This is a good faith attempt and I appreciate that.
First, from your link:
>Our data also provide evidence for shared ancestry among geographically diverse hunter-gatherer populations (Khoesan speakers and Pygmies).
Would we say that pygmies, being considered black, would be likely to make it into the NBA?
Second, can we guarantee that people who self identify black, would agree that the definition of someone else's "blackness" is legitimate? Whose definition do we "choose" to then move ahead with "and these sorts of black people are more likely to get into the NBA?" Given that it's not well agreed upon (is Obama black? Steph Curry? Not as cut and dry as you might assume. Are they "black enough" to have NBA advantage?)
Third, based on your tallness: why draw the line as 6'2"? There are shorter players that were Great. So, how do you deal with (relatively frequent) exceptions? "Tall people are more likely to get into the NBA, except when theyre short but grew up next to a court" ? And the tall People that aren't good at basketball? "Tall People are good at basketball except when they're not" ? And when they're too tall to the point that it's detrimental to their health and can't even play basketball?
Fourth, arbitrary. Exactly. It is arbitrary, and thus I argue scientifically impossible to have a rational discussion about blackness and its influence on likelihood to enter the NBA. Or, rather, develop an effective predictor algorithm based on genes alone.
We could have interesting sociological conversations about basketball courts in predominantly black neighborhoods, black NBA stars inspiring black kids, self-propagating cultural memes about blackness and basketball skills, etc. But we won't get any really good information that allows us to say something like "black people are better at basketball" to where it will be true.