065	27	.09785	24	179.86
27	1980	51.33	27	36.32	27	.1111	24	.09435	27	169.83
28	2000	43.25	28	29.865	28	.0946	28	.08635	28	145.495

Here's the list.  The 1984 draft is at number 1, and that doesn't' come as a surprise.  This is the best draft at the top.  Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, and John Stockton are 4 of the all time greats, and in Stockton the draft has a player whose metrics are even better than his reputation.  Jordan had 214.0 win shares, Stockton had 207, Barkley had 177.2, and Olajuwon had 162.6.  Otis Thorpe, and Sam Perkins also had over 100 win shares, giving this draft 6 players with over 100 career win shares.  That's more than any other draft.  In terms of win shares per 48, Jordan, Stockton, and Barkley are all over .200, with Jordan being the all time leader in that category. That's fair enough for the number one draft.  The 2000 draft is the worst and it's not even close. Hedo Turkoglu has the highest career win shares of anyone in that draft at just 63.3.  As far as the smell test, this list passes in terms of the #1, and #28 drafts, but what about the others.

The 1996 draft is the favorite of many millennials, but that draft is 4th, and a well behind the top two.  You can see why people love the draft so much.  It had a lot of entertaining players, like Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, Stephon Marbury, and Steve Nash, and  Ray Allen.  The top 3 from that draft in career win shares are Kobe at 172.7, Allen at 145.1, and Steve Nash at 129.7.  Still this draft has several players whose wins shares don't measure up to their reputation.  Even Kobe doesn't do as well in win shares are you might think he would based on his reputation.  His 172.7 wins shares came in 20 seasons, and he averaged .170 per 48 minutes.  Michael Jordan, who many argue that Kobe was close to in terms of greatness, had 214.0 win shares in just 15 seasons (including 1995, in which he came out of retirement with just 17 games left), and .250 win shares per 48.  Allen Iverson didn't even have 100 career wins shares, finishing with 99.0.

The 1985, and 2003 drafts are both surprises.  The 85' draft didn't have the same star power at the top as the year before, with Karl Malone, and Patrick Ewing being the only players in this draft who can be compared to the top 4 in 1984, but this draft was deeper.  There were a number of really good players taken in this draft.  Terry Porter, and Detlef Schempf both had over 100 career win shares.  A.C. Green, who benefited in win shares from being on the Showtime Lakers early in his career, had 99.5, and Chris Mullin finished his career with 93.1.  Charles Oakley had 89.7 win shares for his career, and Joe Dumars had 86.2.  This draft actually ranks number one in WS48/20.  It ranks 2nd in the first two categories, and 7th in the 3rd.  The 2003 draft is another favorite of millennials, and I thought this one would rank higher. Dwyane Wade, who was close to Lebron at his peak, had injury problems that limited him in games played and limited how long he was at his peak.  Lebron James, Carmelo Anthony, and Kyle Korver are the only players from the draft still playing, and out of those 3, Lebron is the only who still has significant production.  I had first done math for this formula last year, and in the 2019-20, this draft only grained a little less than 2 points.  While Lebron has been great, even his win shares per 48 minutes has gone down in recent years.

The 1987 draft ranks 3rd.  That draft had David Robinson, Reggie Miller, Scottie Pippen, and Horace Grant all finishing with over 100 career win shares, with  Robinson, and Miller both over 170.  Robinson's win shares per 48 is second all time, just barely behind Michael Jordan.  The top 3 drafts happened during a 4 season period, with the 1986 draft in between.  That 86' draft didn't do as badly as I thought finishing 18th.

Another interesting fact is that Larry Bird was part of the 1978 draft, but was allowed to go back to college, and came out the next year.  If I counted Bird with the class of 79', that draft would go up 7th, and the 78' draft would drop to 27th.