Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,030 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,320 Posts
Interesting, but I think that a closer look would show that the differential is predominantly due to the long tenure of a few of the top older coaches in the league...who just happen to be white. If you take Don Nelson, Jerry Silas, Greg Popovich, Larry Brown, etc. out of the analysis, I'd bet that younger white coaches aren't given any more time to succeed than their black counterparts.
 

·
Banned member
Joined
·
28,452 Posts
e_blazer1 said:
Interesting, but I think that a closer look would show that the differential is predominantly due to the long tenure of a few of the top older coaches in the league...who just happen to be white. If you take Don Nelson, Jerry Silas, Greg Popovich, Larry Brown, etc. out of the analysis, I'd bet that younger white coaches aren't given any more time to succeed than their black counterparts.

Terry Stots, fired after 1 year and a half years.

Callipari after his team started 3-17 in his 3rd year (fired because he was a bad coach in the teams opinion).

Mike D'Antoni was fired after 1 season in Denver, and now is rather good in Phoenix.

Tim Floyd had 1 season with Charlotte (admittedly, after several bad years in Chicago).

my point is, you can find many coaches PERIOD (regardless of race) who are canned early. It's all about the wins in this league, not what race you are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,137 Posts
I think eblazer is onto something here...

Fast firings seem to be more of a recent phenomenon and black coaches just have a shorter history in the league.

I think back in the "good old days" coaches were probably given a lot more benefit of the doubt to prove themselves. Right or wrong, the players run the show now and coaches are often sent packing if they don't mix with the team's best players or if the team underachieves for any decent stretch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
Kevin O'Neal was a another white guy who only got a year. I'm not saying there is not racism in the world but it seems to me they are just looking for it here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,030 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
It would be nice if your examples disproved the case, but they don't:

The pattern holds in almost any important category of coaches. Winning black coaches have been replaced sooner than winning white coaches on average, and experienced black coaches have served shorter tenures than experienced white coaches. The same is true among losing coaches, among rookie coaches and among coaches who played in the N.B.A. and those who did not.
So, even though you can come up with plenty of examples of white coaches fired quickly, that doesn't prove that black coaches aren't, on average, fired quicker. Magic Johnson and Bob whatsisname (owner of the Hornets) are rich black men. Billy-Joe-Bob from the Ozarks is a poor white man, as are his 52 cousins. Does that show that black people aren't on average poorer than whites? No.

What about eblazer's point about the sample being skewed by a bunch of older white coaches. Well, (a) they've allowed for that, as the above quote shows, (b) the winningest coach in NBA history is Lenny Wilkens!
and (c) there's only one long-serving NBA coach left - Jerry Sloan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,046 Posts
Typical reporting from the New York Slimes. They're the newspaper that looked the other way while their star black reporter (Jason Blair) was fabricating stories out of thin air. They protected him for far longer than he deserved just because he was a minority--a good example of someone being treated unfairly because of his skin color!

The Mo Cheeks tenure in Portland could actually be considered a refutation of this article, since he was kept on for almost four years even though the team never made much progress under him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,426 Posts
Talkhard said:
Typical reporting from the New York Slimes. They're the newspaper that looked the other way while their star black reporter (Jason Blair) was fabricating stories out of thin air. They protected him for far longer than he deserved just because he was a minority--a good example of someone being treated unfairly because of his skin color!

The Mo Cheeks tenure in Portland could actually be considered a refutation of this article, since he was kept on for almost four years even though the team never made much progress under him.
:clap:

Perfect! This is almost exactly what went through my mind when I read this article.
 

·
Charge!
Joined
·
3,922 Posts
Talkhard said:
Typical reporting from the New York Slimes. They're the newspaper that looked the other way while their star black reporter (Jason Blair) was fabricating stories out of thin air. They protected him for far longer than he deserved just because he was a minority--a good example of someone being treated unfairly because of his skin color!

The Mo Cheeks tenure in Portland could actually be considered a refutation of this article, since he was kept on for almost four years even though the team never made much progress under him.
Exactly! What expertise does the NY Times have on this issue? The Times has become increasingly irrelevant over the past decade even on issues that they ought to know something about. I consider the NY Times to be a reputable authority on nothing. They spend more time and effort advancing their pet causes than they do actually reporting the news objectively.

G-Force
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
765 Posts
So does this mean black people suck at coaching?

I wish people that keep talking about race would just die off and leave the rest of us alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
That Sloan is the only long-serving coach left is incorrect and not relevant. They're not taking a snapshot of coaches now. They're looking back at the last decade. Popovich was hired (by himself) as head coach in 1996. Don Nelson had taken over as coach in 1997. Sloan has obviously been the head coach that whole time.

With a sample size of 30 teams, when 10% of the teams are almost entirely coached by 3 white men, that skews the data. Whether it FAIRLY skews it or not is another matter.

Ed O.
 

·
Top Of The Pops
Joined
·
27,472 Posts
Yes, now that racism has been licked in this country, only hippies and crybabies discuss race. Typical yellow journalism, highlighting racial disparity again. Don't people realize yet that all racial segments are completely fairly represented in modern American society and any differences, major or not, are just random variation?

Systemic or implicit racism is a myth, like dragons, elves and eskimos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,030 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Boy, really touched a nerve there. The New York Slimes! Good one! How dare they report actual statistics! Why can't they be more reliable, like that nice "Jeff Gannon" of Talon News?

And won't it be nice when all people who talk about race die off, so we white people don't have to hear about how advantaged we are. Who wants to hear that? I mean, can't we all get along in a system that advantages one group without the other people whining about it like a bunch of babies?

Ed O said:
That Sloan is the only long-serving coach left is incorrect and not relevant. They're not taking a snapshot of coaches now. They're looking back at the last decade. Popovich was hired (by himself) as head coach in 1996. Don Nelson had taken over as coach in 1997. Sloan has obviously been the head coach that whole time.With a sample size of 30 teams, when 10% of the teams are almost entirely coached by 3 white men, that skews the data. Whether it FAIRLY skews it or not is another matter.
Does this help?

The N.B.A. coach with the longest tenure today is Jerry Sloan, who is white and is in his 17th season as coach of the Utah Jazz. The calculations of average tenures by The Times included only coaches whose tenures had ended. But when Sloan and other active coaches were included, the gap between white and black coaches was nearly identical.
I guess I don't understand (or want to understand) why people are so resistant to what is being reported here. Per win, a black coach will get fired faster than a white coach. Is that really so hard to believe? Hey, at least it's better than it was, right? But do people really think we're living in a racial utopia?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ukrainefan

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
I would like to see their numbers. I find it hard to believe that the removal or addition of a guy who's been the coach for 3% of the entire tenure of the league in the last decade doesn't matter.

Maybe it does, though. Stats are a funny thing.

Ed O.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,030 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Ed O said:
I would like to see their numbers. I find it hard to believe that the removal or addition of a guy who's been the coach for 3% of the entire tenure of the league in the last decade doesn't matter. Maybe it does, though. Stats are a funny thing.
Shouln't that be "funny things"? But then again, we Limeys call it Maths.

It's not just adding Sloan - the article says the addition of Sloan and other active coaches. So they either compare stats on all coaches who have been fired over the time period, or they compare stats on all those coaches plus all currently non-fired coaches. Does that make more sense?

I don't know what amazes me more: the mathematical ineptitude (not you Ed) of most responders or the need to attempt to refute this finding without even bothering to read the article fully. It can't be right, or if it shows that Black coaches get fired more quickly, they must really deserve it. And we gave that bum Mo Cheeks nearly four years - shouldn't the ******* be happy with that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,548 Posts
meru said:
Shouln't that be "funny things"? But then again, we Limeys call it Maths.

It's not just adding Sloan - the article says the addition of Sloan and other active coaches. So they either compare stats on all coaches who have been fired over the time period, or they compare stats on all those coaches plus all currently non-fired coaches. Does that make more sense?

I don't know what amazes me more: the mathematical ineptitude (not you Ed) of most responders or the need to attempt to refute this finding without even bothering to read the article fully. It can't be right, or if it shows that Black coaches get fired more quickly, they must really deserve it. And we gave that bum Mo Cheeks nearly four years - shouldn't the ******* be happy with that?
Wow. Relax dude.

Just because surveys can be taken, numbers noted and pasted in the spreadsheet, doesn't mean that the numbers actually tell us anything useful.

The existence of numbers in and of itself means little and proves even less. In this case, there is no control to compare and the sample size is far too small. Compilng numbers counts results, not process. Using numbers to attack process is a leap - one that must be proven to reasonable people.

The NY Times wants to make the case that Black coaches are on a shorter leash. They have numbers to back up their claim. Great. Still doesn't prove the claim. The numbers are only suggesstive, not an indictment. Reason for an investigation (maybe), not a prosecution.

All the NY Times is doing is abusing statistics to make their claim seem rock solid and "scientific". All they have provided is a single piece of evidence among much more testimony and evidence that would have to be successfully presented to build a case of systemic racial bias. They certainly have not provided a smoking gun.

And as a Blazer fan who saw Rick Adleman (white) and Mike Dunleavey (White) kicked out of town sooner that I felt was warranted, and Maurice Cheeks (black) mysteriously hang on to his job far longer than he deserved, I can sympathize with the reaction of some other Blazer fans, find the NY Times article silly. It certainly is silly as applies to the (very limited experience of) Blazers. Which, of course, proves nothing either.
 

·
Top Of The Pops
Joined
·
27,472 Posts
ABM said:
Not very compelling. He tries to counter empirical data with anecdotal evidence, which is never a particularly legitimate way to disprove a trend or dynamic.

I'm not necessarily vouching for the conclusiveness of the Times piece, but I can't understand why people aren't willing to be open-minded about the possibility that there's still racism in the system. It's not like postulating invisible elves. Unless you live under a rock, you know racism is still very prevalent in this society. When you also throw in systemic racism, that is, racism that's inherent in a system, often a legacy from when there was explicit racism, this becomes an incredibly complicated and hard-to-resolve issue.

It's not necessarily racism, but it's extremely silly to immediately take a hostile position towards any study that possibly shows the signs of racism. Racism exists and will continue to crop up. Discussing the merits of each study is perfectly appropriate; taking the starting position that it's bunk and whiny and leftist and just an agenda is not particularly appropriate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,185 Posts
Minstrel said:
It's not necessarily racism, but it's extremely silly to immediately take a hostile position towards any study that possibly shows the signs of racism. Racism exists and will continue to crop up. Discussing the merits of each study is perfectly appropriate; taking the starting position that it's bunk and whiny and leftist and just an agenda is not particularly appropriate.
What is silly is that it isn't necessarily indicative of racism, regardless of the legitimacy of the study.

But, I digress - I think it's totally silly.

Play.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top