Counting Wilt Chamberlain's Steals, Blocks, and Turnovers

Basketball Reference has started listing some game totals for steals, and blocks before they became official NBA statistics.  They actually list Wilt Chamberlain as having 446 blocks for the 1972-73 season.  How accurate is that total?  I can't watch footage from that regular season to know how accurate it is, but I can get some footage from throughout his career to try and see how often he got those stats that weren't kept by the NBA during his career. How often did Chamberlain get steals, or blocks?  How often did he turn the ball over?  I don't want to see highlights.  I want full games.  

There are numerous problems that I ran into.  Finding full games from his career is tough.  I settled on a full quarter for 1 game, and a full half for more than 1.  Another game shows the first 3 quarters, but doesn't show the full 4th quarter.  When it came estimating how much time in a game was shown, or how much Chamberlain played in the footage, one issue was the lack of an onscreen clock.  It was rare for them to put the time remaining on the screen back then, so I found myself depending on the announcer to say how much time was left in a quarter.   I can't see everything, especially with the lower quality of the footage.  In Game 5 of the 1973 Finals, Wilt was given credit for 8 blocks.  While the ending of the game isn't shown, a graphic says that he has 6 blocks, and he picks up another on in the game footage I have, so that would be 7 blocks in the estimated 43 minutes of game time shown, but I only count him as having 4.  I went back, and watched it again, and I still have him with 4 blocks.  I wonder how did they have him with 7 blocks up to that point in the game.  What were the unwritten rules for counting blocks before the NBA made them an official stat?  Only one of these games is from the regular season, so these stats probably don't represent what did in the regular season.  This shows more of what he did in the playoffs against quality opposition.  Playoff game also tend to be played at a slower pace than regular season game. Below I have links for videos, and time stamps.  This video usually come from late in career, while he was with the Lakers.  I still think that relevant since Basketball Reference list Chamberlain with 446 blocks in the 1971-72 season.

1969 NBA Finals game 7  4th quarter    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnu5vMfPtbw&t=1690s

7 minutes (estimated)   0 steals   0 blocks  0 turnovers

1973 NBA Finals game 5     Several minutes missing    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wlSbTu0rFQ

Estimated 43 minutes shown   2 steals 2 blocks 8 turnovers

Turnover  (3 second violation) 8:47

Block 22:22

Turnover 23:24

Turnover 26:48

Possible block (not likely). 32:34

Steal 32:27

Block 32:50 

Turnover 39:43 

Turnover 57:52

Turnover 1:06:34

Turnover 1:08:45

Turnover 1:12:03

Possible block 1:23:23

Possible steal 1:27:29

Steal 1:29:25

1971  WCSF  Game 6    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrnGh16z18k

48 minutes   1 steal  4 blocks  1  Possible block   3 turnovers  1 possible turnover

Block  12:35

Block   30:36 (Could have been called goaltending)

Block   56:39

Turnover   57:58

Possible turnover  1:00:07  

Possible block  1:00:46

Turnover  1:08:32

Block  1:22:40

Turnover  1:27:19

Steal  1:31:49

1967  EDF  Game 5   2nd Half  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsYos18Esdo    

24 minutes  1 steal  4 blocks   1 turnover

Turnover   9:31

Block   21:30

Block   30:34

Block   30:36

Block   41:07

Steal   45:27

1973. WCSF. Game 6.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEd5nil-Op0.   48 min 

0 steals 3 blocks 6 turnover

Turnover 23:24

Block 30:37

Turnover 33:55

Turnover 34:11

Block 43:47

Turnover 46:40

Turnover 59:07

Block 1:19:53

Turnover 1:27:04

1972 Regular Season at Milwaukee   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J__Hnfnu8Fc&t=50s. 

48 minutes  3 steals 5 blocks 4 Turnover 1 possible turnover

4:22  West throws pass to high.  While Wilt stepped out of bounds with the ball, it's hard to blame him

Stl 6:25

Turnover 9:59

Block 12:10

Block 17:12

Possible Turnover 29:31

Turnover 39:12

Block 39:37 

Block 44:51

Block 52:27

53:27  Keith Jackson gives Wilt credit for a blocked shot that goes over his hand

Turnover 54:31

Steal 1:00:00

Turnover 1:08:43

Steal 1:13:41

Higher quality video of Milwaukee game.  Missing a small bit of the game

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qe--XpXEp4y

1970 NBA Finals Game 7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiWzpL_bxKM

48 minutes  0 steals 1 block 5 turnovers

Turnover  19:17

Turnover 32:15

Turnover 39:55

Turnover 1:08:42

Turnover 1:23:32

Blk 1:26:42

1964  NBA Finals  Game 4    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRdwitKFw6Y

24 minutes   0 steals  0 blocks  2 Turnovers  1 possible block  1 possible turnover

Turnover 4:35

Turnover  6:07

Possible Block  16:36

Possible Turnover 17:55

1972 WCF Game 4  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnCme7Q-QZ8&t=1462s

(Bad quality, and missing several parts of the game)

Estimated 29 minutes  1 block  1 possible turnover

Block 10:20

Possible Turnover 38:03

Totals   319 minutes   7 steals   20 blocks  2 possible blocks   29 turnovers  4 possible turnovers

The thing that stands out to me are turnover numbers.  Most of the footage is from late in his career when he didn't touch the ball that much.  In his peak scoring years, he likely turned the ball over more than anyone else in NBA history.  He probably had numerous seasons with more turnovers that the official NBA record held by James Harden.  This is an ongoing project.  I would like to be able to look at other games. I may at some point try to come with estimates for steals, and blocks per 100 possessions in his footage.  I may also factor in field goals attempts, and assists to try to come up with an estimate for how often he would've turned the ball over.

 

Bill Belichick Not Voted Into Hall of Fame

 Bill Belichick seemed like a shoo-in first ballot Hall of Famer.  6 Super Bowl as head coach, and 2 as a defensive coordinator.  So many, including me, were shocked to find out that he won't get in Hall this year.  How is it that the man considered by many as the greatest coach of all time wasn't voted in?

There have seen several factors that have been brought up as to why.

The Post Tom Brady Narrative-This is interesting.  For years many tried to attribute Tom Brady's success to the fact that he was coach by Bill Belichick.  That narrative has turned around recently.  People have looked at the fact that Belichick has a losing record as a head coach without Brady.  Brady's Super Bowl win with Tampa Bay also added to the narrative. I don't think this is a good enough reason for him not to be voted in.  Brady was not a one man team, he had great players around him and Belichick has to be given a lot of credit for that.  Belichick also had some belief in Tom Brady, even if it took the Pats until the 6th round to draft him.  Bill also has two rings as a defensive coordinator, so he is a defensive genius.  

Robert Craft-It's no secret that Belichick and Robert Craft had a falling out.  There is some speculation that voters may have felt like they had to choose one or the other to prevent both being inducted the same year.  

SpyGate-DefelateGate-Here comes the controversy.  SpyGate, and DeflateGate were mentioned in a discussion among voters. https://www.upi.com/Sports_News/NFL/2026/01/28/sports-world-stunned-Bill-Belichick-snub-HOF/7201769601659/  Maybe some felt that they needed to send him a message, and make him pay for that.  Though I wonder would it be just Belichick who would pay for it.  I don't expect for Tom Brady not to get voted in on the first ballot due to DeflateGate.  

Hopefully he'll get in next year.  

Jordan 87-88 Steals, and Blocks Counting

Here is where I'll keep count of steals and blocks for Michael Jordan in the home games of the 1987-88 season.  This will updated as I find different games, and make up my mind on different plays.  The numbers in parenthesis represent the steals, and blocks he was given credit for in each game.

 12/12/87 vs Houston   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHOdUzx6Dt0     starts a few min in    

5 steals  5 blocks  1 possible block   (5 steals - 5 blocks)

steal  16:51

block 25:42

block 29:06

steal  30:20

possible block 1:02:42

block 1:04:36

steal  1:28:22

block 1:29:10

block  1:40:49

steal  2:08:12

steal  2:09:38

2/26/88 vs Portland  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2xz5fk5Yj8  

3 steals   3 blocks    (2 steals - 3 blocks)

block 17:25

steal 23:31

block  56:55

steal  1:07:20

block  1:15:49

steal  1:21:40

11/7/87 vs Philadelphia   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-_cKG-xztk  

5 steals  3 blocks  1 possible steal   (6 steals-4 blocks)

steal 16:29

steal  17:22

steal  17:48 

possible steal 31:37 

deflection sets up turnover 32:34

steal  37:45

steal  38:40

block  44:12

block  50:06 

block 1:23:16 block called by announcer, not shown on screen.  Replay of the block shown at 1:23:41

12/17/87 vs Cleveland    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o40ZiQ8Ab4&t=1s  

2 steals 1 block  1 possible block  (4 steals - 1 block)

block 34:20

35:50  Paxson's steal Jordan gets a hand on it 

possible block, not likely 37:19

steal 45:11 

steal 47:38

4/24/88 vs Boston    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hvbEAPmsZg  

1 steal  1 block   (1 steal-1 block)

block  13:03

steal  38:11

12/22/87  vs Dallas  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAmDezAwitQ 

2 steals  2  blocks  2 possible blocks  (4 steals - 2 blocks)   

possible block  13:23  

possible block  15:40 

block  20:20

steal  31:16

block  55:27

steal  1:01:23

3/10/88 vs Los Angeles    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=_2GMwfS8qC8  

3 steals  1 possible block  (3 steals - 1 block)

steal  8:08

steal  42:00

possible block  55:34

steal  1:10:00

3/18/88 vs Boston   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf8LprvGLjo   y

3 steals  2 possible steals  1 block   (5 steals - 1 block )

steal  15:13

steal  16:31

block  23:09

possible steal  47:10  

steal  1:03:40

possible steal 1:08:02

1/7/88 vs Denver

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuu94rPzrR0&list=PLh5Jhwz037ZwokITu87Gp465RGq0zI31-&index=60

6 steals 3 blocks 1 possible steal 1 possible block  (6 steals, 4 blocks)

Possible Block 13:08  Not likely

Steal 13:17  

Steal 23:26  Could be a block or steal

Steal 47:05  Jordan tips the ball from Fat Lever.  Rory Sparrow gets it, and accid,entally throws it back to Lever

Steal 52:54

Steal 54:57  Jordan tips the ball from Fat Lever.  Mike Brown dives and gets the ball

Block 59:12

Steal 1:00:06

Possible Steal 1:10:16    Ball tipped by someone, likely not Jordan, and if he did touch it, it certainly wasn't controlled.

Block 1:17:30

Block 1:21:12

vs Boston 1/12/88

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lan3kryPA94

3 steals 1 block  1 possible steal  (3 steals  1 block)

Steal 7:08

Steal  21:45

Block 46:04

Possible Steal 1:34:27

Steal  2:01:47

vs Atlanta 2/15/88  

Start of game  Michael Jordan vs Dominique Wilkins first game after the 1988 Dunk Contes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnewnVPh0cE&t=5356s

2 steals 1 block  1 possible steal  1 possible block  (5 steals, 2 blocks)

Possible Block 2:36

Steal 3:24

8:24-Not a steal, but worth mentioning.  Mike Brown deflects the pass, and Jordan and Cliff

Levingston both have the ball, when a jump ball is called.  Levingston wins the jump ball

Block-1:14:29

Possible Steal 1:22:06

Steal 1:24:17

vs Indiana  1/5/88  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OSOX67wpZk

2 steals 1 block  2 possible steals 1 possible block  (4 steals, 2 blocks) 

possible steal 5:23

block 8:18

block 20:18 

possible steal 59:32

steal 1:11:55

steal 1:15:14

vs Seattle  2/23/88  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIoUyQw42Ng&t=756s 

4 steals, 1 block (4 steals, 2 blocks)   

block 6:59 

steal 18:43

steal 43:28

steal 1:33:58

steal 2:11:06

vs Detroit  1/16/88

1988 01 16 Chicago Bulls vs Detroit Pistons, massive brawl,Jordan with triple double.

2 Steals   4 Blocks  1 possible block   (4 steals,  4 blocks)

Block  4:59

Steal  16:18

Steal  53:38

Block 53:53

Block 55:45

Possible Block  1:18:00

Block  1:22:14

vs Cleveland  3/15/88

1988 03 15 Chicago Bulls VS Cleveland Cavaliers

4 Steals  0 blocks    (2 steals, 1 block)

Steal 12:47

Steal 38:55

Steal 59:19

Steal 1:05:49

vs New York   1/30/88

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fhnSgts5ng

2 steals  4 blocks  (2 steals 5 blocks)

Steal 5:40

Block  12:49

Block 51:40

Steal 1:06:22

Block 1:09:19

Block 1:19:22

vs Philadelphia  12/8/87

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFBZZVDQ2Ps 

0 steals  3 blocks   1 possible steal (3 steals,  3 blocks)

Possible Steal 11:10

Block 16:32

Block 22:41

Block 50:33

vs Indiana 11/14/87

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ISs5wHIT60&t=3430s

4 steals 1 block  1 possible block  (4 steals, 1 block)

Block 36:35

Possible Block 39:13

Steal 39:28

Steal 57:16

Steal 1:08:43

Steal 1:34:22

                                Steals    Blocks

Box Score                67         42

Counted by me        54          36

Other Possible           8           9

Others Involved in     2           0

Max. Counted           64          45

Continuation Of Counting Michael Jordan's Steals And Blocks in 1987-88 Home Games

I some more of Michael Jordan's full home games from the 1987-88 season to add to the 8 that I already counted steals, and blocks from.  A few of these videos have bad image quality, which makes it tough to count blocks and steals.  Due to the grainy quality of some of the videos, I will give the score keeper the benefit of the doubt on blocked shots.  

The numbers in parenthesis represent Jordan's official number of steals and blocks.

1/7/88 vs Denver

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuu94rPzrR0&list=PLh5Jhwz037ZwokITu87Gp465RGq0zI31-&index=60

6 steals 3 blocks 1 possible steal 1 possible block  (6 steals, 4 blocks)

Possible Block 13:08  Not likely

Steal 13:17  

Steal 23:26  Could be a block or steal

Steal 47:05  Jordan tips the ball from Fat Lever.  Rory Sparrow gets it, and accid,entally throws it back to Lever

Steal 52:54

Steal 54:57  Jordan tips the ball from Fat Lever.  Mike Brown dives and gets the ball

Block 59:12

Steal 1:00:06

Possible Steal 1:10:16    Ball tipped by someone, likely not Jordan, and if he did touch it, it certainly wasn't controlled.

Block 1:17:30

Block 1:21:12

vs Boston 1/12/88

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lan3kryPA94

2 steals 1 block  1 possible steal  (3 steals  1 block)

Steal  21:45

Block 46:04

Possible Steal 1:34:27

Steal  2:01:47

vs Atlanta 2/15/88  

Start of game  Michael Jordan vs Dominique Wilkins first game after the 1988 Dunk Contes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnewnVPh0cE&t=5356s

2 steals 1 block  1 possible steal  1 possible block  (5 steals, 2 blocks)

Possible Block 2:36

Steal 3:24

8:24-Not a steal, but worth mentioning.  Mike Brown deflects the pass, and Jordan and Cliff

Levingston both have the ball, when a jump ball is called.  Levingston wins the jump ball

Block-1:14:29

Possible Steal 1:22:06

Steal 1:24:17

vs Indiana  1/5/88

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OSOX67wpZk

2 steals 1 block  2 possible steals 1 possible block  (4 steals, 2 blocks) 

possible steal 5:23

block 8:18

block 20:18 

possible steal 59:32

steal 1:11:55

steal 1:15:14

vs Seattle  2/23/88   Videos missing most of overtime

4 steals, 2 blocks (4 steals, 2 blocks)   

First Half  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_eoEr_ik0o

block 6:59 

steal 19:46

steal 45:38

2nd Half https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efGdFMLCnIw&t=3732s

steal 42:09

block 52:20 

Steal in overtime: Michael Jordan´s breakaway tomahawk vs Seattle 87-88 season.

                               Steals     Blocks

Box Score                 52          29

Counted by me         40          25

Other Possible           8           7

Others Involved in     2           0

Max. Counted           50         32

What's Up With The NBA: Why So Many Don't Like The League

 The NBA's popularity if down.  That one is obvious.  Their ratings have taken a big hit than NFL's, or MLB's in recent years.  Why it is that the league's popularity is has taken such a big hit.  Some people are arguing that it's the Inside the NBA show, on TNT, and how they talk down on the modern game.  Thankfully most people don't believe this, and there are obviously others things that have a much bigger impact on the game's popularity.  Sports fan nowadays just don't like the NBA the way they used to, and if anything the cast of Inside the NBA are just stating what most of the public thinks about the league.  Let's go through some reasons that the league's popularity is low.

3 Point Shooting

It's understandable why players are taking so many three point shots.  It counts for an extra point, and many players are good enough at it to make it a valuable asset.  The problem is that it makes the 3 point shot, once something special, and makes it routine.  The 3 point attempt rates had stagnated before this season with rates being around 39-40 percent in the past 4 seasons before this one, but rates have gone up to over 42% so far this season.

Load Management

With so many players missing games for load management, no wonder fans think regular season games aren't that important.  Some players obviously don't think they are that important.  This has done more to send a message to fans than any talk show has.

Lack  of Defense/Competetivness

When players aren't missing games due to load management they tend to play games with very little intensity.  You don't sense much animosity between different teams, and teams don't go out of their way to stop star players from doing their thing.  Part of that is rule changes meant to help offenses.  Among those are not allowing hand checking, or forearm checking, and taking away the defensive 3 seconds, but a bigger part of it is that players seem to be resting through much of the regular season, saving their intense play for the playoffs.  This goes back to load management.  With NBA having such a long schedule and then having the play in games added in, talented teams realize they don't need to try that hard in the regular season, and can save themselves for the playoffs.

Social Justice

The NBA has irritated many people, mostly white, with their focus on social justice.  They annoyed a good portion of their old fanbase, as players are eager to involve politics into their interviews, and personal image.  The NFL has this same issue, but they haven't taken the popularity hit the NBA has.

A look at Michael Jordan's Steals, and Blocks From 1987-88 Home Games

There has been a lot of talk about Jordan having inflated home stats from the 1987-88 season in the steals, and blocks category, so I wanted to watch the games for myself.  It wasn't as easy as I thought to get full home games from that regular season, and

 watching them to count steals, and blocks wasn't as easy task.  So far I've got 8 of the that were at least close to full games.  The broadcast of the game vs Houston starts a little late, but I found 5 steals, and 5 blocks from Jordan in that game.  Here is a list of the games with links, and timestamps.  Possible steals are mostly plays in which Jordan played a role in a steal, but I didn't give him credit for it.  One of them is a play in which Jerome Kersey got the ball, and Jordan took it from him, but Kersey didn't establish possession of the ball.  In parenthesis are the steals, and blocks Jordan got credit for in the box score.

 

12/12/87 vs Houston   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHOdUzx6Dt0     starts a few min in    

5 steals  5 blocks  1 possible block   (5 steals - 5 blocks)

steal  16:51

block  25:42

block  29:06

steal  30:20

possible block 1:02:42

block 1:04:36

steal  1:28:22

block 1:29:10

block  1:40:49

steal  2:08:12

steal  2:09:38

2/26/88 vs Portland  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2xz5fk5Yj8  

2 steals   3 blocks  1 possible steal  (2 steals - 3 blocks)

block 17:25

possible steal 23:31

block  56:55

steal  1:07:20

block  1:15:49

steal  1:21:40

11/7/87 vs Philadelphia   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-_cKG-xztk  

5 steals  3 blocks  1 possible steal   (6 steals-4 blocks)

steal 16:29

steal  17:22

steal  17:48 

possible steal 31:37 

deflection sets up turnover 32:34

steal  37:45

steal  38:40

block  44:12

block  50:06 

block 1:23:16 block called by announcer, not shown on screen.  Replay of the block shown at 1:23:41

12/17/87 vs Cleveland    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o40ZiQ8Ab4&t=1s  

2 steals 1 block  1 possible block  (4 steals - 1 block)

block 34:20

35:50  Paxson's steal Jordan gets a hand on it 

possible block, not likely 37:19

steal 45:11 

steal 47:38

4/24/88 vs Boston    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hvbEAPmsZg  

1 steal  1 block   (1 steal-1 block)

block  13:03

steal  38:11

12/22/87  vs Dallas  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAmDezAwitQ 

2 steals  2  blocks  2 possible blocks  (4 steals - 2 blocks)   

possible block  13:23  

possible block  15:40 

block  20:20

steal  31:16

block  55:27

steal  1:01:23

3/10/88 vs Los Angeles    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=_2GMwfS8qC8  

3 steals  1 possible block  (3 steals - 1 block)

steal  8:08

steal  42:00

possible block  55:34

steal  1:10:00

3/18/88 vs Boston   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf8LprvGLjo   

3 steals  2 possible steals  1 block   (5 steals - 1 block )

steal  15:13

steal  16:31

block  23:09

possible steal  47:10  

steal  1:03:40

possible steal 1:08:02

Jordan got credit for 25 steals, and 13 blocks not counting the Houston game, and in those I counted 19 steals, 11 blocks, with 3 possible steals, and 4 possible blocks 

Counting the game against Houston he got credit for 30 steals,  and 18 blocks.  I gave him credit for  24 steals,  16 blocks, with 3 possible steals,  5 possible blocks, 1 slight deflection that caused a steal, and one steal that was clearly John Paxson's but Jordan did get a hand on it.

                                Steals     Blocks

Box Score                 30          18

Counted by me         24          16

Other Possible           3           5

Others Involved in     2           0

Max. Counted          29          21

Blocks are tough thing to catch sometimes when watching lower quality video, so Jordan is close enough in blocks, especially when you count those other plays in which I couldn't tell if he blocked a shot.  He probably got proper credit for blocks.  Steals is a subjective thing. When 1 player makes the deflection, and someone else gets the ball, who gets the steal?  According to what I saw, and read if the deflection is a controlled deflection away from the opposing player, and/or to a teammate, then the player that makes the deflection should get credit for the steal.  It's still confusing as to what exactly makes a controlled deflection.  What if the deflection isn't controlled but teammates who gets the ball does little outside of just catching it?  Add that to confusion over whether so swats are strips, or blocks, and it makes for a tough stat to keep track of.    That was the case in the Mavericks game.  I gave Jordan credit for 2 steals, and 2 blocks, with two possible blocks.  If I were to assume those possible blocks were blocks, that makes for 2 steals, and 4 blocks, but the box score has Jordan with 4 steals, and 2 blocks.  I think that a couple of those plays that I gave Jordan blocks on were counted as steals.  I gave Jordan credit for 80% of the steals he got credit for, with 5 additional plays, but I don't expect to catch everything.  If anything, Jordan could've been given some bias when it came to steals in played a role in, whether he, or a teammate, made the deflection.  I don't believe that Jordan was routinely given credit for steals on turnovers such as shot clock violations of the balls out of bounds off of a defender.  8 out 41 games is a small sample size.  I consider this study unfinished.

For further confusion

Steals - NBA.com: Jr. NBA

Steal, credited to defender who deflects the ball away from opponent | NBA Video Rulebook

Jordan vs Havlicek

The Michael Jordan-John Havlicek comparison has been spreading quickly on social media. The meme list their career finals record, season played, points, rebounds, and assists. I guess the point being that if Jordan's numbers aren't that much greater than this white guy, who isn't thought to be in the same league as him, then that is a knock on his greatness. Havlicek had a 8-0 Finals record, 16 seasons played 26395 points, 8044 rebounds, and 6114 assists. Jordan had a 6-0 Finals record, 15 seasons played 32292 points, 6672 rebounds, and 5633 assists. There are numerous problems with this comparison. For one Havlicek was a great player, though he wasn't on Jordan's level. Another issue is the fact that these numbers are listed out of context. Havlicek played as part of a dynasty in Boston. The Celtics won 4 straight championships, and 5 out of the prior 6 before he joined them. Bill Russell was the key to those teams. While Havlicek won two without Russell, they came with another great big man, in Dave Cowens, and the team didn't have nearly the same dominance after Russell retired. Havlicek may have been the best player on 1 of the 8 championship teams he played on, and you could argue none. Jordan, on the other hand, joined a team that was a bad team before he joined. While he got help later on, he was clearly the best player on all 6 of his teams' championship seasons. Jordan played 1072 games to Havlicek's 1270, and per game averages are clearly on the side of Jordan. Jordan also played only the last 17 games of the 1994-95 season as he was retired for most of the season, so the 15 seasons is deceiving. Then there are the individual numbers, which don't look at the differences in the eras, and teams they played for. Havlicek played in an era of much faster paces, and lower efficiency. I estimate that Havlicek had a career pace of 116.0 possessions per 48, compared to only 93.6 for Jordan. What would Havlicek's numbers look like if I adjusted for pace, and league per 100 possession averages? I've done some math to come up with estimates of his numbers if his team played at the same pace as Jordan's, in a league with the same per 100 possessions averages for points, rebounds, and assists.  This isn't factoring in games played or minutes played, or even seasons played.  Here's the comparison

                        Havlicek Adj.          Jordan 

Points               23504                      32292

Rebounds          6144                        6672

Assists              5960                        5633

When factoring in games played, or minutes played the adjusted stats are clearly in Jordan's favor.  The stats are already in his favor, when comparing his stats to Havlicek's career numbers, but the adjusted numbers make the comparison seem ridiculous.  

Some other things to factor in  

Havlicek was slightly below league average in true shooting percentage, at 49.2%, compared to the league average of 49.8%.  Jordan at 56.9% was above his league average of 53.4%.  

Basketball Reference only has rebound percent starting with Havlicek's 9th season, and his percentage is 7.4 for the last 8 seasons of his career.  Jordan's averages at the end of his career are consistent with his career rebound percentage of 9.4.  In his last 8 seasons his rebound % was 9.5.  Assists % isn't a good stat to compare, as standards for what was an assist were tougher in Havlicek's career.     Steals and blocks were only counted in Havlicek's last 5 seasons, when he was past his prime.  For what it's worth Jordan in his last 5 season was better at getting steals, and blocks than Havlicek in his last 5 seasons.

Jordan vs Pippen. Who Was Better During Bulls' Title Runs

There are some stupid arguments being made throughout social in the Jordan/Lebron debate, and facebook's algorythm must've figured that I really like those arguments, because it shows me a bunch of them.  There is one that shows the points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks for Michael Jordan, and Scottie Pippen for the Bulls' playoff runs for their championship seasons.  The simplistic way of looking at things might lead some to believe that Scottie Pippen was close to as good as Michael Jordan, since he got more rebounds, assists, steals and blocks, while only trailing in points , though scored a lot more points in those runs.  Here's a better statistical look at how they compared in those championship years, and while Pippen's advantages tend to be small, Jordan's advantages are much more significant. The PER, and BPM numbers are accurate estimates, based on their PER, and BPM for each playoff run, and weighing them based on minutes played.

                             

                               FG-FGA    FT-FTA     3p-3pa   Pts       Oreb-Dreb-Reb  Ast  Stl   Blk  To   PF    Min  

Michael Jordan    1395-2916  880-1064   106-314 3776     193-526-719    622   218  91  305  315  4801

Scottie Pippen      809-1824    482-672     100-355  2200    280-628-908    642  244  101 343 358  4723

Jordan     Pippen

fg%    47.8          44.4

ft%     82.7          71.7

3p%   33.8          28..2

efg%  49.7          47.1

ts%    55.8          51.9

ppg    32.6          19.0 

rpg    6.2             7.8

apg    5.4             5.5      

spg    1.9             2.1

bpg    0.8             0.9

topg   2.6             3.0

to%    8.3             13.9

PER  28.4           19.3           

BPM 10.8           5.6

WS    26.7            15.6

ws/48 .267           .159

PER, BPM, and WS per 48 all give Jordan significant advantages over Pippen, and seem to verify what you should have already known.  While Scottie Pippen was a great player, he wasn't on the level of Michael Jordan.   Don't believe me?  You can go basketball reference and do the math for yourself

Deion Sanders Leaves Jackson State For Colorado: What Does This Mean

     Deion Sanders becoming the coach of Colorado has made huge news, and caused some debate on whether he was a sellout or not.  That's what I hear anyway, because it seems to me like most people think it was a good move for him.

    Sanders did make the right move.  Going to Colorado has given him a huge salary, as he signed a deal with a base salary of 29.5 million over five years, plus incentives.  His 5.9 million per year in base salary is a lot more than the 300,000 he was getting at Jackson State.  Colorado also gives Deion a much higher ceiling in terms what can happen in the best case scenario.  For him to see how far he could go in coaching, he had to leave to coach at a higher level.  Jackson State was simply too small for someone as big as Coach Prime.  That is part of why this a bad sign for HBCUs, and those that were hoping that this would lead to some revolution in college football.  Deion didn't just leave for a power five school, but he left for one without a recent history of winning.  Colorado has been really bad since the mid 2000s, and Sanders will face an uphill climb trying to turn it around.  A team that was 1-11 last season. Still even a low level Power Five school like Colorado is well ahead of the best HBCU.    How could some people expect Deion to stick around out of some loyalty to the race, when Colorado gave him a much better opportunity for a lot more money?  How can that be expected of other coaches, and if how are HBCUs going to be at a similar level to the top college football teams.  Part of the backlash from Sanders leaving is JSU, are from people who had unrealistic expectations.  Most people knew he was going to leave for a Power Five school, and he wasn't going to stay at Jackson State for the long term.

    As far as his chances of success, I'm not that sure of that.  While at Jackson State Deion a huge advantage in recruiting.  He made Jackson State a go to spot, as he brough extra attention, and some of his celebrity friends to see the team.  He made Jackson State an attractive option for many black football players, and he was going against a bunch of schools, but most fans don't care too much about.  He won't have that same edge in the Pac 12, where there are other programs who will offer players a great opportunity to set themselves up for the next level. How successful can Sanders be without that huge recruiting edge?

Wrestlemania 38 Attendance

The WWE lies about their Wrestlemania attendance every year.  Before the COVID period they would announced a huge attendance number to break the arena  record.  The WWE Key Performane Indicators (KPI) gives this away every year.  While some think that their KPI only shows paid attendance averages, it's interesting that the KPI, itself, doesn't say paid attendance.  The WWE's second quarter this year had 55 shows with an average attendance of 6800.  Then there is the 4900 average for the shows other than Wrestlemania, at least that's what I think that is supposed to be.  Going off those numbers, not knowing what the actual average is, that would mean a total of 374000 fans for the 55 shows, and 259700 if you exclude the two nights of Wrestlemania.  That would mean a total of 114300 for the two nights of Wrestlemania, and an average of 57150.  The WWE announced 77899 for the first night, and 78453 for the second.  Based on the KPI these numbers aren't just a little off.  They are way off.   The 156352 total for the announced attendance is well above the 114300 estimate from the KPI.  In 2020 Wrestlemania took place at the WWE Performance Center.  Last year only a small portions of the seats in Raymond James Stadium were available.  Since they could get closer to capacity with this year's mania, they may have badly wanted to put out a huge number.  If I assume that the averages listed in the KPI are to the nearest thousand if the 6800 was rounded down from close to 6850, and the 4900 was round up from 4850, it would still mean less than 120000 fans totals fans, and an average of a little under 60000.   This past Wrestlemania took place at AT&T Stadium, which was home of the previous biggest lie for Wrestlemania attendance.  The WWE claimed an audience of 101763 for Wrestlemania 32, but their KPI for that year suggest an actual attendance of about 79800.  79800 is a lot closer to the 80709, that the Arlington Police said attended that Wrestlemania, than the WWE's number.  I don't know how much the mainstream respects the WWE's numbers, because the WWE values what they think.  You can have a bunch of people using legit information, and knowing that the WWE lies about their attendance, but if ESPN, and other outlets keep treating their numbers as legit, they may mean a lot to their public image.

Source   https://corporate.wwe.com/~/media/Files/W/WWE/press-releases/2022/q2-2022-kpi.pdf

Stupid Backlash Aimed At Ricky Gervais

 A few days ago, I read something that said Ricky Gervais made transphobic jokes.  I was thinking about what did he say?  We it really transphobic?  We've seen Dave Chappelle called transphobic, and homophobic for making jokes that were neither.  I went and watched Gervais' new comedy special, Super Nature, on Netflix.  It was very funny, like his others, and those supposed transphobic jokes, weren't at all transphobic.  Compared to Dave Chappelle's jokes, which as I said weren't transphobic, Ricky's jokes were kind.  Unlike Chappelle he seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt and referred to trans women, as being women.  This despite the fact that you can't change your biological sex.  He said nothing mean spirited.  He made a point about the changing of standards, and how that could affect you reputation years from now.  I guess not enough Social Justice Warriors, have faced that circumstance for them to learn about it.  A lot of these Social Justice Warriors are just assholes, using their causes to be assholes for what they feel are the right causes.  

  How far will things go?  What little jokes will be considered transphobic next?  What about those people calling Gervais transphobic?  Why isn't there pressure on them to actually prove that his jokes were transphobic?  If those jokes were as bad as the critics pretend it was, it shouldn't be that difficult to explain.   You can be for trans rights, and still disagree with certain things that are generally accepted in the movement.   In the current time, so many people seem to take that approach.  You disagree on a little something, and you are the enemy.  It's going on across to board in both political parties, especially the Democrats now, and many in other movements.  

The Gervais backlash hasn't been great thus far.  Not as bad as the backlash Dave Chappelle got, but the fact that he's getting this backlash at all, for the jokes he made is a bit scarry.  There may be nothing short of bowing down, or shutting up, that would be good enough to satisfy many of these SJWs.  Many of them would have it no other way.

When The Hitman Met Sugar Ray: Looking At The Scoring Of The Bout

You might know the story.  Thomas Hearns was "well ahead" of Sugar Ray Leonard, when Leonard came back to score a TKO in the 14th round to win their welterweight unification in 1981.  That was way back when only 2 santioning bodies had recognized world titles.  The WBA, and the WBC.  Most people had Hearns ahead in the fight by decent margins going into the 14th round.  After the fight was over Don Dunphy briefly protested the stoppage, and said that Hearns was way ahead.  The judges had Hearns up by margins of 4, 3, and 2 points.

 There was also a strong minority that saw the fight the other way.  If you watch the HBO broadcast they describe the fight as being a close fight in the 12th round, and that's the round before Leonard scored his  knockdown.  I read an article from Sports Illustrated written just after the fight which the author, Pat Putman thought that Leonard was ahead.  He criticized the judges scoring, criticizing them for giving Leonard the same 1 point edges in the 6th, and 7th that they gave Hearns in the first two rounds, in which neither was landing much.  The commentator for the British broadcast of the fight also thought the Leonard was ahead.  So let's dig into the scoring controversy.

The big controversy from the fight's scoring is that none of the judges gave Leonard a two point round in either the 6th, or the 7th round.  I gave Leonard a 2 point edge in the 7th because he dominated Hearns from beginnng to end in that round.  The 6th is a tougher argument for a 2 point round since Hearns was doing okay before he was clocked with a little more than a minute left.   The 10 point must scoring is far from perfect, and lack of decimal points leaves you with less scoring options.  No way that Hearns should've had the same 2 point edge in the first couple rounds that Ray got for the 6th, and 7th combined.  Imagine if the fight wasn't stopped, and Leonard dominated the 14th, and 15th without getting a two point round in either.  Hearns would've won a majority decision, and people would've lost their minds.  The scoring controversy would've been even greater, but considering what little Hearns had left in the 14th, he was going to the canvas if the ref didn't stop it

If you look at the fight as a whole it's obvious to me that Ray got the better of Tommy.  He won the big rounds.  He had him hurt bad in the 6th, and 7th,  knocked Hearns down in the 13th, finished him off in the 14th.  Hearns didn't have any rounds in which he was that dominant.  Despite his punching power, the most that Hearns appeared  to have Leonard hurt was when he caused him to slightly buckle in the 12th.  Still you don't score boxing by looking at the whole fight.  It is scored on a round by round basis, and despite the fact that Ray clearly hurt Hearns more over the course of the fight, Hearns won more rounds.  Some give him all of the first five rounds, and out of those 5 Leonard's best case for winning a round was the 3rd.  Outside of the 4th where Hearns punished Leonard at the end of the round, he wasn't winning the rounds by much, but he was winning them.  Leonard came on big in the 6th, and 7th, and though his momentum slowed he the 8th, he did enough to clearly win the round in my book.  Rounds 9-12 saw Hearns regain his footing.  Outside of Leonard hurting Hearns late in the 10th.  Hearns was getting the better of Ray.  If you give Hearns the first five rounds, and then round 9-12, it's tough to argue that he wasn't ahead by a good distance.  

I had once scored the fight and had Hearns up 124-121 going into the 14th.  I gave Hearns the first five rounds, then gave Leonard rounds 6-8, with 7 being a two point round, gave Hearns 9-12, and Leonard 13, and 14, with a two point round for knockdown round in the 13th.  After thinking about it I switched around my scoring of the 3rd round, and gave it to Leonard, because Leonard landed the cleaner, harder punches.  That would change the score to 123-122 Hearns, and with Leonard dominating the 14th then the idea of Hearns being way ahead is out of the question based on how I scored it.  You could also make the argument for the 6th being a two point round, and possibly the 13th being a 3 point round.  Even with the original 3 point margin Hearns wouldn't have had it wrapped up if he stayed up.  Leonard could've easily been on his way to, at least, a two point in the 14th, and who knows how bad the 15th could've been had Hearns got there.  

ON TOP OF THE WORLD - Sports Illustrated Vault | SI.com  The SI article while you can still read it for free

Cancel Culture vs Dave Chappelle

 Dave Chappelle has been in the news lately.  His Netflix special "The Closer" has  gotten a lot of attention from the gay, and transgender communities.  There have been talks of cancelling Chappelle, and there was walkout of Netflix employees, but they aren't going to be effective at canceling Dave Chappelle.  

Chapelle has a couple serious protections against being canceled.  For one he's black.  He's also a black comedian that can be seen as pro black.  A lot of his jokes have been about white people, or about what he feels are issues of racism against black people.  The majority of the black community is more than willing to stand with Chapelle, and in order to effectively "cancel" him you got to get the black community to turn against him.  Even if Netflix let go of him, which they haven't indicated they are going to do, he can still make a pretty good living off of his popularity in the black community.  Not to mention his popularity with people of other races.  He walked away from a 50 million dollar deal with Comedy Central, and was able to comeback, and build up momentum before  he even got his Netflix deal.  Having the deal certainly helps but he can do quite well without it.  If anything people might feel that it backs the opinion that LGBT people are more protected than black people. 

Also because Chappelle is a relatively left leaning popular black comedian some of those same buzzwords that seem to be so effective when used against white people, especially heterosexual white males, aren't going to be nearly as effective.  I read a comment from some idiot on twitter who reacted to Jon Stewart defending Chappelle, by saying that they expect that from a cisgendered white male.  They also has numerous positive responses.   Imagine a black comedian defending Chapelle, and someone who isn't black saying that they expect that from a cisgendered black male.   You can't just use a bunch of buzzwords to get the black community to turn against Dave Chappelle, or to get those supporting Chappelle to shut up. It just isn't going to work.  Dababy hasn't even been cancelled.  Not with the black community anyway, and he said things that were much more homophobic than what Dave Chappelle got in trouble for.  

I had already watched all of his last two specials on Netflix, and took the time to watch is 2017 special to see what else he may said that offended people.  Some of this jokes about trans people would be enough to disgust most homophobes such as saying that Cat. Jenner should spread the lips for a nude pic for Sports Illustrated.   Stick, and Stones was the comedy special in which it got really big, but I don't remember any mean spirited transphobic jokes.  The Closer takes on a more serious tone, and that's part of the reason I don't like it as much as Sticks, and Stones.  He did make a false equivialance in bring up homicide involving DaBaby because that was self defense, and the media has certainly shown that they care greatly about the deaths of black men, when they are killed by people who aren't black.    He did say he was TERF, but he also said that he was a feminist, which he obviously isn't.  He was just poking fun at the dictionary definition of a feminist.  He said gender is real, which it is btw.  Why can't someone recognize the reality of gender, and still agree with someone's right to change up their body to look like a member of the opposite sex.  One of the big problems with social justice is that it doesn't leave much room for middle ground.  If you are on their side then you need to go all the way.  Overall it stoked the fires even more than the previous specials, and it was supposed to.  This was his chance to address to controversy, and I didn't expect him to back down.

 Black people in general don't really like the gay movement.  Yes there are some of us who support, but for the most part that is not the case.  No other race is more against it than black people.  Among no other race is being gay, or trans as controversial as it is in the black race.  To get Chappelle cancelled you've got to convince black people that what he said, which wasn't even homophobic, is that bad to turn against him.  That isn't going to happen.

Should We Pretend Flo Jo Wasn't On Steroids? Why?

 Claire Lehmann caused a stir on black twitter by saying that Shacarri Richardson, and Florence Griffith Joyner used steroids.  She used strong hair, and nails as evidence, and a little more than that with Richardson's, association with former steroid user Dennis Mitchell.  The nail, and hair argument are really strange.  Richardsons nails are probably fake, and her hair definently is.  

When it comes to Richardson there isn't great evidence of her steroid use.  She could be on steroids.  She an elite runner, and her 10.72 is one of the fastest 100 meters ever for a woman.  Still what she has done could be done naturally.  When it comes to Flo Jo, though, the evidence of her steroid use has been evident, and generally accepted among track, and field fans for years.

Before 1988 Griffith Joyner was a good runner, but not special.  She was better in the 200 than the 100, and even won a silver medal in the 200 meters in the 1984 Olympics.  In the 100 she consistently ran around 11 seconds when she was at her best, and she had a career best of 10.96 going into 1988.  In the 200 meters she was usually running around 22 seconds at her best.  

Things changed in 1988.  Her look changed.  Take a look at her before 1987, and you will see a woman that looked very feminine compared to how she looked in 1988, or even late 87'.  By 88' she gained quite a bit of muscle, she got more ripped.  Gone was the more natural looking physique that she had at her first Olympics.  Flo Jo had become ripped.  You could see the drastic difference in her legs, and arms.  She also got some noticable facial hair.  Calling her facial hair a five o'clock shadow might be a bit of an exaggeration, but it was a noticable amount of hair that she struggled to cover with makeup.  Her facial structure also changed, as her jaw line became sharper, and more pronounced.  To go along with that, her voice got deeper.

Then there are the changes to her performance.  Going into the year her best time in the 200 was 21.96 from late 1987 in World Championships.  Before 1987 her best time was 22.04.  She beat that time 5 times in 1988.  In the Olympic semifinals she broke the world record by running a 21.56, and in the Olympic finals she destroyed that record with a 21.34.  Before her the record belonged the Heiki Dreshsler, an East German Woman, that admitted to using steroids, though she said that she didn't do it knowingly.  Even with East German women, notorious for steroid use, weren't close to what Flo Jo was.  

Her biggest advancement was in the 100 meters.  Like in the 200 meters she became unstoppable.   Her world record of 10.49 had a controversial wind reading, and it's accepted that it was windy, and that 0.0 m/s(meter per second) wind  reading for the race was a malfunction.    Even when you consider that, her 10.49 was still very impressive.   Going into the year her best time was 10.96, and adjusting for wind, and altitude her best race was 11.06 into a nice headwind, which adjusted equal 10.93.  In 1988 she beat that out 8 times.  Those races include the controversial 10.49 at the Olympics trials, which if I estimate a 5.2 m/s wind like the wind reading for the 9.78 that Carl Lewis ran the same day, still comes out the an adjusted 10.72.  3 of her other wind aided races were also better, adjusting for wind, than her previous best entering the year.  Those are a 10.60 at those same trials with a 3.2 m/s tailwind, a 10.70 in the Olympic semifinals with a 2.6 tailwind, and Olympic winning 10.54 with a 3.0 m/s tailwind.  She had 4 wind legal times which were more impressive than the best she previously did, and 3 that were clearly better.  There was the 10.89 she ran in San Diego, a 10.70 in the semifinals of the Olympics trials,  her "real world record" of 10.61 in the finals of the trials, and a 10.62 in the Olympics quarterfinals.  That means that in 8 of the 12 races she had in 100 that year, she was better adjusting for wind, and altitude, than she ever was before.  It's similar in the 200 meters.  It wasn't just that she was better than she was before, it was how much better she was, and how consistenly she was better.  This wasn't a one race aberation.  She went undefeated in both the 100, and 200 meters in 1988.  Now there are difference adjustments made for wind and altitude, and my numbers come from here Wind/Altitude correction in the 100m sprint (lmu.build).  You can get slightly different numbers from here Wind Calculator (maximmoinat.github.io).  It's just a wind calculator but since neither her best races before, or any of her 1988 races were run at high altitude, that not an issue.  Whatever the data, she was obviously a much better runner in 1988 than she was prior.

Joyner went through drastic changes in her physcial appearance, and her perfomance in 1988.  This happened in her late 20's, as she was 28, so this isn't some young athlete going through natural maturation.  Sprinters aren't supposed to get drastically better at that age.  The timing of her retirement was also suspicious.  After Ben Johnson's positive test for steroids in 88', there was a lot of attention arounds steroids in Track, and Field, and her abrupt retirement lead some to believe that she was avoiding more stringent test.  

Her death in 1997, which was caused by an epelictic seizure, doesn't need to be factored in a evidence.  The evidence from her change in look, and performance from 1988 are strong enough indicators.

Flo Jo's IAAF profile, where you can see all of her career results

Florence GRIFFITH-JOYNER | Profile (worldathletics.org)

                                                           

                                                      \

This Shit Is Crazy

 

I don't watch a bunch of basketball now.  At least not the current product.  Maybe it's advancedbeyond me.  I spend a good amount of time watching old sports games on youtube.  Right after the death of George Floyd, television became really annoying.  You just couldn't avoid the BLMpropoganda.  This made me less likley to watch basketball, though I do watch so important games.  Now in March of 2021, things have calmed down, but not enough.  I watchted much of  the NBA All Star Game, and, man, is the Social Justice shit heavy.  They needed to tell us about the money going to HBCU's.  They had students from Clark University singing the Black NationalAnthem, which was probably called the Negro National Anthem when it was made.  There was pandering during the game, and then the damn commercials.  They just kept it going, to the point that it became really agitating.  A watch some of the game on mute.   Back in the day the NBA on NBC would would announce that money would be sent to the United Negro College Fund in the name of the player  of the game.  ESPN has been a Sports, and Social Justice Network, going back to at least the 90's, so this shit isn't new, but it's just crazy now.  They don't give you a break.  It's like they believe it's their God given mission to throw this shit in your face, and force you to accept it. 

 

            

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












+