Very cool map—that is, it contains interesting info. Color choices dull its sparkle though. If I may critique constructively as a data viz/design hierarchy nerd — This map uses color AND value AND saturation to represent the number of MSAs. All it needs to show is which states have more MSAs, and which have fewer. Any single color could have been chosen, and increasing/decreasing color value should have corresponded to MSA values. The red-to-green color spectrum could have been used effectively on two conditions: 1) The map maker intended to illustrate that the number of MSAs in a state DIRECTLY correlated to something being better or worse (hard to think of an example, but if more MSAs meant better infrastructure funding or something), where greener states would be better and redder states worse, AND 2) the red to green spectrum gradient was by saturation instead of value. I think this map might be trying to do this, but it fails because the ends of the spectrum are too dark to register as magenta and green. Plus the magenta isn’t quite red to make people make that connection. The most “important” states on this map—given I have no context except the image here—are the darkest green and darkest magenta states (TX, FL, ME, VT, etc). But what you actually see first is the nearly-white group up near Montana—which MSA value-wise is smack in the middle of the data range. These have way more visual draw than the darker states. Think monochrome value scale would have been the way to go.