Why are there so few white American players in the NBA?

[Amonkey]

The answers that the OP wants lies not in stereotypical beliefs but in the socio-economic realities of American society. Young, white males live primarily in lower middle class to middle class to upper class areas. Young black males live in primarily lower middle class to poverty stricken areas. Young white males have more options available to them and the means to pursue them. Young black males tend not to have those options or advantages.

This has nothing to do with percieved scouting bias against white, American players, marketing to blcks only, or anything else. It has to do with the players options and financial ability to persue those options and nothing else.

In the rawest sense basketball is about the cheapest of the major pro sports to play.  All you need is a ball and some people (the court is generally provided).

I would agree with you on that, although after a certain level, there are other things that come into place like technology, coaching, venues, that can vastly improve an athlete's skills to pursue to play professionally.

But that is the reason why soccer is so popular in the world.  That is the cheapest sport ever!  You barely need a ball, just something remotely round like a sock to play.

[Redz]

The answers that the OP wants lies not in stereotypical beliefs but in the socio-economic realities of American society. Young, white males live primarily in lower middle class to middle class to upper class areas. Young black males live in primarily lower middle class to poverty stricken areas. Young white males have more options available to them and the means to pursue them. Young black males tend not to have those options or advantages.

This has nothing to do with percieved scouting bias against white, American players, marketing to blcks only, or anything else. It has to do with the players options and financial ability to persue those options and nothing else.

In the rawest sense basketball is about the cheapest of the major pro sports to play.  All you need is a ball and some people (the court is generally provided).

I would agree with you on that, although after a certain level, there are other things that come into place like technology, coaching, venues, that can vastly improve an athlete's skills to pursue to play professionally.

But that is the reason why soccer is so popular in the world.  That is the cheapest sport ever!  You barely need a ball, just something remotely round like a sock to play.

I guess wrestling's pretty cheap too (though once you hit the organized level you need some equipment and, well, the pro level speaks for itself)

[OmarSekou]

The answers that the OP wants lies not in stereotypical beliefs but in the socio-economic realities of American society. Young, white males live primarily in lower middle class to middle class to upper class areas. Young black males live in primarily lower middle class to poverty stricken areas. Young white males have more options available to them and the means to pursue them. Young black males tend not to have those options or advantages.

This has nothing to do with perceived scouting bias against white, American players, marketing to blacks only, or anything else. It has to do with the players options and financial ability to pursue those options and nothing else.

This is pretty dead on. I'll just add that blacks and hispanics are expected to be more athletic and aggressive, whites more cerebral and skilled. And because its rooted into society kids buy into into it. I know for a fact playing sports white and black kids assume blacks are better. And that becomes the basis for your confidence and commitment.

The other, more controversial aspect is genetics. The argument is basically that only the strongest slaves survived the journey and arrived in the US. After which they were put through intense physical work, and bred amongst each other. This created the basis for "superior athletes" now.

I think there may be some truth to this, but it's highly overstated. The reason blacks are more explosive is because the game is more popular in urban areas, so blacks are forced to play tougher competition younger. There's a good article in ESPN the mag about a county in MD that's producing tons of elite players.

[nickagneta]

I've yet to see the most obvious answer.

Basketball is a sport where explosive athleticism is a major advantage.  Sure, developed skills are extremely important too, but I believe (and it seems patently obvious, just look at Olympic sprinting and jumping events too) that when it comes to explosive athleticism, blacks are at the top of the food chain.

If all other skills are equally developed, but the black athlete is more powerfully explosive, he's got the edge, hence greater representation in the league.  It's a league about winning, so they'll take whoever gives them the best chance to win.

No sense tap dancing around it, looking for every convoluted answer but the obvious one.  Occam's Razor applies here.  Blacks have greater explosive athleticism.

Then please explain to me why blacks don't dominate hockey and soccer, two sports that also require explosive athleticism.

[cordobes]

I've yet to see the most obvious answer.

Basketball is a sport where explosive athleticism is a major advantage.  Sure, developed skills are extremely important too, but I believe (and it seems patently obvious, just look at Olympic sprinting and jumping events too) that when it comes to explosive athleticism, blacks are at the top of the food chain.

If all other skills are equally developed, but the black athlete is more powerfully explosive, he's got the edge, hence greater representation in the league.  It's a league about winning, so they'll take whoever gives them the best chance to win.

No sense tap dancing around it, looking for every convoluted answer but the obvious one.  Occam's Razor applies here.  Blacks have greater explosive athleticism.

Then please explain to me why blacks don't dominate hockey and soccer, two sports that also require explosive athleticism.

Who says they don't dominate soccer? There's a world outside America. Blacks are largely overrepresented among elite soccer players, even though soccer doesn't require the exact same traits basketball or sprinting do. They probably don't dominate hockey because they don't play it.

This is not unique about basketball in America. Blacks are generally over-represented in every sport that requires some physiological traits as long as the black population plays that sport.

[Mencius]

Then please explain to me why blacks don't dominate hockey and soccer, two sports that also require explosive athleticism.

Very few blacks even play hockey.  I don't know much about soccer, but it seems that Brazil seems the preeminent country in the sport, and that their team is largely comprised of blacks, but certainly when it comes to the rawest form of explosive athleticism, sprinting and jumping, it is clear that blacks are the best in the world.  Look at every olympiad for the last several decades.

There's a hell of a lot of running and jumping going on in basketball (and at the skill positions in football).  I'm saying that all other skills being equally developed, the ones with the greatest athleticism are at an advantage.  Pretty straight forward.

I fully expected that pointing to natural athleticism would bring the usual socio-economic reasoning, but I think the answer is clear, and it is obvious.  Anything that suggests any group difference in any respect is verboten in todays climate, even those that are patently obvious.

[nickagneta]

I've yet to see the most obvious answer.

Basketball is a sport where explosive athleticism is a major advantage.  Sure, developed skills are extremely important too, but I believe (and it seems patently obvious, just look at Olympic sprinting and jumping events too) that when it comes to explosive athleticism, blacks are at the top of the food chain.

If all other skills are equally developed, but the black athlete is more powerfully explosive, he's got the edge, hence greater representation in the league.  It's a league about winning, so they'll take whoever gives them the best chance to win.

No sense tap dancing around it, looking for every convoluted answer but the obvious one.  Occam's Razor applies here.  Blacks have greater explosive athleticism.

Then please explain to me why blacks don't dominate hockey and soccer, two sports that also require explosive athleticism.

Who says they don't dominate soccer? There's a world outside America. Blacks are largely overrepresented among elite soccer players, even though soccer doesn't require the exact same traits basketball or sprinting do. They probably don't dominate hockey because they don't play it.

This is not unique about basketball in America. Blacks are generally over-represented in every sport that requires some physiological traits as long as the black population plays that sport.

And yet only 4 of the top 20 highest paid soccer players in the world are black. Also, Brazilian and other dark latinos are not necessarily black but are naturally dark because  their native inhabitants were dark skinned. In American basketball, blacks dominate the highest paid players and the top players amongst the top 3 strings All-NBA teams, they do not dominate basketball world-wide.

You say blacks don't play hockey, but why is that? It's because it is too freaking expensive to play for mostly poor black American youths. Black American youths don't play soccer because soccer isn't made available in the mostly poor black areas because there isn't land available to make soccer playing fields available. Again it comes down to money.

I am not arguing that black American athletes don't have phsysiological differences and advantages over their white counterparts. But, the reason so many of the best black athletes are playing basketball is the economic situations and lack of diverse offerings of other sports to them in America. If black American athletes were introduced to all sports in the way they are to white Americans youth then more of those athletes would be playing other sports and there would be more spots available for other ethnic players to play NBA basketball.

I honestly believe that if there was a skating rink in every neighborhood in America and it was inexpensive to play hockey, blacks would populate the sport to a dominant degree and that it would leave many of the professional spots in the NBA open for others.

[cordobes]

I've yet to see the most obvious answer.

Basketball is a sport where explosive athleticism is a major advantage.  Sure, developed skills are extremely important too, but I believe (and it seems patently obvious, just look at Olympic sprinting and jumping events too) that when it comes to explosive athleticism, blacks are at the top of the food chain.

If all other skills are equally developed, but the black athlete is more powerfully explosive, he's got the edge, hence greater representation in the league.  It's a league about winning, so they'll take whoever gives them the best chance to win.

No sense tap dancing around it, looking for every convoluted answer but the obvious one.  Occam's Razor applies here.  Blacks have greater explosive athleticism.

Then please explain to me why blacks don't dominate hockey and soccer, two sports that also require explosive athleticism.

Who says they don't dominate soccer? There's a world outside America. Blacks are largely overrepresented among elite soccer players, even though soccer doesn't require the exact same traits basketball or sprinting do. They probably don't dominate hockey because they don't play it.

This is not unique about basketball in America. Blacks are generally over-represented in every sport that requires some physiological traits as long as the black population plays that sport.

And yet only 4 of the top 20 highest paid soccer players in the world are black. Also, Brazilian and other dark latinos are not necessarily black but are naturally dark because  their native inhabitants were dark skinned. In American basketball, blacks dominate the highest paid players and the top players amongst the top 3 strings All-NBA teams, they do not dominate basketball world-wide.

You say blacks don't play hockey, but why is that? It's because it is too freaking expensive to play for mostly poor black American youths. Black American youths don't play soccer because soccer isn't made available in the mostly poor black areas because there isn't land available to make soccer playing fields available. Again it comes down to money.

I am not arguing that black American athletes don't have phsysiological differences and advantages over their white counterparts. But, the reason so many of the best black athletes are playing basketball is the economic situations and lack of diverse offerings of other sports to them in America. If black American athletes were introduced to all sports in the way they are to white Americans youth then more of those athletes would be playing other sports and there would be more spots available for other ethnic players to play NBA basketball.

I honestly believe that if there was a skating rink in every neighborhood in America and it was inexpensive to play hockey, blacks would populate the sport to a dominant degree and that it would leave many of the professional spots in the NBA open for others.

Again, this is not about America. The fact that 4 of the top 20 highest paid soccer players in the world are black shows that they're overrepresented. Blacks are over-represented in every professional basketball league in Europe. Ditto for any soccer league. Ditto for track and field. It's just genetics, there are plenty of scientific studies about this.

Of course they can't dominate sports they don't play, be it for socio-economic or cultural reasons. This is absolutely obvious.

If people want some kind of equity, the only way to achieve it is through affirmative action, I think.

[guava_wrench]

Calling Brazilians black completely obfuscates this thread. Their ancestors crossed into the Americas ten thousand years ago by spreading through North Asia. They are more genetically similar to the northern asians that were there before being replaced by the ancestors of what we normally think of as Chinese. Some of the closest genetic relatives of the 'native american' populations are probably in SE Asia.

Using skin tone as a gauge of relatedness or genetic similarity is severely misguided.

There are plenty of phenomena apart from genetic potential to explain the lack of white NBA players (doesn't make sense to separate Euro players if genetics is going to be an argument) or the decline in black MLB players.

These basketball trend could be like the shortage of women in math fields. Groups with stereotypes against them in fields are prone to disidentify with that field, even if they once identified with it. There is a phenomenon called 'stereotype threat' where individuals from certain stereotyped groups underperform when the stereotypes are made salient. You can check out the many papers by Steele & Aronson on this.

There are so many social factors involved that arguing the genetic one seems a copout. I would argue that the genetic argument may in fact be a sign of racism in light of the fact that this discussion ONLY seems to happen when discussing black dominated sports. No one makes this arguments in white or asian dominated sports, like olympic weight lifting or diving. Why do we seek genetic arguments when blacks overperform, but not when whites overperform?

[BrickJames]

Because white American players aren't as "fun to watch".

[guava_wrench]

I've yet to see the most obvious answer.

Basketball is a sport where explosive athleticism is a major advantage.  Sure, developed skills are extremely important too, but I believe (and it seems patently obvious, just look at Olympic sprinting and jumping events too) that when it comes to explosive athleticism, blacks are at the top of the food chain.

If all other skills are equally developed, but the black athlete is more powerfully explosive, he's got the edge, hence greater representation in the league.  It's a league about winning, so they'll take whoever gives them the best chance to win.

No sense tap dancing around it, looking for every convoluted answer but the obvious one.  Occam's Razor applies here.  Blacks have greater explosive athleticism.

Then please explain to me why blacks don't dominate hockey and soccer, two sports that also require explosive athleticism.

Who says they don't dominate soccer? There's a world outside America. Blacks are largely overrepresented among elite soccer players, even though soccer doesn't require the exact same traits basketball or sprinting do. They probably don't dominate hockey because they don't play it.

This is not unique about basketball in America. Blacks are generally over-represented in every sport that requires some physiological traits as long as the black population plays that sport.

And yet only 4 of the top 20 highest paid soccer players in the world are black. Also, Brazilian and other dark latinos are not necessarily black but are naturally dark because  their native inhabitants were dark skinned. In American basketball, blacks dominate the highest paid players and the top players amongst the top 3 strings All-NBA teams, they do not dominate basketball world-wide.

You say blacks don't play hockey, but why is that? It's because it is too freaking expensive to play for mostly poor black American youths. Black American youths don't play soccer because soccer isn't made available in the mostly poor black areas because there isn't land available to make soccer playing fields available. Again it comes down to money.

I am not arguing that black American athletes don't have phsysiological differences and advantages over their white counterparts. But, the reason so many of the best black athletes are playing basketball is the economic situations and lack of diverse offerings of other sports to them in America. If black American athletes were introduced to all sports in the way they are to white Americans youth then more of those athletes would be playing other sports and there would be more spots available for other ethnic players to play NBA basketball.

I honestly believe that if there was a skating rink in every neighborhood in America and it was inexpensive to play hockey, blacks would populate the sport to a dominant degree and that it would leave many of the professional spots in the NBA open for others.

Again, this is not about America. The fact that 4 of the top 20 highest paid soccer players in the world are black shows that they're overrepresented. Blacks are over-represented in every professional basketball league in Europe. Ditto for any soccer league. Ditto for track and field. It's just genetics, there are plenty of scientific studies about this.

Of course they can't dominate sports they don't play, be it for socio-economic or cultural reasons. This is absolutely obvious.

If people want some kind of equity, the only way to achieve it is through affirmative action, I think.

How is 4 of 20 overrepresented, especially when you eliminate the 2 billion Chinese and Indian who are irrelevant to the discussion?

To really address the original question, you also have to deal with the other variables involved, such as socioeconomic status.

Vote for Rudy Fernandez to make the dunk contest so that we can see a white guy show off his explosiveness.

[cordobes]

(...)
I fully expected that pointing to natural athleticism would bring the usual socio-economic reasoning, but I think the answer is clear, and it is obvious.  Anything that suggests any group difference in any respect is verboten in todays climate, even those that are patently obvious.

Yeps. As I suspected, it didn't take long for the first accusation of racism.

Calling Brazilians black completely obfuscates this thread. Their ancestors crossed into the Americas ten thousand years ago by spreading through North Asia. They are more genetically similar to the northern asians that were there before being replaced by the ancestors of what we normally think of as Chinese. Some of the closest genetic relatives of the 'native american' populations are probably in SE Asia.

LOL!!!

I can guarantee you one thing: Pelé ancestors didn't cross into Americas ten thousands years ago. Ignorance is a bliss, I guess. I strongly recommend you a history book.

No one makes this arguments in white or asian dominated sports, like olympic weight lifting or diving. Why do we seek genetic arguments when blacks overperform, but not when whites overperform?

No one? Really? Lots of people do. That clearly doesn't stop you from making straw man arguments.

[Amonkey]

I've yet to see the most obvious answer.

Basketball is a sport where explosive athleticism is a major advantage.  Sure, developed skills are extremely important too, but I believe (and it seems patently obvious, just look at Olympic sprinting and jumping events too) that when it comes to explosive athleticism, blacks are at the top of the food chain.

If all other skills are equally developed, but the black athlete is more powerfully explosive, he's got the edge, hence greater representation in the league.  It's a league about winning, so they'll take whoever gives them the best chance to win.

No sense tap dancing around it, looking for every convoluted answer but the obvious one.  Occam's Razor applies here.  Blacks have greater explosive athleticism.

Then please explain to me why blacks don't dominate hockey and soccer, two sports that also require explosive athleticism.

Who says they don't dominate soccer? There's a world outside America. Blacks are largely overrepresented among elite soccer players, even though soccer doesn't require the exact same traits basketball or sprinting do. They probably don't dominate hockey because they don't play it.

This is not unique about basketball in America. Blacks are generally over-represented in every sport that requires some physiological traits as long as the black population plays that sport.

And yet only 4 of the top 20 highest paid soccer players in the world are black. Also, Brazilian and other dark latinos are not necessarily black but are naturally dark because  their native inhabitants were dark skinned. In American basketball, blacks dominate the highest paid players and the top players amongst the top 3 strings All-NBA teams, they do not dominate basketball world-wide.

You say blacks don't play hockey, but why is that? It's because it is too freaking expensive to play for mostly poor black American youths. Black American youths don't play soccer because soccer isn't made available in the mostly poor black areas because there isn't land available to make soccer playing fields available. Again it comes down to money.

I am not arguing that black American athletes don't have phsysiological differences and advantages over their white counterparts. But, the reason so many of the best black athletes are playing basketball is the economic situations and lack of diverse offerings of other sports to them in America. If black American athletes were introduced to all sports in the way they are to white Americans youth then more of those athletes would be playing other sports and there would be more spots available for other ethnic players to play NBA basketball.

I honestly believe that if there was a skating rink in every neighborhood in America and it was inexpensive to play hockey, blacks would populate the sport to a dominant degree and that it would leave many of the professional spots in the NBA open for others.

Actually, I have to refute the statement that I highlighted on bold.  The fact is that out of all the African slaves that went to the Americas, 41% went to the Carribean (Jamaica, DR, Haiti), 38% went to Brazil and only 4% went to USA (I saw this on a history book back in 8th grade).  Brazil actually has the third largest population of black people in the world (meaning african and african descendants, including Africa itself).  So Brazil actually has more black people than most African countries, which is largely due to the population size.

Also, these are statements based truly on observations only and previous "hear say" knowledge that seems somewhat believable.  However, when we say black people, we have to be able to differentiate which part of Africa are the black people coming from.  For example, we say that they are athletic, but that is not true to with Kenyans, which many have strong aerobic threshold but are not strong by any means.

For example, I think there is a difference of looks from the Brazilian blacks and American blacks (I am talking about true blacks since Brazilians have a lot of mixes).  American seem stronger, bigger, and faster.  That may come from the part of Africa the slaves came from.  There's one region of Brazil where most of the slaves came from one region in Africa, and they say that the Africans they enslaved actually had slaves themselves and were known to be pretty "lazy" and were always finding ways to get out of work.  They say that that culture took over the region and now the stereotype of those regions are that people are lazy.  Now, the slaves from the southern region (Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo) came from the West Coast of Africa, where the culture was a little more advanced and the African were more physically fit, and coincidentally, a lot of the Brazilian black athletes comes from these regions.

I don't believe that to be the truth, but when talking about genetics, I do think that may play a small role.  The people that live the mountains of Peru and Chile have been known to have a more efficient oxygen uptake and usage than the world due to their region.  I can see how generations and generations of African from a certain region could be more susceptible of having more fast twitch muscle fibers than the rest.  In the end though, it's all about playing the sport and practicing the sport.  Basically, the more of a specific population playing that sport, the more likely someone will succeed, just like California and Texas have more athletes than Alaska.

[cordobes]

Vote for Rudy Fernandez to make the dunk contest so that we can see a white guy show off his explosiveness.

Heh... very clever argument...

[Amonkey]

I would like to emphasize that most black Brazilians are African descendants, actually they say that 80% of Brazilians have at least 10% African heritage.  If you want to compare to native Americans, you have to look at countries like Bolivia, Peru, and Central America, where the Mayan and Aztec ancestry are still very strong and you see that the people look a little asian.