How much of basketball talent is based on genetics?

[justinian]

Proof for genetic


Proof against genetic

Both of Jordan's sons were d1 basketball players, that is proof FOR genetic.

They probably playing D1, because their name is Jordan

[cjs55]

When did "jumping high" become one of the most important genetic attributes for the game of basketball?

Vertical is perhaps THE single-most overrated element of a player's game.

Lateral quickness, base strength, change of direction ability and skills are all WAY more important than leaping ability, especially since even the freak athletes don't max out their leaping ability on a regular basis. How FAST you reach the peak of your vertical and how many times you can jump before someone else comes down, that's something very different, of course.

Blech.

Fair enough. I think that the last part of what you talk about, which is basically 'leaping ability' or 'pogo-stick-ability' is of course more important than pure vert. Still take someone who has great lat. quick, base strength, and super fast change of direction who is also 5'10 with no vert....they are playing in Europe. If they have a great vert, they are Nate Robinson. Not a great NBA player, but a NBA player nonetheless.

[bigbreakfast]

When did "jumping high" become one of the most important genetic attributes for the game of basketball?

Vertical is perhaps THE single-most overrated element of a player's game.

Lateral quickness, base strength, change of direction ability and skills are all WAY more important than leaping ability, especially since even the freak athletes don't max out their leaping ability on a regular basis. How FAST you reach the peak of your vertical and how many times you can jump before someone else comes down, that's something very different, of course.

Blech.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. If you can jump over everyone that's a huge advantage. In fact you can base your whole game around having great hops. Helps with getting your shot over defenders, getting rebounds, defense and recovery, and getting the highest % looks at the bucket. Guys that can dunk with ease have such an advantage over everyone who can't at the gym that they basically dominate the game.

yea, just like how gerald green and james white, two guys known for incredible verticals and not much else have dominated the NBA by basing their game around having great hops.

there's so much more to being a good basketball player than just hops, and vertical may be the most overrated aspect of a person's physical ability.

[DaFan334]

This question would be so much easier to answer if we knew exactly how many NBA players were a son of Wilt... And maybe now Kemp...

[minnytola1960]

I'd say what makes a pro basketball player is 80% genetics and 20% hard work. I always chuckle at people who say things like "if you work hard you can accomplish anything" when it comes to sports/athletics. If someone is 5'9 with average athleticism and average coordination (basically, an average Joe), it doesn't matter if you have the work ethic of Kobe or Jordan. You're never going to be an elite basketball player at any level.

[minnytola1960]

When did "jumping high" become one of the most important genetic attributes for the game of basketball?

Vertical is perhaps THE single-most overrated element of a player's game.

Lateral quickness, base strength, change of direction ability and skills are all WAY more important than leaping ability, especially since even the freak athletes don't max out their leaping ability on a regular basis. How FAST you reach the peak of your vertical and how many times you can jump before someone else comes down, that's something very different, of course.

Blech.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. If you can jump over everyone that's a huge advantage. In fact you can base your whole game around having great hops. Helps with getting your shot over defenders, getting rebounds, defense and recovery, and getting the highest % looks at the bucket. Guys that can dunk with ease have such an advantage over everyone who can't at the gym that they basically dominate the game.

yea, just like how gerald green and james white, two guys known for incredible verticals and not much else have dominated the NBA by basing their game around having great hops.

there's so much more to being a good basketball player than just hops, and vertical may be the most overrated aspect of a person's physical ability.

I agree, I've always felt that vertical leaping ability, as well as physical strength, are two of the of most overrated attributes when people analyze someone's basketball ability. Being tall is BY FAR the most important, followed by the ability to shoot.

[Swingy]

Well, I actually think most people underestimate their athletic potential. Now, many may have something debilitating like heart or lung disorders that can make training well enough to be a NBA player near impossible, but for others, if you have the ridiculous dedication from day one, you probably could become skilled enough and maximize your athleticism enough to make it in the NBA. I know it is possible to increase your vertical quite a bit through training regiments (though, like Tsherkin said, it's a bit overrated). Also, having a great exercise regiment and diet can put most people in-shape enough to handle some of the rigors of the NBA. Also, do not underestimate garnering basketball IQ. Effort and simply knowing what to do 99% of the time can go far. Will these people have a much more difficult time than someone who is naturally tall and can easily get into shape? Of course. Is it possible, though? I'd say so, if unlikely due to the ridiculous amount of time and dedication it would require. It'd also probably have to start at a really early age.

[Johnlac1]

Well, I actually think most people underestimate their athletic potential. Now, many may have something debilitating like heart or lung disorders that can make training well enough to be a NBA player near impossible, but for others, if you have the ridiculous dedication from day one, you probably could become skilled enough and maximize your athleticism enough to make it in the NBA. I know it is possible to increase your vertical quite a bit through training regiments (though, like Tsherkin said, it's a bit overrated). Also, having a great exercise regiment and diet can put most people in-shape enough to handle some of the rigors of the NBA. Also, do not underestimate garnering basketball IQ. Effort and simply knowing what to do 99% of the time can go far. Will these people have a much more difficult time than someone who is naturally tall and can easily get into shape? Of course. Is it possible, though? I'd say so, if unlikely due to the ridiculous amount of time and dedication it would require. It'd also probably have to start at a really early age.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but some people can only go so far. My older brother and I played a lot of bb when we were kids. But he was extra fast and at 5'10 1/2 could dunk a bb. I was almost 6'0, had middling speed, and could barely touch the rim from a running start. We were both excellent outside shooters, but he could take it into the big boys and score on them. Guess who was offered two bb scholarships? (hint:not me) ...after he got out of the army. He was the starting pg on a team that won the Texas Amateur championship. Sometimes a person has to accept his limitations.

[Vinsanity_GOAT]

It's pretty much completely based on genetics. Sure you still have to work hard to get in the nba, unless maybe if you're an athletic 7 footer.

You can't train height, wingspan and handsize. The slow 5'9-6'0 guy in the original post doesn't stand a chance. For example: someone like john stockton who is considered by the average fan as unathletic, was actually very quick and had amazing reflexes (which can't be taught either). On top of that he had big hands which help with passing and ballhandling. Maybe not the best example because he had the work ethic and skills as well, but i think you get the point.

Great shooters have incredible hand-eye coordination which is a genetic trait as well.

In short, life isn't fair but you'll have to deal with it. And you can't do everything you set your mind to.

[dice]

TALENT is always 100% genetics

[Joseph17]

It's 90% genetics. Hard work can only take you so far if you are short and unathletic. Derrick Rose said something similar in an interview and he's right. I'm glad that he actually admitted that because most players make it seem like all you have to do is work hard.

[leolozon]

For sure genetic is a big part of the equation, but people seem to forget that a lot of freak athlete didn't make it to the NBA. It's not enough to have the best car if you don't know how to use it, don't take care of if and don't drive smartly. I'm not even only talking about the Jamario Moon and James White of this world, but also guys like Len Bias.

I'm not sure it's really 80-20.

You all think that a guy 80/80 on genetic and 10/20 on effort has more chance than a guy 70/80 and 20/20?

Take a guy like Nash, not great genetic, but worked his ass off to become a great shooter. He was always pretty good, but he became elite slowly but surely. Look at how is FG% kept going up through the years.

Nash is probably top 50 of all time and he was never destined for that. At 23 people thought he would be a bench player, at 26 people thought he would be a borderline all-star, at 32 people thought he could be a hall of famer, He just climbed the ladder.

Now, maybe Nash still has pretty good genetics compare to the average man, it's tough to say how much is genetic and how much is work, but I don't think you can compare athletes to average man. Every professional athlete is in the top 1%. But then between 99% (Nash) and 99.999% (Lebron) there is a huge difference.

[aroba]

Being a great athlete helps a lot but greatness is ALWAYS MENTAL.

....ask larry bird

[Johnlac1]

For sure genetic is a big part of the equation, but people seem to forget that a lot of freak athlete didn't make it to the NBA. It's not enough to have the best car if you don't know how to use it, don't take care of if and don't drive smartly. I'm not even only talking about the Jamario Moon and James White of this world, but also guys like Len Bias.

I'm not sure it's really 80-20.

You all think that a guy 80/80 on genetic and 10/20 on effort has more chance than a guy 70/80 and 20/20?

Take a guy like Nash, not great genetic, but worked his ass off to become a great shooter. He was always pretty good, but he became elite slowly but surely. Look at how is FG% kept going up through the years.

Nash is probably top 50 of all time and he was never destined for that. At 23 people thought he would be a bench player, at 26 people thought he would be a borderline all-star, at 32 people thought he could be a hall of famer, He just climbed the ladder.

Now, maybe Nash still has pretty good genetics compare to the average man, it's tough to say how much is genetic and how much is work, but I don't think you can compare athletes to average man. Every professional athlete is in the top 1%. But then between 99% (Nash) and 99.999% (Lebron) there is a huge difference.

There's four pillars to being a great player: two mental (intelligence, desire) and two physical (athletic ability and skill.) Nash had three out of the four. But even if his foot speed was never the best, he's 6'3 and very coordinated. But he's an outlier.

[Johnlac1]

It's pretty much completely based on genetics. Sure you still have to work hard to get in the nba, unless maybe if you're an athletic 7 footer.

You can't train height, wingspan and handsize. The slow 5'9-6'0 guy in the original post doesn't stand a chance. For example: someone like john stockton who is considered by the average fan as unathletic, was actually very quick and had amazing reflexes (which can't be taught either). On top of that he had big hands which help with passing and ballhandling. Maybe not the best example because he had the work ethic and skills as well, but i think you get the point.

Great shooters have incredible hand-eye coordination which is a genetic trait as well.

In short, life isn't fair but you'll have to deal with it. And you can't do everything you set your mind to.

Stockton also had excellent speed. I've read many comments by people who said he was slow. Then I went back to the internet and looked at Jazz games with Stockton. Here's this guy dribbling the ball down the court outracing numerous other players. He wasn't just quick, he was fast AND quick.

[_BBIB_]

The less fundamentally sound the game is, the more it's based on genetics

The more fundamentally sound players are the more it can be based on skill. For instance, if there was a center who wasn't exactly athletic but put in the work to develop a sky hook, that Center could be just as effective a post player as say Blake Griffin or Dwight Howard

[GreenHat]

One way to tell is look at comparisons between NBA fathers and sons. Far more of them are worse than their fathers than are better. In fact I can only think of 2 players that are better than their fathers were (Kobe and Steph Curry).

That's an entirely dumb way of looking at it. You're taking a huge genetic outlier who performed to a high percentage of his potential and then being surprised when their offspring regresses somewhat.

Think about how many basketball players are better than their non-NBA dads?

Genetics don't give your offspring the exact same ability to play basketball.

[tsherkin]

Stockton also had excellent speed. I've read many comments by people who said he was slow. Then I went back to the internet and looked at Jazz games with Stockton. Here's this guy dribbling the ball down the court outracing numerous other players. He wasn't just quick, he was fast AND quick.

His end to end speed with the ball was great. His lateral quickness, stop-start and change of direction were much less so, however.

[GreenHat]

It's pretty much completely based on genetics. Sure you still have to work hard to get in the nba, unless maybe if you're an athletic 7 footer.

You can't train height, wingspan and handsize. The slow 5'9-6'0 guy in the original post doesn't stand a chance. For example: someone like john stockton who is considered by the average fan as unathletic, was actually very quick and had amazing reflexes (which can't be taught either). On top of that he had big hands which help with passing and ballhandling. Maybe not the best example because he had the work ethic and skills as well, but i think you get the point.

Great shooters have incredible hand-eye coordination which is a genetic trait as well.

In short, life isn't fair but you'll have to deal with it. And you can't do everything you set your mind to.

If you look at the whole package John Stockton is a huge genetic outlier from the general population

[GreenHat]

For sure genetic is a big part of the equation, but people seem to forget that a lot of freak athlete didn't make it to the NBA. It's not enough to have the best car if you don't know how to use it, don't take care of if and don't drive smartly. I'm not even only talking about the Jamario Moon and James White of this world, but also guys like Len Bias.

I'm not sure it's really 80-20.

You all think that a guy 80/80 on genetic and 10/20 on effort has more chance than a guy 70/80 and 20/20?

Take a guy like Nash, not great genetic, but worked his ass off to become a great shooter. He was always pretty good, but he became elite slowly but surely. Look at how is FG% kept going up through the years.

Nash is probably top 50 of all time and he was never destined for that. At 23 people thought he would be a bench player, at 26 people thought he would be a borderline all-star, at 32 people thought he could be a hall of famer, He just climbed the ladder.

Now, maybe Nash still has pretty good genetics compare to the average man, it's tough to say how much is genetic and how much is work, but I don't think you can compare athletes to average man. Every professional athlete is in the top 1%. But then between 99% (Nash) and 99.999% (Lebron) there is a huge difference.

Len Bias died. For all intents and purposes he made it to the league. Plenty of players did coke and were fine.

Nash is higher than the 99%. You say there is a big difference between Nash and Lebron genetically but there is also a big difference between them as players as well that Nash can never overcome despite how hard he works. That's an argument for genetics being a huge part.