How can you tell how selfish a basketball player is? In the past I would think of a player, who took his fair share of shots, without many assists. Russell Westbrook has me thinking about things differently in the past 3 seasons. It is true that a person can get assists for selfish reasons. Sure assists are seen as a selfless thing to do, but what if the guy getting the assists is also taking a bunch of shots. A player like that effectively takes his teammates out of games. They have to sit around waiting for him to do something, either pass the ball to them, or create the shot for himself. A couple seasons ago it seemed like Westbrook became addicted to this, do everything style, of play. Kevin Durant missed 55 games that season, and Westbrook took over dominating the basketball. Even when Durant came back last season, Westbrook still played the same way to a lesser extent. With Durant gone to Golden State this season Westbrook is having his way in OKC. I can't help but think that Westbrook is a little happy that Durant is gone, and the team is his. I came up with a statistics of my own. Okay it's really just a combination of other statistics that can be found on basketball reference. One of those stats that I combined is Usage%. Usage% is an estimate of the number of possessions a player ends for his team when he is on the floor. Usage% doesn't factor in assists, it factors in free throw attempts, field goal attempts, and turnovers. A player like Magic Johnson didn't have high usage rates throughout his career, but he obviously played a big role in the Lakers offense when he played. So I decided to combine Usage% with assists per 100 possessions. I'll just take the numbers given by basketball reference, which is rounded to the nearest tenth. This doesn't count instances in which a player could've gotten an assist, but someone missed a shot, but since they don't keep track of that, this will have to do. I looked at Westbrook stats the past three seasons (stats this season are prior to January 5th game at Houston), and compared it to seasons from other great players
Name Season Usage% Ast Per 100 Total
Russell Westbrook 2016-17 42.4 14.9 57.3
Russell Westbrook 2014-15 38.4 12.5 50.9
James Harden 2016-17 33.7 15.9 49.6
Russell Westbrook 2015-16 31.6 15.4 47.0
Dwyane Wade 2008-09 36.2 10.3 46.5
Lebron James 2009-10 33.5 11.5 46.0
Kobe Bryant 2005-06 38.7 5.8 44.5
Allen Iverson 2005-06 35.3 8.9 44.2
Michael Jordan 1986-87 38.3 5.8 44.1
Magic Johnson 1986-87 26.3 15.9 42.2
I believe that the seasons for everyone other than Westbrook is the season in which that total is highest of each person's career, but I'm not sure. Kobe had a higher total in a season when he only played six games, so I didn't count that. . Lebron James' total was 40.8 in 2011-12, his first championship season. It was 40.3 the season he won his second title, and 41.2 last season in which he won his third title. Jordan's totals for his championship seasons were 40.4, 39.7, 41.9, 39.3, 39.2, and 38.5 respectively. So is Westbrook playing the most selfish season in NBA history? Well it depends on what you consider selfish. Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50.4 ppg, and around 2 assists per game, so obviously he was focused on getting his points. Part of it comes down to whether Westbrook is getting a lot of assists for selfish reasons. You can debate that one. One thing that I am sure of is that Westbrook big numbers this seasons aren't the product of great efficiency. It's the product of him getting so many opportunities to make plays. He constantly has the ball. A 42.4 Usage% would be the record if he kept that at the end of the season. The highest Usage% usually goes a gunner. It goes to a player whose job is to score, and who doesn't dish out a bunch of assists. Westbrook is on his way to breaking the record, while at the same time constantly controlling the ball for his team in a way that Kobe, or Jordan, or even Lebron never have.
Thursday, January 5, 2017
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Wrestlemania 30 and 31 Attendance
WWE lies about their attendance figures. To people in the IWC (Internet Wrestling Community) this shouldn't come as a surprise. During Wrestlemania they announce an attendance number during the show, and then maybe a week or so later, you get the real attendance figure. Dave Meltzer is usually the guy depended on to give the true attendance figures. There has been some debate, though, about how accurate Meltzer is. Many want to believe the WWE"s attendance figures, or at the least want to believe that the real attendance is higher than the number Meltzer gives. I trust Meltzer, but I decided to look at some numbers, to see what I can figure about Wrestlemania attendance figures. Using the WWE's Key Performance Indicators (KPI), I will make some estimates on the WWE's attendance for Wrestlemania, or at least their paid attendance
First let's look at Wrestlemania 30. It happened during the second quarter of 2014. In that quarter there were 54 shows with a listed average of 7,000. Not counting Wrestlemania, the 53 other shows have an average attendance of about 6,000. Those numbers are obviously rounded, but if I were to use those numbers to estimate the attendance for Wrestlemania 30, it would be 60,000, but that could just be paid attendance. Still the numbers are rounded. Let's say they are rounding to the nearest hundred. a 7000 average can represent an average just under 7050, or as low as 6950. The 6000 average could represent a number just under 6050, or as low as 5950. I wanted to come up with high, and low estimates. I did the same for my Wrestlemania 31 estimates
Quarter Q. Avg/shows Avg. w/o mania/shows Estimate High Est. Low
Wrestlemania 30 2014Q2 7000/54 6,000/53 60,000 65,349 54,651
Wrestlemania 31 2015Q1 7400/73 6,700/72 57,800 65,049 50,551
The announced attendance for Wrestlemania 30 was 75,167, but the real attendance was around 65,000. If you look at my estimate as representing paid attendance, that 65,000 number makes sense. In terms of Wrestlemania 31, announced attendance was 76,976, real attendance was around 67,000. That 67,000 number makes a lot more sense than the 76,976 number when you look at my estimates based on the WWE's own data.
WWE KPI
http://corporate.wwe.com/~/media/Files/W/WWE/documents/events/revised-kpi-measures-final.pdf
First let's look at Wrestlemania 30. It happened during the second quarter of 2014. In that quarter there were 54 shows with a listed average of 7,000. Not counting Wrestlemania, the 53 other shows have an average attendance of about 6,000. Those numbers are obviously rounded, but if I were to use those numbers to estimate the attendance for Wrestlemania 30, it would be 60,000, but that could just be paid attendance. Still the numbers are rounded. Let's say they are rounding to the nearest hundred. a 7000 average can represent an average just under 7050, or as low as 6950. The 6000 average could represent a number just under 6050, or as low as 5950. I wanted to come up with high, and low estimates. I did the same for my Wrestlemania 31 estimates
Quarter Q. Avg/shows Avg. w/o mania/shows Estimate High Est. Low
Wrestlemania 30 2014Q2 7000/54 6,000/53 60,000 65,349 54,651
Wrestlemania 31 2015Q1 7400/73 6,700/72 57,800 65,049 50,551
The announced attendance for Wrestlemania 30 was 75,167, but the real attendance was around 65,000. If you look at my estimate as representing paid attendance, that 65,000 number makes sense. In terms of Wrestlemania 31, announced attendance was 76,976, real attendance was around 67,000. That 67,000 number makes a lot more sense than the 76,976 number when you look at my estimates based on the WWE's own data.
WWE KPI
http://corporate.wwe.com/~/media/Files/W/WWE/documents/events/revised-kpi-measures-final.pdf
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
KKK vs BLM
The Klu Klux Klan has an estimated 5,000 members. That's a lot less than the 20,000-50,000 estimate given for the Nation of Islam in 2007. People talk about the KKK, as if they are this powerful organization. It's like they use the past of the Klan to make their point of how bad white racism is. The current KKK, which is split into different independent branches, is a relic of what the group used to be. They aren't respected. The simple implication that a white person is a Klan member is a hugely derogatory thing to insinuate. They have trouble having marches without getting beaten up. Compare this to the racist Nation of Islam, which regularly has big events. Louis Farrakhan's Million Man March drew an estimated crowd of 837,000 in 1995. Just last year he led a "Justice or Else" event that drew a significant crowd, though I couldn't find an estimate on how many people were there. Imagine a known member of the KKK trying to throw some shit like that, in Washington D.C. just like Farrakhan's marches. They wouldn't get away with some shit like that. What political power does the Klan have?
Tomi Lahren got into an argument with Trevor Noah on The Daily Show. Her most controversial point was saying that Black Lives Matter was the new KKK. I can see why people think the comparison is stupid. BLM is portrayed in the mainstream as if it is some freedom fighting movement. Like that shit is just like the civil rights movement of the 60s. To take this group, and then compare them to a group with a reputatuion as bad as the Klan, could seem like a ridiculous comparison., but it isn't. BLM is a racist movement. The Black Lives Matter group is racist, just like the Klan. The difference is their race, and who they are racist against. Blacks being racist against whites is more acceptable than whites being racist against blacks. One problem this causes is that black racism isn't checked. Black people can say some racist shit about white people, without facing criticism. Not only that, but they can gain a reputation as being a conscious person. While the KKK has caused much harm over the past 150 or so years, recently BLM has been more of a problem. That's the reason so many people arguing against Lahren's comparison, go back to the distant past to tell us why it doesn't make sense. What about dealing with the recent years? What group presently is more of a danger. In terms of body count BLM has done more in this one calendar year, than the Klan has in years. They have real political power like the Klan used to have. They are more powerful, and more respected than the Klan, and guess what they are also more dangerous, and I'm not talking about the early 1900s. Fuck it, you can say the same thing about the Nation of Islam compared to the KKK. The Klan has fallen that hard. Look the KKK is a stupid, and racist group. It's a good thing to see their numbers dwindle, but Black Lives Matter is also racist, divisive, and are dangerous. They have a strong anti-police/anti-white theology that often goes unchecked. They shouldn't be respected the way they are.
References
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KUyc16Kow8&t=1658s
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/257808/profound-racism-black-lives-matter-john-perazzo
http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/default.html
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Barry Sanders
It's hard to say that someone is the consensus greatest running back of all time. Many old sports analyst think that Jim Brown is the best ever. He averaged 5.22 yards per carry, and an NFL record 104.34 yards per game. He did play in a weak era. At 230 lbs he was bigger than most of the linebackers, and many of the defensive linemen he played against. He also played in the weaker of 2 NFL divisions. That being the NFL east. If you were to have a poll on ESPN on who the greatest running back of all time is, I think that Barry Sanders would win, though it would be close between him and Walter Payton. No doubt, Barry Sanders' highlight reel is amazing. He juked, spinned, and embarrassed NFL defenders during his 10 year career. I wanted to take another look at his career.
One misconception is that he did what he did without much help. It is constantly done in comparisons between him and Emmitt Smith. The quality of Sanders' teammates is diminished in order to help the argument for his own greatness. The fact was that the lines he ran behind weren't terrible. It wasn't like he constantly had guys in the backfield as soon as he got the ball. I've looked at the highlights looking for full runs, and while it is not a good idea to measure the quality of an offensive line by a highlight reel, Barry often had a hole to run through. I noticed that he would hesitate when he got the ball, as if he were looking around for an opening. This was part of his style. He was a home run hitter, who was constantly looking to make the big play, and sometimes because of his incredible physical ability, he would make that play happen, and sometimes he would lose yards. It wasn't that he had a poor offensive line, it was his style of running. Detroit's offenses were a mixed bag during his career. Sometimes they were good, with their best year being 1995, sometimes they were bad, and sometimes they were around average. While Detroit had trouble finding a number 1 quarterback, Herman Moore was a really good receiver. I think Barry had an average group of players around him during his career.
Then there is the fact that he was a boom or bust running back. To look into that, I'll look to Football Outsiders, and their metrics. Two important statistics they have are DYAR (Defense Adjusted Yards Above Replacement), and DVOA (Defense Adjusted Volume of Attempt). I don't t know their full formula for getting DYAR, but they are seen as a dependable source. Their advanced metric statistics value consistency. Sure you get more credit for big runs, but it is not linear. The value for each yard is less past a certain point. In football when you get a first down, you start a whole new sets of downs, where you usually have to gain another 10 (unless it's goal to go). So it's important to be able to consistently move the ball. That is something that you can depend on to score points, more than depending on a big play. Let's look at a hypothetical situation. A team gets the ball at their own 20 yard line. Let's say the running back gains 20 yards on the first play, but then he loses 4 on the next play. His team throws the ball on the next two downs. They then punt. The back was successful in getting his team in better position to punt the ball, but that's about it. He had 2 carries for 16 yards, which is good for an 8 yard average, but his 4 yard loss helped kill the drive. While Sanders gained 15,269 yards in his career, he lost yards on a lot of carries. Now let's look at Barry's career in terms of DYAR. Despite winning 4 rushing titles in his career, he led the league in DYAR only one season. That was in 1990. That was the year he had the second lowest total for rushing yards in his career (1304). Though he did average over 5 yards per carry that season, and led the league in rushing. That season he had a 55% success rate. It is hard to explain success rate, but it is based on down and distance to go. Obviously a 3 yard gain on 3rd, and 10, isn't the same as one on a 3rd and 1. 55% is uncharacteristically high for Sanders. During his two biggest seasons, he finished 2nd in DYAR. In 1997 when he gained 2053 yards, he was behind Terrell Davis in DYAR, while Davis gained 1750. Even more surprising is that Emmitt Smith gained 1484 yards in 1994, and finished over 100 yards ahead of Barry Sanders who gained 1883 yards. I'm am going to look at Sanders DYAR, and DVOA, and Success Rate for each season, as well as where he ranked among running backs with at least 100 rush attempts.
Season DYAR Rank DVOA Rank Suc Rate Rank
1989 239 3 12.1% 5 50% 15
1990 330 1 21.7% 3 55% 6
1991 254 5 8.7% 15 55% 8
1992 93 19 0.3% 23 43% 35
1993 70 22 0.7% 20 44% 34
1994 348 2 18.5% 2 46% 19
1995 200 7 6.8% 12 44% 32
1996 380 2 22.7% 2 51% 10
1997 447 2 25.3% 2 46% 16
1998 15 29 -6.4% 28 39% 35
In 1998 Sanders had a negative DVOA, but a positive DYAR. Football Outsiders does give some extra credit to a back that carry the ball a lot. Now I want to compare him to Emmitt Smith in terms of basic running stats, and in DYAR. To make it an apples, apples comparison I want to compare Smith's first 10 seasons to Sanders' career
Attempts Yards Avg Rush TD DYAR
Barry Sanders 3062 15269 4.98 99 2376
Emmitt Smith 3243 13963 4.31 139 2900
Smith led the league in DYAR 4 seasons, which is the same number of seasons he led the league in rushing. He led in both for the 1992, 1993, and 1995 seasons. Smith led the league in rushing yards during 1991, and was 2nd in DYAR in 1991. He was second in the league in rushing yards, and 1st in DYAR for the 1994 season. Barry Sanders had the advantage in basic run stats. He ran for more yards over 10 seasons, and averaged almost 0.7 yards more per carry than Smith. Smith did score 40 more rushing touchdowns, and was the better short yardage runner. It's hard to factor in teammates and offense. The Cowboys offense was usually good during Smith's first 10 seasons, but that wasn't always the case. They peaked as an offense from 1992-95, but had mixed results in the other 6 seasons. It's hard to know how much his teammates contributed to Smith's success, or how much he contributed to the greatness of their offense when he was at this best. My feeling is that he contributed greatly to the team's offensive success during those years. He may have been the most important player on the team.
One misconception is that he did what he did without much help. It is constantly done in comparisons between him and Emmitt Smith. The quality of Sanders' teammates is diminished in order to help the argument for his own greatness. The fact was that the lines he ran behind weren't terrible. It wasn't like he constantly had guys in the backfield as soon as he got the ball. I've looked at the highlights looking for full runs, and while it is not a good idea to measure the quality of an offensive line by a highlight reel, Barry often had a hole to run through. I noticed that he would hesitate when he got the ball, as if he were looking around for an opening. This was part of his style. He was a home run hitter, who was constantly looking to make the big play, and sometimes because of his incredible physical ability, he would make that play happen, and sometimes he would lose yards. It wasn't that he had a poor offensive line, it was his style of running. Detroit's offenses were a mixed bag during his career. Sometimes they were good, with their best year being 1995, sometimes they were bad, and sometimes they were around average. While Detroit had trouble finding a number 1 quarterback, Herman Moore was a really good receiver. I think Barry had an average group of players around him during his career.
Then there is the fact that he was a boom or bust running back. To look into that, I'll look to Football Outsiders, and their metrics. Two important statistics they have are DYAR (Defense Adjusted Yards Above Replacement), and DVOA (Defense Adjusted Volume of Attempt). I don't t know their full formula for getting DYAR, but they are seen as a dependable source. Their advanced metric statistics value consistency. Sure you get more credit for big runs, but it is not linear. The value for each yard is less past a certain point. In football when you get a first down, you start a whole new sets of downs, where you usually have to gain another 10 (unless it's goal to go). So it's important to be able to consistently move the ball. That is something that you can depend on to score points, more than depending on a big play. Let's look at a hypothetical situation. A team gets the ball at their own 20 yard line. Let's say the running back gains 20 yards on the first play, but then he loses 4 on the next play. His team throws the ball on the next two downs. They then punt. The back was successful in getting his team in better position to punt the ball, but that's about it. He had 2 carries for 16 yards, which is good for an 8 yard average, but his 4 yard loss helped kill the drive. While Sanders gained 15,269 yards in his career, he lost yards on a lot of carries. Now let's look at Barry's career in terms of DYAR. Despite winning 4 rushing titles in his career, he led the league in DYAR only one season. That was in 1990. That was the year he had the second lowest total for rushing yards in his career (1304). Though he did average over 5 yards per carry that season, and led the league in rushing. That season he had a 55% success rate. It is hard to explain success rate, but it is based on down and distance to go. Obviously a 3 yard gain on 3rd, and 10, isn't the same as one on a 3rd and 1. 55% is uncharacteristically high for Sanders. During his two biggest seasons, he finished 2nd in DYAR. In 1997 when he gained 2053 yards, he was behind Terrell Davis in DYAR, while Davis gained 1750. Even more surprising is that Emmitt Smith gained 1484 yards in 1994, and finished over 100 yards ahead of Barry Sanders who gained 1883 yards. I'm am going to look at Sanders DYAR, and DVOA, and Success Rate for each season, as well as where he ranked among running backs with at least 100 rush attempts.
Season DYAR Rank DVOA Rank Suc Rate Rank
1989 239 3 12.1% 5 50% 15
1990 330 1 21.7% 3 55% 6
1991 254 5 8.7% 15 55% 8
1992 93 19 0.3% 23 43% 35
1993 70 22 0.7% 20 44% 34
1994 348 2 18.5% 2 46% 19
1995 200 7 6.8% 12 44% 32
1996 380 2 22.7% 2 51% 10
1997 447 2 25.3% 2 46% 16
1998 15 29 -6.4% 28 39% 35
In 1998 Sanders had a negative DVOA, but a positive DYAR. Football Outsiders does give some extra credit to a back that carry the ball a lot. Now I want to compare him to Emmitt Smith in terms of basic running stats, and in DYAR. To make it an apples, apples comparison I want to compare Smith's first 10 seasons to Sanders' career
Attempts Yards Avg Rush TD DYAR
Barry Sanders 3062 15269 4.98 99 2376
Emmitt Smith 3243 13963 4.31 139 2900
Smith led the league in DYAR 4 seasons, which is the same number of seasons he led the league in rushing. He led in both for the 1992, 1993, and 1995 seasons. Smith led the league in rushing yards during 1991, and was 2nd in DYAR in 1991. He was second in the league in rushing yards, and 1st in DYAR for the 1994 season. Barry Sanders had the advantage in basic run stats. He ran for more yards over 10 seasons, and averaged almost 0.7 yards more per carry than Smith. Smith did score 40 more rushing touchdowns, and was the better short yardage runner. It's hard to factor in teammates and offense. The Cowboys offense was usually good during Smith's first 10 seasons, but that wasn't always the case. They peaked as an offense from 1992-95, but had mixed results in the other 6 seasons. It's hard to know how much his teammates contributed to Smith's success, or how much he contributed to the greatness of their offense when he was at this best. My feeling is that he contributed greatly to the team's offensive success during those years. He may have been the most important player on the team.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Those Donald Trump Rape Rumors
Donald Trump is now President elect, and will take office in January. I was already researching this one before he won the election, and I, like many, was expecting him to lose.
A woman going by the name of Katie Johnson said that Donald Trump raped her when she was 13 years old. She filed a suit against Trump asking for 100 million dollars. She claimed that Trump and Jeffrey Epstein used her as a sex slave. Epstein was convicted, in 2008, for soliciting an underage prostitute. As election day got close, these charges gained some steam, through leftist talking about it on social media. It had a lot to do with the release of audio, in which Trump talked about grabbing women by the pussy. After that various women accused Trump of acts of sexual misconduct. When it came to Katie Johnson some seem to take the charges seriously and wondered why the mainstream media seemed to be avoiding the issue. One reason for them avoiding it might be that the charges were so obviously bogus from the beginning. The address on the court documents was that of an abandoned home. People in the neighborhood said that the home hadn't been occupied since a person living there had died The phone number given was disconnected, and had previously belonged to a dentist. That lawsuit was dismissed. Johnson then filed a second lawsuit against Trump for the same charge. The second time there were two eyewitnesses, but no one knew who either of them was. Both kept their identity secret. The first lawsuit contained accusations, and details that were not there in the second one. More importantly, there was no evidence that the rape had occurred.
There was more mystery surrounding this Katie Johnson. She would not show her face. She claimed that she was afraid of threats on her life. There was also someone going by the name Al Taylor. Taylor was helping Johnson out, and was shopping a tape of Johnson speaking about the charges. According to an article from The Guardian, Al Taylor is actually Norm Lubow. Lubow once worked on The Jerry Springer Show. He was accused of asking people on the show to stage fights (of course that show is fake), and from what I've read about him, he is on the far far left. As in the looney left. His shady past included his participation in a controversial documentary called Kurt and Courtney. In the documentary he appeared in a disguise. It is a documentary in which ridiculous claims are made that you can read about for yourself. The video that Taylor was shopping around had a woman claiming to be Katie Johnson giving her side of the story. Her face was blurred out. There was word of a status hearing coming up on December 16th. There was a press conference scheduled for Tuesday November 2nd, in which she supposedly would show up, but that press conference was cancelled. Shortly after that the charges were dropped.
So maybe I'll read some more post like the one I read from Chrissy Teigen, in which she said that Trump was going to trial those rap charges. If I do, I've got plenty info to use against someone saying something like that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914012/Troubled-woman-history-drug-use-claimed-assaulted-Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-party-age-13-FABRICATED-story.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3894806/Woman-alleged-raped-Donald-Trump-13-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-party-DROPS-case-casting-doubt-truth-claims.html
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow
Friday, November 4, 2016
Those For And Against Black Lives Matter
One thing that bothers people in the black lives matter movement is the saying "all lives matter". Seems like a nice little saying to combat the obvious racism of BLM, and Black Lives Matter is a racist movement. A movement of people who seem determined to make white people, and especially white men feel guilty as fuck. Yet they complain about people, not being racist, and saying all lives matter. Some will argue that they are simply saying that black lives matter too. They'll try to make the case like saying all lives matter is like saying all cancers matter to those who are concerned about breast cancer. It is not that way. One of the main reasons that it isn't that way is because of the racism of the Black Lives Matter movement. Several of the arguments made against the BLM movement make sense largely because of just that. For instance those who bring up black on black crime. Talking about black on black crime is more than a distraction, used by those who don't support BLM. It is a way of trying to expose what BLM is all about. What's the point in them causing a fuss over black people killing other black people, unless the black killer is a cop. They've got to make the white man feel guilty, and talk shit about the system.
The pattern of Black Lives Matter is to assume a police officer is guilty of murder before due process. How is that justice? Evidence supports the story of Darren Wilson. It was Michael Brown who instigated the altercation with him, and punched Wilson in his face. Brown tried to take Wilson's gun, and shoot him with it. Brown wasn't done either. The blood trail evidence backs up Wilson's account that Brown was moving towards him, right before he was killed. Yet, many believe that Wilson got away with murder. Many believe that other officers got away with murder, even when the evidence doesn't support it. It means so much to them to believe this. What about those who still believe Sandra Bland was murdered, when she committed suicide, and the evidence backs that up. When black people were all over social media arguing that she was dead in the mug shot, the arguments went to another level of stupid. These are the types of arguments made by people who really want to believe that those officers are guilty. Yet it is people like this who are being treated as if they are right. Like they somehow are fighting for justice, and against racism, when they are being racist themselves.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Are police less likely to kill black people: Some Numbers Crunching
So I'm on twitter earlier today, and I see a link to this http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/5/police-officers-more-hesitant-to-shoot-black-suspe/.
The study doesn't look into actual data on police killings. It's more of a look into the mentality of police officers. Still I wanted to do some numbers crunching. I wanted to look at some data. The FBI's statistics on arrest in 2015, and the Washington Post data on police killings from 2015, were two key pieces to the puzzle. I've read stories that mention that black men being more likely to be killed by police. While that is true when you adjust for population, it is deceiving. Police are more likely to shoot people they interact with, and more specifically criminals. You would have to adjust for crime, and more importantly violent crime.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/
Let me mention one important thing. The Washington Post counts Hispanic as a race, while the FBI data doesn't. Hispanics get added on to the population of other races, and most of them are white.
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
Let's go to the census data on the U.S. population in 2015. Going by that data 61.6% of the countries' population are non hispanic whites. Counting hispanics brings the white population up to 77.1%, so doing some math about 15.5% of the countries' population is white hispanics. Hispanics make up 17.6% of the population. So I can estimate that 88.1% of hispanics in this country are white. The census doesn't give data for how many black people in the country aren't hispanic. Total blacks in the country are 13.3% of the population. I'll instead use data from 2010 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html. This counts Hispanic separately from races. 12.2% of the country was non hispanic blacks in 2010. Counting black hispanics like the 2015 census link does, gives the black population for 2010 at 12.6%. The hispanic population in 2010 was 16.3%, meaning blacks made up just 2.45% of the hispanics in the United States in 2010. I'll use that estimate for 2015. Going by that data black hispanics would still make up about 0.4% of the population, and non hispanic blacks 12.9%. I'll estimate that there were 198 million non hispanic whites, 41.5 million non hispanic blacks here in 2015, and 25.4 million who weren't black, white, or hispanic. Those would be in the other category according to the Washington Post.
According to the Washington Post's data 495 whites were killed by police shooters in 2015, compared to 258 blacks, and 172 Hispanics. I wanted to guess what number of those Hispanics killed by police who would count as white according to the FBI. Time to go into some complex math. Based on census bureau statistics I estimated that there were 198 million non hispanics whites in the country. The 495 deaths equals ~0.23 per 100,000. 258 blacks being killed means 0.62 per 100,000. Just based on population non hispanics blacks were 2.7 times more likely to be killed than non hispanic whites. When it comes to others 38 deaths mean 0.15 per 100,000. That means blacks were around 4 times more likely than them to be killed by police Let's say the ratio is similar for white and hispanics, which they might not be. If I were to act as if white and black hispanics were killed by police at equal rates, it would actually project to more whites being killed relative to blacks, than if I do things the way I am. Without going over all of the math, I estimated the black hispanic population at 1.3 million, and the white hispanic population at 49.8 million. The closest I could get to the ratios was with 150 white hispanics, and 10 black hispanics, and 11 others. Those estimates would mean 608 whites, and 248 blacks, a ratio of 2.45/1. Does that fit arrest statistics?
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43
Whites were arrested 2.6 times as much as blacks, so that isn't great evidence of police bias against blacks, but lets look at violent crime. The ratio goes down to 1.65/1. That is very important. I am just going to guess that someone arrested for a violent crime is more likely to get into a confrontation with police, than some arrested for embezzlement. In terms of murders blacks committed more, and were arrested more. 4347 for blacks, and 3908 for whites were arrest for murder. The overall data doesn't give a clear picture of police bias against black people, but the argument that police are more careful with black people isn't some stupid idea. The numbers offer it some support. There is also the fact that black people are more likely to resist arrest.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/08/stefan_molyneux_lies_about_the_dangers_of_white_racism_do_a_massive_amount_of_damage_to_the_black_community.html
This article says blacks are 9.6 times more likely to resist arrest than whites. They may be adjusting for population, and not for police encounters, but blacks aren't close to 9.6 times more likely to be arrested than whites, and I don't think that number is just made up. Black people are more anti police than white people, so it makes sense that black people would be more likely to resist. If you factor that in, the argument that police are actually more likely to kill whites (adjusting for encounters with police), isn't that far fetched. Even without it, we have a picture that doesn't back up the narrative that police are racist against black people.
The study doesn't look into actual data on police killings. It's more of a look into the mentality of police officers. Still I wanted to do some numbers crunching. I wanted to look at some data. The FBI's statistics on arrest in 2015, and the Washington Post data on police killings from 2015, were two key pieces to the puzzle. I've read stories that mention that black men being more likely to be killed by police. While that is true when you adjust for population, it is deceiving. Police are more likely to shoot people they interact with, and more specifically criminals. You would have to adjust for crime, and more importantly violent crime.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/
Let me mention one important thing. The Washington Post counts Hispanic as a race, while the FBI data doesn't. Hispanics get added on to the population of other races, and most of them are white.
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
Let's go to the census data on the U.S. population in 2015. Going by that data 61.6% of the countries' population are non hispanic whites. Counting hispanics brings the white population up to 77.1%, so doing some math about 15.5% of the countries' population is white hispanics. Hispanics make up 17.6% of the population. So I can estimate that 88.1% of hispanics in this country are white. The census doesn't give data for how many black people in the country aren't hispanic. Total blacks in the country are 13.3% of the population. I'll instead use data from 2010 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html. This counts Hispanic separately from races. 12.2% of the country was non hispanic blacks in 2010. Counting black hispanics like the 2015 census link does, gives the black population for 2010 at 12.6%. The hispanic population in 2010 was 16.3%, meaning blacks made up just 2.45% of the hispanics in the United States in 2010. I'll use that estimate for 2015. Going by that data black hispanics would still make up about 0.4% of the population, and non hispanic blacks 12.9%. I'll estimate that there were 198 million non hispanic whites, 41.5 million non hispanic blacks here in 2015, and 25.4 million who weren't black, white, or hispanic. Those would be in the other category according to the Washington Post.
According to the Washington Post's data 495 whites were killed by police shooters in 2015, compared to 258 blacks, and 172 Hispanics. I wanted to guess what number of those Hispanics killed by police who would count as white according to the FBI. Time to go into some complex math. Based on census bureau statistics I estimated that there were 198 million non hispanics whites in the country. The 495 deaths equals ~0.23 per 100,000. 258 blacks being killed means 0.62 per 100,000. Just based on population non hispanics blacks were 2.7 times more likely to be killed than non hispanic whites. When it comes to others 38 deaths mean 0.15 per 100,000. That means blacks were around 4 times more likely than them to be killed by police Let's say the ratio is similar for white and hispanics, which they might not be. If I were to act as if white and black hispanics were killed by police at equal rates, it would actually project to more whites being killed relative to blacks, than if I do things the way I am. Without going over all of the math, I estimated the black hispanic population at 1.3 million, and the white hispanic population at 49.8 million. The closest I could get to the ratios was with 150 white hispanics, and 10 black hispanics, and 11 others. Those estimates would mean 608 whites, and 248 blacks, a ratio of 2.45/1. Does that fit arrest statistics?
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43
Whites were arrested 2.6 times as much as blacks, so that isn't great evidence of police bias against blacks, but lets look at violent crime. The ratio goes down to 1.65/1. That is very important. I am just going to guess that someone arrested for a violent crime is more likely to get into a confrontation with police, than some arrested for embezzlement. In terms of murders blacks committed more, and were arrested more. 4347 for blacks, and 3908 for whites were arrest for murder. The overall data doesn't give a clear picture of police bias against black people, but the argument that police are more careful with black people isn't some stupid idea. The numbers offer it some support. There is also the fact that black people are more likely to resist arrest.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/08/stefan_molyneux_lies_about_the_dangers_of_white_racism_do_a_massive_amount_of_damage_to_the_black_community.html
This article says blacks are 9.6 times more likely to resist arrest than whites. They may be adjusting for population, and not for police encounters, but blacks aren't close to 9.6 times more likely to be arrested than whites, and I don't think that number is just made up. Black people are more anti police than white people, so it makes sense that black people would be more likely to resist. If you factor that in, the argument that police are actually more likely to kill whites (adjusting for encounters with police), isn't that far fetched. Even without it, we have a picture that doesn't back up the narrative that police are racist against black people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)