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

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

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

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

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

Formula

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

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

3. Add totals from first two parts

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

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

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

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

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

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

NFL 100: Reaction To QB Picks

I found out today about the 10 quarterbacks selected for the NFL's 100th Anniversary All Time Team

Let's look at those 10

Tom Brady-Generally considered the greatest quarterback of all time. He's won
6 Super Bowls, he played great in most of those games, he has the individiual
numbers.  He's the winngest quarterback in league history, in both the regular
season and playoffs.  He took his team to 9 Super Bowls. Brady was a no brainer.

Joe Montana-Was the consensus greatest quarterbac of all time before Tom Brady.
Won 4 Super Bowls, and was one of the most efficient quarterbacks ever.  Was
also one of the greatest big game players.  In 4 Super Bowls he was 83 for
122 for 1128 yards with 11 touchdowns, and 0 interceptions.  Another no brainer

John Elway-Elway didn't have any single season that is one of the greatest in
NFL history.  He only threw for 4000 yards once, and that season, 1993, he barely
passed that mark.  The most touchdowns passes he threw in a season was 27.  Elway
just stuck around for a long time, and had a lot of really good seasons.  Still
his numbers by themselves aren't good enough to get him selected, but there are
other things to consider.  Elway didn't have very good wide receivers for most
of his career.  Then Denver got him some better talent at wide receiver, and
Shannon Sharpe emerged as a great tight end.  Elway put together a great six season run when he was 33-38 years old.  He took his team to 5 Super Bowls, and won the last two.

Peyton Manning-Another no brainer, and my choice for the greatest of all time.
Skip Bayless called him the greatest regular season quarterback of all time, and
while that was backhanded compliment, no quarterback has been more dominant, on
a season by season basis, than Manning.  He won a record 5 MVPs.  One of the
biggest criticims of him is that he choked it the big games, but his career
playoff passer rating isn't that far behind Tom Brady.  He also won two Super
Bowls.

Dan Marino-Was the all time leader in pass completions, attemps, yards, and
touchdowns when he retired.  His 1984 season is still one of the greatest seasons
for a player in league history.  He never won a Super Bowl, and that hurts his
legacy, but also didn't have a good running game, or a dominant defense to help him out.

Sammy Baugh-His numbers don't look that good by today's standards, but they were
astronomical for the time period.  Part of Baugh's legacy is what he did as a
punter, and defensive back. He played at a time before the specialist era, when
players usually played both offense, and defense.   That overall dominance had to
help make him a shoo-in for the team. 

Otto Graham-Had incredible efficiency for his era.  He led the league in passer rating 5 times,
and also led the league in passing 5 times(correction. he led the AAFC 3 times, and the NFL twice).  What stands out the most about him is that he led his team to the championship game in every season he played in, and won 5 of them (4 of those championship games, and titles were in the AAFC, not the NFL). It was obvious he would be selected.

Johnny Unitas-Was the consensus greatest quarterback of all time before
Joe Montana.  Was significantly more efficient than the league average, while
throwing the ball a lot for the era.  Led the Colts the 1958, and 1959 NFL
championships, and won Super Bowl V, with the Colts, though he didn't finish that
game.  Another no brainer.

Roger Stauback-The best quarterback of the 1970s.  Pro Football reference doesn't
show career Rate+, but if they did Staubach would have to be either at or near
the top all time. He served in the Navy before starting his pro football career,
so he didn't have the longevity, playing just 11 seasons.  Won two Super Bowls.
Was the #1 quarterback for 4 of the Cowboys' 5 teams that made the Super Bowl
in the 70's.

Brett Favre-Retired as the all time leader in completions, attempts, yards,
touchdowns, and interceptions.  Favre won one Super Bowl, and got to another one.
He played 303 consecutive games, which is the most in NFL history for a non kicker.
Favre won three consecutive league MVPs for the 1995-97 seasons.  He led the
league in passing yards twice, passing touchdowns 4 times, and on the negative
side led the league in interceptions 3 times.  Favre actually wasn't that bad
in terms of interceptions, when you factor in how much he passed the ball.

The 12 finalists who weren't selected for the team were  Bart Starr, Drew Brees, Aaron Rogers,

Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Joe Namath, Terry Bradshaw, Dan Fouts, Sid Luckman,

Bobby Layne, Norm Van Brocklin, and Fran Tarkenton.

Earlier today Dan Marino was trending on twitter.  I clicked, and the reason
was trending was because Marino was the last member of the team to be revealed there was some debate on whether he should've been picked ahead of Drew Brees.   It's tough to compare
quarterback from different eras, and one of the reasons is the increasing effectiveness of passers, and the way that teams pass the ball more often than in prior eras.  Both quarterbacks dominated in the eras in which they played in, and both played in pass happy offenses.  Brees has the career records for completions, passing yards, passing touchdowns, and completion percentage. When Marino retired he held all of those records except completion percentage.  While Brees didn't have any year in which he stood out from the pack like Marino did in 1984, he had a steady run of great seasons.  Marino had
several other great seasons, but 1984 was clearly his best.  Marino's Rate+ was 141 that season.  His next two best seasons were abbreviated.  In his rookie year he started just 9 games, and only threw 296 passes.  In 1993 Marino got injured in his team's 5th game, and only threw 150 passes.  His 4th best season in the category was 1986 with a Rate+ of 124.  Drew Brees has 5 seasons over 130,
and that is counting this season which finishes tomorrow.  The voting for the team was done following last season, and he had 4 of those seasons at the time.  Brees has led the league in passing yards 7 times, and passing touchdowns 3 times.  Marino led the league in passing yards 5 times, and touchdown 3 times.  Brees does have one Super Bowl to none for Marino.  Both guys have really low
sack percentages for their career with Marino at 3.1, and Brees 3.9.  If you judge by how they were viewed relative to their contemporaries then the edge would go to Marino.  Marino was considered by many to be the greatest pure passer in league history when he played.  It's a tough choice, but if I had to pick between the two of them I would pick Brees, but that's really splitting hairs.  I would put both in my top 10 quarterback of all time.


Another standout among those not selected was Steve Young.  Young didn't have the
longevity for several reasons.  He started his career in the USFL, and didn't play in the NFL during the 1984 season.  He played on bad Tampa Bay teams to start his NFL career, and only played 19 games in two seasons with them.  He then went to San Francisco and was Joe Montana's backup for 4 seasons. The majority of Young's stats came from 1991-98, and he was amazing in the 8 season run.  He led the league in passer rating 6 times, and threw for 195 touchdowns with just 76 interceptions in that period.  He was also a really good running QB.  His career was cut short in next season when he suffered one of numerous concussions.   He didn't get the chance pile up numbers over a large amount of games, or passing attempts, and that along with some playoff struggles is why he probably wasn't close to being selected.

My own selections wouldn't be fair to quarterback from long ago.  They were before my time,  and honestly they weren't as good as modern players.

FBI Murder Stats For 2018

The FBI released their crime stats for 2018 yesterday, and I wanted to go over it and see the murders stats compared to the last few years.

The murder rate declined from 5.3 per 100,000 to 5.0 per 100,000.  The numbers changed up because the rate per 100,000 was listed at 5.4 in 2017 when the data was released a couple last year,  and the number from 2016 was changed from 5.3 to 5.4.  The murder rate for 2018 is the lowest since 2015.

Black people are still overrepresented in murder statistics.  When it comes to known murder offenders black people made up 6,318 out of 11,514.  That's good for 54.9%. The percentage was 53.3 in 2015, 53.5 in 2016, and 54.2 in 2017. Based on demographic data from the link I have below (which is from July 2017), black people were 7.4 times more likely to commit murder than white people.  The demographics shouldn't have changed that much from 2017-18.

Single victim, single offender data is still similar to what it was the past couple years.  If anything it looks worse for blacks.  Just going by that data 82.3% of white people killed were killed by other white people, while 91.2% of black people killed were killed by other black people.  Those are the percentages when you only count those murders in which the race of the offender was known. Regressives have often given similar numbers and used that to argue that murder isn't that much of an issue for black people.  What those percentages don't show is that there were 2677 instances of one white person murdering another last year, and 2600 instances where the victim, and offender was black.  When you adjust for population black people are 5.5 times more likely to kill each other than white people are to kill each other.  According the same data there were 514 instances of a black person killing a white person, and 234 instances of a white person killing a black person.  Mainstream media might lead you to believe it's the other way around.  Looking at news stories it seems like there are always stories of black people being victimized by white people, and little stories in which it is the other way around.  Those stories also get more traction.  They lead to trending topics on twitter, and get a lot of mainstream attention.  The problem is that the stats consistently show that black people kill white people over 2 times as often as white people kill black people.  This year's ratio of 2.20/1 is almost identical to the 2.21/1 in 2015, 2.19/1 in 2016, and 2.18/1 in 2017.

The single victim/single offender data gives a slight difference in terms of how likely a black person is to commit murder.  White total offender stats mean black people are 7.4 times more likely to commit murder than white people, single victim/offender data translates into black people being 6 times more likely to commit a  murder that would fit into that category.  There are a large amount of murders that aren't single victim/offender, and many have unknown offenders or victims.  According to this chart https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls  29.1% of murders have unknown offender or offenders. If you take away those instances with unknown offenders, 69.4% of the instances of homicide are single victim/single offender.  So those are part of the why there is that discrepancy.

Links
Murders Per 100,000
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-1

Murder Offenders
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls

Single Victim/Single Offender
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls

Demographics
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218

Using WWE KPI To Estimate Wrestlemania Attendance

The WWE released their 2nd quarter numbers yesterday.  I wanted to see their attendance numbers, so I looked at their Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for the 2nd quarter.   The WWE listed their average attendance at 5.8 thousand, or 5800 in 53 shows.  Not counting WrestleMania it's 4700.  Now those averages aren't exact.  It they are just rounding to n If they rounded to the nearest hundred , the  high estimate for the attendance at WrestleMania 35 is 68249, and the low estimate is 57751.  If you treat it like the averages are exact, WrestleMania attendance would had to have been 63,000.  Now the WWE announced an attendance of 82,265, and even the high estimate comes well short of that number.  It is well known that the WWE lies about their attendance.  Each year right after WrestleMania, I wait for the real WrestleMania attendance to be revealed.  Prowrestlinghistory.com list the attendance for the event at 74,000, but even that is well above the high estimate, and 11,000 more than the middle estimate of 63000.  Now the WWE's averages could be paid attendance, but their KPI doesn't mention that it's paid attendance.

Whether the attendance averages listed in the WWE KPI is paid or total attendance, it's obvious that the WWE lies about their attendance.  They routinely list attendance figures stadium shows that they can't get in those stadiums, especially when you factor in how many seats are blocked by the WWE set design.



WWE Key Performance Indicators
https://corporate.wwe.com/~/media/Files/W/WWE/press-releases/2019/q2-2019-kpi.pdf

McNabb vs Aikman

To be fair to Donovan McNabb he didn't say he was better than Troy Aikman, but in making his case for why he was a Hall of Famer, he said that he had better numbers than Aikman.  So I figured that I would compare McNabb's career to Aikman's.  From the standpoint of traditional passer rating McNabb does have a better career rating to Aikman, but things tend to be easier for passers as the years go by.  McNabb has a career passer rating of 85.6, which is better than Aikman's 81.6.  Pro Football Reference has a stat called Passer Rating Index, or Rate+, that compares a quarterback's rating to the league average, where the league average is set at 100.  They don't show the career rating for either McNabb, or Aikman, but that's where some good algebra comes into play.  I can take a very good guess as to each player's rating by looking at their rating each season, and factoring in their pass attempts in each season.  My estimates are 106.29 for McNabb, and 105.79 for Aikman.  That's a slight edge for McNabb, but it's not much to choose from.  While they don't have Passer Rating Index for the playoffs, Aikman's career postseason rating is 88.3, and McNabb's is 80.0.  So Aikman has the edge there without even adjusting for the higher passer efficiency in McNabb's era.  McNabb was obviously the better runner, but he also got sacked more often.  While people may talk about how great the Cowboys' offensive line was, when you get past the Super Bowl years, there were some tough years for the Dallas' offense.  One of the drawbacks about running quarterbacks is that they do get sacked more often, so this isn't all out offensive line.  McNabb's sack percentage is 7.1 for his career, and for Aikman it's 5.2.  In the postseason it's 6.3 for Aikman, 7.7 for McNabb.  Lower is better for that stat.  Sack Percentage Index works much like Passer Rating Index, adjusting for league average with 100 being average.  In terms of that statistics a higher rating means that a quarterback was sacked less often compared to average.  Once again using some math, I estimate Aikman's Sack Percentage Index at 110.11, and McNabb's at 95.52.  Another thing to factor in was that Aikman was on more of a running team. Having Emmitt Smith around certainly helped Aikman, but it didn't help his touchdown numbers.  The Cowboys usually gave the ball to Emmitt when they got close to the goal line. Football Outsiders' stats are very complex.  When it comes to their DYAR (Defense Adjusted Yards Above Replacement) stat, Aikman had 7602 DYAR on 4932 pass plays, compared to McNabb's  5338, on 5776 pass plays.  The Dallas Cowboys offense, in their 90s peak, was a ball control offense, and Aikman was one of the most accurate quarterbacks of all time.  That helped Dallas to move the chains, and keep control of the ball.

The biggest difference between Aikman, and McNabb's Hall of Fame credentials is that Aikman won 3 Super Bowls.  The list of quarterbacks with 3 or more Super Bowl victories isn't long.  In fact it's just Aikman, Montana, Bradshaw, and Brady.  3 of them are in the Hall of Fame, and the other, Tom Brady, is a shoe in to get in, and the consensus greatest quarterback of all time. Aikman didn't just win 3 Super Bowls.  He was important to those teams.  He had one of the all time great postseasons for a quarterback in the 92-93 postseason where he threw 8 touchdowns without a single interception.  In all three of those seasons Troy was one of the best quarterbacks in the league in the regular season, and he was very efficient each of postseason.  McNabb never had a playoff run as good as what Aikman had during those Super Bowl seasons. McNabb has no Super Bowl wins.  As unfair as it may seem, that is a large part of how quarterbacks are judged.  McNabb led his Eagles to five NFC championships games, but lost 4 of them.  They lost the 1 Super Bowl he got to, and his performance in that game wasn't that good.   In terms of stats McNabb has the edge on Aikman in when it comes to traditional stats in the regular season, but Aikman has the edge in the playoffs.  In terms of advanced statistics, the edge is clearly on Aikman's side.  Should McNabb be in the Hall of Fame?  That's hard to say.  Right now I would say no.  He put up good stats, but he did it in an era where a lot of quarterbacks put up big numbers.  If McNabb had won 1 Super Bowl, he would probably be in the Hall of Fame right now.

Is There A Racist Agenda To Put Attention On Black Men For Sex Crimes: Rape Statistics

In wake of the allegations against R. Kelly there were a number of black people who just didn't want to say bad things about R. Kelly.  One popular thing to do was to divert attention away from R. Kelly and to some white men who been accused of sex crimes.

I'm not completely against diverting as a argument, but it depends on what point are you trying to make.  If that point is that white men are getting away with these things, and the media wants to put the attention on black men, then I don't believe that is a good point.  Still numbers are important.  What are the statistics

Let's look at some rape arrest for the past five years of full FBI crime data (2013-2017).  It's worth noting according to how the FBI counts race, in which many Hispanics are counted as white, there are about 6 times as many white people in the country as black people.  So if rape arrests happened at an even rate there should be 6 times as many arrests for whites as there are for blacks

Rape Arrest  2013-17

Year       Black      White
2013       4,229        8,946
2014       4,888       10,977
2015       4,907       11,809
2016       5,412       12,571
2017       5,182       12,187
Totals     24,618     56,490

So there were 2.29 times as many arrests of white people for rape as there were for black people.  Adjusting for population, a black person is more likely to be arrested for rape than a white person.  Over these five years totals arrests for rape add up 83,880.  That means that black people who make up 13% of the population accounted for 29.3% of rape arrests, and whites who make up 77% of the country accounted for 67.3% of rape arrests.  So while black people are overrepresented, white people are underrepresented.  Now when it comes to people that get away with rape, it's tough to assume.  Some would think that white people get away with it more, but you can make an argument it's the other way around, because black people are less likely to call the police.  Whatever the case, the numbers don't back up the idea that this is a white problem.  So next time I see, or hear some black supremacist talking about all the white racists, I will know that the total numbers show that rape is more of a problem among black people.  Based on numbers they aren't putting a black face on a white problem.

Tariq Nasheed has started this ThemFirst thing. The main purpose of it seems to be when a black celebrity, especially one he likes, is facing serious charges, just divert by talking about some white people who may or may not have done similar.  Nasheed is a major racist, and just wants to throw white people under the bus, but what he's doing isn't uncommon among blacks people.  T.I. mentioned Elvis Presley, and Hugh Hefner, even though I don't know of sexual crimes that they were charged for.  Harvey Weinstein has been a popular name.  The main feeling they have is that black celebrities are being targeted, which is just not true.  There have been plenty shows, and documentaries talking about foul shit done by white people, whether it's sexual or not.  Tariq must not be paying much attention to those.  Before there was Surviving R. Kelly, there was Scientology and The Aftermath.  While it hasn't been about sexual offenses, the show just finished it's third season going after the Church of Scientology, and destroying it's image.  The Church of Scientology has used plenty arguments to defend themselves, and tricks to get people to pay attention to it.  One thing they didn't do was throw black people under the bus by talking about black religious organizations, or leaders, that have done bad things.  Imagine if a famous person defending Scientology said that this was a part of an agenda to put the attention on white people, and then named several black people who they wanted to get similar attention.  That strategy wouldn't work.  Another thing about this.  When I was looking up Elvis, I found out about Chuck Berry getting locked up for crossing state lines with a 14 year for sexual purposes.  Even if this whole, put the attention on whitey, thing took off (it probably isn't going that far), it's simply going to lead to more attention being put on black people. That could bring up some things from way back, and have us looking things people did a long time ago with 2019 lenses.  While some people may be thinking of all the white men that they think did similar wrongs, another person might be thinking of men that did similar wrongs, and not specifically for men of one race.


https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-43
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/tables/table-21
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43

For Michael Jackson's Legacy Things Are Going To Get Worse

The Leaving Neverland documentary has caused a lot commotion to say the least.  The documentary has mostly received negative reviews, from a general public that still loves Michael Jackson.  Wade Robson, and James Safechuck have received much backlash.  A popular opinion from Jackson fans is that they lied for the money, but seems to be a strange way to try to get some cash.  Even if they would've won and gotten millions from Jackson's estate (which they didn't), their reputations are in shambles.  Who knows what backlash they receive from Jackson's fans, but you have to think it's really bad.  With all the video they have of themselves hanging out with Michael Jackson there had to have been an easier way to cash in.  Robson, and Safechuck are not icons.  That is what Michael Jackson is, and it will be his image that will take the biggest hit over time.  I believe Michael Jackson molested some boys, but even for some who don't believe, or who aren't sure, it might be easier to just avoid the controversy.

We are already starting to see it.  His music has been removed from some streaming services.  An episode of the Simpsons from 1991 that features Jackson's voice, has been pulled.  For Michael Jackson's fans, things are going to get worse before they start to get better. I don't expect these accusations to just go by the wayside, and be forgotten about a few months later.  Now Michael Jackson is dead, so, you can't get justice on a dead man, but I want to compare Jackson's situation to others like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and R. Kelly.  While the Cosby thing got big before the Metoo era, it follows a similar course.  When it rains it pours.  While there have been some instances of people being accused of one case of sexually inappropriate behavior, when we've had someone facing a number of accusation of sex crimes, it doesn't stop at a few here or there.  In the case of Cosby, comedian Hannibal Burress called Cosby a rapist in October of 2014.  Cosby already had allegations against him before that, but it was Barbara's Bowman's article from November 2014, that really inspired more women to come forward.  Before the end of November a number of other women had come forward with their own allegations against Cosby.  In fact a number of them came out within a week of Bowman's article.  The Weinstein thing started out with stories of sexual misconduct, and then went on to include charges of rape, as well as other charges of sexual misconduct.  Not long after Surviving R. Kelly, the singer was accused of sexually abusing four girls.  Then lawyer Michael Avenatti said he had a sex tape of R. Kelly with a 14 year old. Leaving Neverland is the type of powerful documentary that could inspire more people to come forward with claims against Jackson.  The attention around this document is going to lead to more details being exposed.

We'll have to see what happens.  What will happened the immediate future.  Will the negative news on Jackson calm down soon, or will this be the tip of the iceberg.