NBA Teams And NBA Era Team USA Have Lost 36 Times To International Teams

[geminiz]

I'm starting to get an Anti-American vibe from these threads. Every. Single. Loss. Is brought up and made into a thread this summer. I don't even know of anyone that's excited or watching the team this year. No one in America seems to care about Fiba. Only the Olympics. People get so excited after every loss. I haven't watched a second of a Team USA game and I know they lost at least 3 times and another time to a G-League squad in practice, just because of the amount of threads. I haven't seen a thread about a win though.

The only thing I cared about this Fiba Tournament was how Montenegro, Nigeria, and France was doing because of Nikola Vucevic, Al-Farouq Aminu, and Evan Fournier. That's it.

This is basically the same vibe I get from all Raptors related threads under General by non Raptors fans.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using RealGM mobile app

[Up-And-Coming]

We could all agree that all these superstars wont play for USA NT bc of they are old and injury prone.

avg played games in last 4 RS

Davis 49
Lebron 56
Durant 34
Lillard 55
Curry 47
Butler 58
Kawhi 40
George 47
Harden 59

Tatum/Booker/Adebayo must be the basement of the team around which the rest must be built

Adebayo
Tatum
Bridges
Booker
Haliburton

Read on Twitter

[Airmiess]

We could all agree that all these superstars wont play for USA NT bc of they are old and injury prone.

avg played games in last 4 RS

Davis 49
Lebron 56
Durant 34
Lillard 55
Curry 47
Butler 58
Kawhi 40
George 47
Harden 59

Tatum/Booker/Adebayo must be the basement of the team around which the rest must be built

Adebayo
Tatum
Bridges
Booker
Haliburton

Read on Twitter

Even at 40 he will likely be more impactful than the current US roster.

[Pachinko_]

Dude you'll be 40, go home, let the coaches pick their players.

[Airmiess]

These new crop of US stars are just not very imposing to international play outside of Tatum and Zion.

The international stars are actually overtaking the American NBA product.

I mean there will be players that will also improve over the years and become the stars/superstars of the future.

We have to see how guys like Cunningham, Mobley, Green, Barnes, Scooter, Banchero, Maxey, etc turn into. Some of these guys will turn into all-stars and maybe a couple will become legit superstars but they are all under 23 years old.

Also guys like Edwards, Haliburton, JJJ, Trae, Ja, Garland etc. are all under the age of 25.

You have to remember that the superstars of today were not superstars right away. Lebron, Melo, and Wade were too young and inexperienced in 2004 to make a huge impact and that team lost despite having guys like Duncan and Iverson.

Outside of Ja and Edwards, I dont see any of those guts becoming world beaters like the US rosters of yesteryear.

The real generational US talents are probably not known or drafted yet.

[TheGeneral99]

These new crop of US stars are just not very imposing to international play outside of Tatum and Zion.

The international stars are actually overtaking the American NBA product.

I mean there will be players that will also improve over the years and become the stars/superstars of the future.

We have to see how guys like Cunningham, Mobley, Green, Barnes, Scooter, Banchero, Maxey, etc turn into. Some of these guys will turn into all-stars and maybe a couple will become legit superstars but they are all under 23 years old.

Also guys like Edwards, Haliburton, JJJ, Trae, Ja, Garland etc. are all under the age of 25.

You have to remember that the superstars of today were not superstars right away. Lebron, Melo, and Wade were too young and inexperienced in 2004 to make a huge impact and that team lost despite having guys like Duncan and Iverson.

Outside of Ja and Edwards, I dont see any of those guts becoming world beaters like the US rosters of yesteryear.

The real generational US talents are probably not known or drafted yet.

Maybe you are right but nobody saw guys like Steph and Butler turning into superstars back in the early 2010s. Nobody saw guys like Lowry and Derozan turning into all-stars in the early 2010s. Even a guy like Harden was a really good 6th man on a great team and didn't emerge as an all-star until year 4.

Every decade there are a few guys that take the leap from star to superstar that you don't expect and every decade there are guys that become all-stars that you don't expect. Nobody in the late 1990s could ever predict that Steve Nash would become a perennial MVP.

I'm just saying the US still has some young guys with a ton of talent in Cade, Barnes, Mobley, Green, Scooter, Banchero etc. all under 23 years old. It's not far fetched to say that in the next 3-4 years at least a couple of those guys will turn into legit superstar caliber players. Cade has been injured a lot his first couple years but looks really good when healthy and Banchero looks like he's poised to become an all-star next season at the age of 20. Barnes and Mobley also seem like future all-star players.

[dhsilv2]

NBA is a national league, Premier League is a national league, La Liga is a national league, you wont stop being a national league until you start playing teams all around the world, or at least the continent

Why is it a national league? The only seeming argument is about physical location of where games are played, which is COMPLETELY meaningless. There's no logistical way for a league to play teams over the world's full 24 time zones. A true world league still needs to limit the time zones it plays in. Similarly, you can't water talent down by having multiple leagues.

If you absolutely must have a world-champion-private-corporation-basketball-club, you must
invite the NBA champs, the Euroleague Champs, the South American champs and whichever other continent is interested to play a small tournament in a neutral location (or a tournament with home and away games) and the winner is the world champion. It's not that hard, soccer does it (I think)

With your logic, if a team outside the US suddenly decides to spend a bazillion dollars, buys the best players and is now the best team in the world, they will never be the best team in the world because you have decided that the best team in the world must come from the NBA. Well that's a bit unfair isn't it?

There can only be one league. Period end of story. You can't water it down by allowed inferior teams. Soccer has failed to have a real top league and it makes having a real world championship impossible.

If you allow players to compete at the highest level without being in the highest level, that's a failed system.

And no, it's unfair to allow teams to play in an inferior league and then compete when they didn't win the top league. If you want to spend a bajillion dollars, buy an NBA franchise to build it up from there. Spreading out talent isn't going to be beneficial to anyone. And any player leaving for that huge pay day, has to accept they won't be competing at the highest level.

[Pachinko_]

Why is it a national league? The only seeming argument is about physical location of where games are played, which is COMPLETELY meaningless. There's no logistical way for a league to play teams over the world's full 24 time zones. A true world league still needs to limit the time zones it plays in. Similarly, you can't water talent down by having multiple leagues.

If you absolutely must have a world-champion-private-corporation-basketball-club, you must
invite the NBA champs, the Euroleague Champs, the South American champs and whichever other continent is interested to play a small tournament in a neutral location (or a tournament with home and away games) and the winner is the world champion. It's not that hard, soccer does it (I think)

With your logic, if a team outside the US suddenly decides to spend a bazillion dollars, buys the best players and is now the best team in the world, they will never be the best team in the world because you have decided that the best team in the world must come from the NBA. Well that's a bit unfair isn't it?

There can only be one league. Period end of story. You can't water it down by allowed inferior teams. Soccer has failed to have a real top league and it makes having a real world championship impossible.

If you allow players to compete at the highest level without being in the highest level, that's a failed system.

Yeah I don't know about that. Soccer is so ridiculously succesful that it has transcended sports and it's now something else entirely.

[dhsilv2]

If you absolutely must have a world-champion-private-corporation-basketball-club, you must
invite the NBA champs, the Euroleague Champs, the South American champs and whichever other continent is interested to play a small tournament in a neutral location (or a tournament with home and away games) and the winner is the world champion. It's not that hard, soccer does it (I think)

With your logic, if a team outside the US suddenly decides to spend a bazillion dollars, buys the best players and is now the best team in the world, they will never be the best team in the world because you have decided that the best team in the world must come from the NBA. Well that's a bit unfair isn't it?

There can only be one league. Period end of story. You can't water it down by allowed inferior teams. Soccer has failed to have a real top league and it makes having a real world championship impossible.

If you allow players to compete at the highest level without being in the highest level, that's a failed system.

Yeah I don't know about that. Soccer is so ridiculously succesful that it has transcended sports and it's now something else entirely.

It's not though. It's insanely popular, yes. But that is extremely spread out. They haven't been able to create a true top league. Are we looking to make the most popular SPORT or are we trying to make the best product possible? The two are never the same.

[Pachinko_]

There can only be one league. Period end of story. You can't water it down by allowed inferior teams. Soccer has failed to have a real top league and it makes having a real world championship impossible.

If you allow players to compete at the highest level without being in the highest level, that's a failed system.

Yeah I don't know about that. Soccer is so ridiculously succesful that it has transcended sports and it's now something else entirely.

It's not though. It's insanely popular, yes. But that is extremely spread out. They haven't been able to create a true top league. Are we looking to make the most popular SPORT or are we trying to make the best product possible? The two are never the same.

Sport. Definitely. Fk the product, product is for toothpastes. I can go on and on about the difference between sport and product and why I prefer the former. Trust me I can write a thesis, don't get me started lol

[dhsilv2]

Yeah I don't know about that. Soccer is so ridiculously succesful that it has transcended sports and it's now something else entirely.

It's not though. It's insanely popular, yes. But that is extremely spread out. They haven't been able to create a true top league. Are we looking to make the most popular SPORT or are we trying to make the best product possible? The two are never the same.

Sport. Definitely. Fk the product, product is for toothpastes. I can go on and on about the difference between sport and product and why I prefer the former. Trust me I can write a thesis, don't get me started lol

Then the NBA model where the top league DOMINATES all the top talent is the best method. Don't get me wrong, I benefit from the time zones, but I still hate that the top NBA league has to have all the games played in a time zone that's bad for the rest of the world. But there's not a legit alternative. You can't have players jet lagged constantly. Maybe the league could have all the teams play 2 months in europe or something? I'd love that if they could figure out the logistics to share the game with more in person fans.

[Hangtime84]

Dude you'll be 40, go home, let the coaches pick their players.

unfortunately these young guys don't know how to win.

[JonFromVA]

I mean there will be players that will also improve over the years and become the stars/superstars of the future.

We have to see how guys like Cunningham, Mobley, Green, Barnes, Scooter, Banchero, Maxey, etc turn into. Some of these guys will turn into all-stars and maybe a couple will become legit superstars but they are all under 23 years old.

Also guys like Edwards, Haliburton, JJJ, Trae, Ja, Garland etc. are all under the age of 25.

You have to remember that the superstars of today were not superstars right away. Lebron, Melo, and Wade were too young and inexperienced in 2004 to make a huge impact and that team lost despite having guys like Duncan and Iverson.

Outside of Ja and Edwards, I dont see any of those guts becoming world beaters like the US rosters of yesteryear.

The real generational US talents are probably not known or drafted yet.

Maybe you are right but nobody saw guys like Steph and Butler turning into superstars back in the early 2010s. Nobody saw guys like Lowry and Derozan turning into all-stars in the early 2010s. Even a guy like Harden was a really good 6th man on a great team and didn't emerge as an all-star until year 4.

Every decade there are a few guys that take the leap from star to superstar that you don't expect and every decade there are guys that become all-stars that you don't expect. Nobody in the late 1990s could ever predict that Steve Nash would become a perennial MVP.

I'm just saying the US still has some young guys with a ton of talent in Cade, Barnes, Mobley, Green, Scooter, Banchero etc. all under 23 years old. It's not far fetched to say that in the next 3-4 years at least a couple of those guys will turn into legit superstar caliber players. Cade has been injured a lot his first couple years but looks really good when healthy and Banchero looks like he's poised to become an all-star next season at the age of 20. Barnes and Mobley also seem like future all-star players.

If the US isn't going to bring a group that's got a decent amount of FIBA experience playing together, then what makes for a "World Beater" is not always as straightforward as snagging the biggest stars. It's often players with unique individual 1v1 talent that can't be matched by international players and warps or breaks their defense.

Even 40 year old LeBron may be a big help in that department because even at his age few players are better suited to run a team without an actual offensive system.

[JonFromVA]

Why is it a national league? The only seeming argument is about physical location of where games are played, which is COMPLETELY meaningless. There's no logistical way for a league to play teams over the world's full 24 time zones. A true world league still needs to limit the time zones it plays in. Similarly, you can't water talent down by having multiple leagues.

If you absolutely must have a world-champion-private-corporation-basketball-club, you must
invite the NBA champs, the Euroleague Champs, the South American champs and whichever other continent is interested to play a small tournament in a neutral location (or a tournament with home and away games) and the winner is the world champion. It's not that hard, soccer does it (I think)

With your logic, if a team outside the US suddenly decides to spend a bazillion dollars, buys the best players and is now the best team in the world, they will never be the best team in the world because you have decided that the best team in the world must come from the NBA. Well that's a bit unfair isn't it?

There can only be one league. Period end of story. You can't water it down by allowed inferior teams. Soccer has failed to have a real top league and it makes having a real world championship impossible.

If you allow players to compete at the highest level without being in the highest level, that's a failed system.

And no, it's unfair to allow teams to play in an inferior league and then compete when they didn't win the top league. If you want to spend a bajillion dollars, buy an NBA franchise to build it up from there. Spreading out talent isn't going to be beneficial to anyone. And any player leaving for that huge pay day, has to accept they won't be competing at the highest level.

That's probably how the NBA hopes it will go, but there's a chance that as basketball becomes more popular globally that teams in other countries will be more able to afford to pay their best players to not go to the NBA, which will raise the competitive level, and make it more attractive to American players too.

Just need enough crazy fans with enough money to justify the investment in arenas, attract the TV deals, etc.

[dhsilv2]

If you absolutely must have a world-champion-private-corporation-basketball-club, you must
invite the NBA champs, the Euroleague Champs, the South American champs and whichever other continent is interested to play a small tournament in a neutral location (or a tournament with home and away games) and the winner is the world champion. It's not that hard, soccer does it (I think)

With your logic, if a team outside the US suddenly decides to spend a bazillion dollars, buys the best players and is now the best team in the world, they will never be the best team in the world because you have decided that the best team in the world must come from the NBA. Well that's a bit unfair isn't it?

There can only be one league. Period end of story. You can't water it down by allowed inferior teams. Soccer has failed to have a real top league and it makes having a real world championship impossible.

If you allow players to compete at the highest level without being in the highest level, that's a failed system.

And no, it's unfair to allow teams to play in an inferior league and then compete when they didn't win the top league. If you want to spend a bajillion dollars, buy an NBA franchise to build it up from there. Spreading out talent isn't going to be beneficial to anyone. And any player leaving for that huge pay day, has to accept they won't be competing at the highest level.

That's probably how the NBA hopes it will go, but there's a chance that as basketball becomes more popular globally that teams in other countries will be more able to afford to pay their best players to not go to the NBA, which will raise the competitive level, and make it more attractive to American players too.

Just need enough crazy fans with enough money to justify the investment in arenas, attract the TV deals, etc.

The thing is, you don't play in the NBA just because it's the best paying league. You go there because it's the best league. If the NBA can't keep up with that, then hopefully everyone leaves and goes to whatever league becomes the new best one. That said, I don't see why the NBA would lose out. The NBA model already works better than these Soccer models in terms of adding value to franchises or the european clubs. So there's no reason to think that another league is going to be able to compete in terms of money long term.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2022/09/08/the-worlds-50-most-valuable-sports-teams-2022/?sh=2f40319f385c

Not till 13 do we see a non American team. It's not because we're America and we're all better. It's because our sports franchise model is just economically a better system vs the more open system used in Europe.

[zero rings]

I mean there will be players that will also improve over the years and become the stars/superstars of the future.

We have to see how guys like Cunningham, Mobley, Green, Barnes, Scooter, Banchero, Maxey, etc turn into. Some of these guys will turn into all-stars and maybe a couple will become legit superstars but they are all under 23 years old.

Also guys like Edwards, Haliburton, JJJ, Trae, Ja, Garland etc. are all under the age of 25.

You have to remember that the superstars of today were not superstars right away. Lebron, Melo, and Wade were too young and inexperienced in 2004 to make a huge impact and that team lost despite having guys like Duncan and Iverson.

Outside of Ja and Edwards, I dont see any of those guts becoming world beaters like the US rosters of yesteryear.

The real generational US talents are probably not known or drafted yet.

Maybe you are right but nobody saw guys like Steph and Butler turning into superstars back in the early 2010s. Nobody saw guys like Lowry and Derozan turning into all-stars in the early 2010s. Even a guy like Harden was a really good 6th man on a great team and didn't emerge as an all-star until year 4.

Every decade there are a few guys that take the leap from star to superstar that you don't expect and every decade there are guys that become all-stars that you don't expect. Nobody in the late 1990s could ever predict that Steve Nash would become a perennial MVP.

I'm just saying the US still has some young guys with a ton of talent in Cade, Barnes, Mobley, Green, Scooter, Banchero etc. all under 23 years old. It's not far fetched to say that in the next 3-4 years at least a couple of those guys will turn into legit superstar caliber players. Cade has been injured a lot his first couple years but looks really good when healthy and Banchero looks like he's poised to become an all-star next season at the age of 20. Barnes and Mobley also seem like future all-star players.

You absolutely could predict superstardom for those guys. The fact the most didn't speaks to the pathetic level of talent evaluation in the NBA.

Prior to winning his first MVP in 2015, Curry had a career 3P% of .440 on volume other great 3 pt shooters couldn't touch. He was already the best shooter that had ever lived, and all he needed was an increase in role to become the player we know today. It's not that he developed skills that he didn't already possess, the Warriors under Kerr finally realized what they had and gave him the ball. How many years did they waste featuring Monta Ellis instead of him?

Harden is pretty much the same story. Supremely skilled going back to his AZ State days, led the league in TS% his last year in OKC with an insane FT rate. The ability to dribble, pass, shoot, and draw fouls was all there but he was a "6th man" so it got overlooked. It's not a coincidence that he became a star the moment he had his own team.

Even Butler at Marquette was mostly the same guy he is today: a bulldog small forward who drew a ton of fouls and played hardnose defense.

The truth is most of these "development" stories are just undervalued players who finally get the opportunity to shine. The talent was there the whole time but for whatever reason people couldn't see it. Usually it's because they don't have godlike athleticism, so scouts and fans assume they have limited upside. This bias still plagues scouts to this day and it's why busts like Bagley and Wiseman get picked high in the draft every year.

If any of these young US players are going to reach superstardom, it's because they already have the talent and skill and are being underused. I don't see supreme ability with any of these guys. A couple of volume scorers, some nice defensive specialists, and that's about it.

[TheGeneral99]

Outside of Ja and Edwards, I dont see any of those guts becoming world beaters like the US rosters of yesteryear.

The real generational US talents are probably not known or drafted yet.

Maybe you are right but nobody saw guys like Steph and Butler turning into superstars back in the early 2010s. Nobody saw guys like Lowry and Derozan turning into all-stars in the early 2010s. Even a guy like Harden was a really good 6th man on a great team and didn't emerge as an all-star until year 4.

Every decade there are a few guys that take the leap from star to superstar that you don't expect and every decade there are guys that become all-stars that you don't expect. Nobody in the late 1990s could ever predict that Steve Nash would become a perennial MVP.

I'm just saying the US still has some young guys with a ton of talent in Cade, Barnes, Mobley, Green, Scooter, Banchero etc. all under 23 years old. It's not far fetched to say that in the next 3-4 years at least a couple of those guys will turn into legit superstar caliber players. Cade has been injured a lot his first couple years but looks really good when healthy and Banchero looks like he's poised to become an all-star next season at the age of 20. Barnes and Mobley also seem like future all-star players.

You absolutely could predict superstardom for those guys. The fact the most didn't speaks to the pathetic level of talent evaluation in the NBA.

Prior to winning his first MVP in 2015, Curry had a career 3P% of .440 on volume other great 3 pt shooters couldn't touch. He was already the best shooter that had ever lived, and all he needed was an increase in role to become the player we know today. It's not that he developed skills that he didn't already possess, the Warriors under Kerr finally realized what they had and gave him the ball. How many years did they waste featuring Monta Ellis instead of him?

Harden is pretty much the same story. Supremely skilled going back to his AZ State days, led the league in TS% his last year in OKC with an insane FT rate. The ability to dribble, pass, shoot, and draw fouls was all there but he was a "6th man" so it got overlooked. It's not a coincidence that he became a star the moment he had his own team.

Even Butler at Marquette was mostly the same guy he is today: a bulldog small forward who drew a ton of fouls and played hardnose defense.

The truth is most of these "development" stories are just undervalued players who finally get the opportunity to shine. The talent was there the whole time but for whatever reason people couldn't see it. Usually it's because they don't have godlike athleticism, so scouts and fans assume they have limited upside. This bias still plagues scouts to this day and it's why busts like Bagley and Wiseman get picked high in the draft every year.

If any of these young US players are going to reach superstardom, it's because they already have the talent and skill and are being underused. I don't see supreme ability with any of these guys. A couple of volume scorers, some nice defensive specialists, and that's about it.

You are seriously trying to tell me that back in 2011/2012 or so you could have predicted that Steph Curry would be a top 10-15 player of all time?

You are trying to tell me that it was easy to predict Jimmy would have been a superstar level player that could carry a team as the alpha to 2 finals appearances? That's why he went 35th overall? In year 3, Jimmy was playing 39 minutes a night but only averaged 13ppg on 39% from the field and 28% form 3. You could have predicted that he would become a guy who could average 23ppg on elite efficiency?

Get that BS out of here.

And I'm not disagreeing with you that some players are under-utilized and when they get that opportunity they thrive. So why are you assuming there are currently no players who just need more opportunity, and if they get that opportunity, they will shine as great players?

[JonFromVA]

There can only be one league. Period end of story. You can't water it down by allowed inferior teams. Soccer has failed to have a real top league and it makes having a real world championship impossible.

If you allow players to compete at the highest level without being in the highest level, that's a failed system.

And no, it's unfair to allow teams to play in an inferior league and then compete when they didn't win the top league. If you want to spend a bajillion dollars, buy an NBA franchise to build it up from there. Spreading out talent isn't going to be beneficial to anyone. And any player leaving for that huge pay day, has to accept they won't be competing at the highest level.

That's probably how the NBA hopes it will go, but there's a chance that as basketball becomes more popular globally that teams in other countries will be more able to afford to pay their best players to not go to the NBA, which will raise the competitive level, and make it more attractive to American players too.

Just need enough crazy fans with enough money to justify the investment in arenas, attract the TV deals, etc.

The thing is, you don't play in the NBA just because it's the best paying league. You go there because it's the best league. If the NBA can't keep up with that, then hopefully everyone leaves and goes to whatever league becomes the new best one. That said, I don't see why the NBA would lose out. The NBA model already works better than these Soccer models in terms of adding value to franchises or the european clubs. So there's no reason to think that another league is going to be able to compete in terms of money long term.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2022/09/08/the-worlds-50-most-valuable-sports-teams-2022/?sh=2f40319f385c

Not till 13 do we see a non American team. It's not because we're America and we're all better. It's because our sports franchise model is just economically a better system vs the more open system used in Europe.

You make some terrific points, but of course it's not just how we organize our leagues or the MLS wouldn't need to pay Lionel Mesi 10x what any other player in the league is earning to get him to play for Miami.

Taking a look at that link of top franchises, you have to go down a bit to find NBA teams and somewhere between the Lakers and the Celtics numerous fútbol clubs fall.

Those American football franchises are doing great, but that still didn't help the NFL push an inferior product on Europeans with NFL Europe.

It's a complex topic that I'm definitely not qualified to do anything other than contemplate the possibilities.

[zero rings]

Maybe you are right but nobody saw guys like Steph and Butler turning into superstars back in the early 2010s. Nobody saw guys like Lowry and Derozan turning into all-stars in the early 2010s. Even a guy like Harden was a really good 6th man on a great team and didn't emerge as an all-star until year 4.

Every decade there are a few guys that take the leap from star to superstar that you don't expect and every decade there are guys that become all-stars that you don't expect. Nobody in the late 1990s could ever predict that Steve Nash would become a perennial MVP.

I'm just saying the US still has some young guys with a ton of talent in Cade, Barnes, Mobley, Green, Scooter, Banchero etc. all under 23 years old. It's not far fetched to say that in the next 3-4 years at least a couple of those guys will turn into legit superstar caliber players. Cade has been injured a lot his first couple years but looks really good when healthy and Banchero looks like he's poised to become an all-star next season at the age of 20. Barnes and Mobley also seem like future all-star players.

You absolutely could predict superstardom for those guys. The fact the most didn't speaks to the pathetic level of talent evaluation in the NBA.

Prior to winning his first MVP in 2015, Curry had a career 3P% of .440 on volume other great 3 pt shooters couldn't touch. He was already the best shooter that had ever lived, and all he needed was an increase in role to become the player we know today. It's not that he developed skills that he didn't already possess, the Warriors under Kerr finally realized what they had and gave him the ball. How many years did they waste featuring Monta Ellis instead of him?

Harden is pretty much the same story. Supremely skilled going back to his AZ State days, led the league in TS% his last year in OKC with an insane FT rate. The ability to dribble, pass, shoot, and draw fouls was all there but he was a "6th man" so it got overlooked. It's not a coincidence that he became a star the moment he had his own team.

Even Butler at Marquette was mostly the same guy he is today: a bulldog small forward who drew a ton of fouls and played hardnose defense.

The truth is most of these "development" stories are just undervalued players who finally get the opportunity to shine. The talent was there the whole time but for whatever reason people couldn't see it. Usually it's because they don't have godlike athleticism, so scouts and fans assume they have limited upside. This bias still plagues scouts to this day and it's why busts like Bagley and Wiseman get picked high in the draft every year.

If any of these young US players are going to reach superstardom, it's because they already have the talent and skill and are being underused. I don't see supreme ability with any of these guys. A couple of volume scorers, some nice defensive specialists, and that's about it.

You are seriously trying to tell me that back in 2011/2012 or so you could have predicted that Steph Curry would be a top 10-15 player of all time?

You are trying to tell me that it was easy to predict Jimmy would have been a superstar level player that could carry a team as the alpha to 2 finals appearances? That's why he went 35th overall? In year 3, Jimmy was playing 39 minutes a night but only averaged 13ppg on 39% from the field and 28% form 3. You could have predicted that he would become a guy who could average 23ppg on elite efficiency?

Get that BS out of here.

And I'm not disagreeing with you that some players are under-utilized and when they get that opportunity they thrive. So why are you assuming there are currently no players who just need more opportunity, and if they get that opportunity, they will shine as great players?

I am telling you that the talent and skill was there from the beginning, and there were strong statistical indicators of what was to come. It wasn't hard to see that Steph was the GOAT shooter and had all-time potential before he actually won MVP. He was a special player even at Davidson. Jimmy is a weird one because he was under the radar and miscast as a defensive specialist his first few years, hence why I referenced his play at Marquette. He popped on offense the first year they really gave him the ball in the NBA. I admit to not knowing much of anything about him at the time, but looking back it's not hard to see that he was an undervalued player in need of opportunity.

My broader point is that skill development is overrated by scouts and fans alike. Most of a player's skill development occurs long before they ever play in the NBA. What actually separates the wheat from the chaff at this level is rare talent, and rare talent does not take years and years to show itself.

And the reason I'm not optimistic about this next wave of American "stars" is that they are all top draft picks who have been given plenty of opportunity, and none of them have done much with it. I'm not impressed by guys like Banchero, Green, and Cunningham putting up volume numbers on terrible efficiency. Barnes and Mobley look like good defenders, but offensively they will be lucky to ever be above average. Even someone like Edwards doesn't have a single elite skill after three years, which is not a good sign for his superstar potential.

There will be some good players from this crop, maybe a few low level all stars, but superstars? I'm not seeing it.

[TheGeneral99]

You absolutely could predict superstardom for those guys. The fact the most didn't speaks to the pathetic level of talent evaluation in the NBA.

Prior to winning his first MVP in 2015, Curry had a career 3P% of .440 on volume other great 3 pt shooters couldn't touch. He was already the best shooter that had ever lived, and all he needed was an increase in role to become the player we know today. It's not that he developed skills that he didn't already possess, the Warriors under Kerr finally realized what they had and gave him the ball. How many years did they waste featuring Monta Ellis instead of him?

Harden is pretty much the same story. Supremely skilled going back to his AZ State days, led the league in TS% his last year in OKC with an insane FT rate. The ability to dribble, pass, shoot, and draw fouls was all there but he was a "6th man" so it got overlooked. It's not a coincidence that he became a star the moment he had his own team.

Even Butler at Marquette was mostly the same guy he is today: a bulldog small forward who drew a ton of fouls and played hardnose defense.

The truth is most of these "development" stories are just undervalued players who finally get the opportunity to shine. The talent was there the whole time but for whatever reason people couldn't see it. Usually it's because they don't have godlike athleticism, so scouts and fans assume they have limited upside. This bias still plagues scouts to this day and it's why busts like Bagley and Wiseman get picked high in the draft every year.

If any of these young US players are going to reach superstardom, it's because they already have the talent and skill and are being underused. I don't see supreme ability with any of these guys. A couple of volume scorers, some nice defensive specialists, and that's about it.

You are seriously trying to tell me that back in 2011/2012 or so you could have predicted that Steph Curry would be a top 10-15 player of all time?

You are trying to tell me that it was easy to predict Jimmy would have been a superstar level player that could carry a team as the alpha to 2 finals appearances? That's why he went 35th overall? In year 3, Jimmy was playing 39 minutes a night but only averaged 13ppg on 39% from the field and 28% form 3. You could have predicted that he would become a guy who could average 23ppg on elite efficiency?

Get that BS out of here.

And I'm not disagreeing with you that some players are under-utilized and when they get that opportunity they thrive. So why are you assuming there are currently no players who just need more opportunity, and if they get that opportunity, they will shine as great players?

I am telling you that the talent and skill was there from the beginning, and there were strong statistical indicators of what was to come. It wasn't hard to see that Steph was the GOAT shooter and had all-time potential before he actually won MVP. He was a special player even at Davidson. Jimmy is a weird one because he was under the radar and miscast as a defensive specialist his first few years, hence why I referenced his play at Marquette. He popped on offense the first year they really gave him the ball in the NBA. I admit to not knowing much of anything about him at the time, but looking back it's not hard to see that he was an undervalued player in need of opportunity.

My broader point is that skill development is overrated by scouts and fans alike. Most of a player's skill development occurs long before they ever play in the NBA. What actually separates the wheat from the chaff at this level is rare talent, and rare talent does not take years and years to show itself.

And the reason I'm not optimistic about this next wave of American "stars" is that they are all top draft picks who have been given plenty of opportunity, and none of them have done much with it. I'm not impressed by guys like Banchero, Green, and Cunningham putting up volume numbers on terrible efficiency. Barnes and Mobley look like good defenders, but offensively they will be lucky to ever be above average. Even someone like Edwards doesn't have a single elite skill after three years, which is not a good sign for his superstar potential.

There will be some good players from this crop, maybe a few low level all stars, but superstars? I'm not seeing it.

Dude, you can't just say that you knew what would happen.

Jimmer Fredette for instance posted very similar College numbers as Steph Curry and failed in the NBA despite having many opportunities.

Jimmer senior year - 29ppg on 45%fg and 40%3fg.

Curry junior year - 29ppg on 45%fg and 39%3fg.

Both had similar percentages on almost the same volume.

According to your logic, Jimmer should have also been an all-time great scorer.

Many people initially were unsure if Curry's offensive prowess could translate to the NBA level given his lack of athleticism, size and speed. To say that it was obvious Curry would not just turn into a great player but arguably a top 10 player of all-time is ludicrous.

Kawhi is another player who few saw as an elite level scorer. Early in his scorer Kawhi was mainly a defensive freak and a very good 3 point shooter who was limited as an iso scorer. By 2015, Kawhi started to emerge as a solid scorer and by 2017 he had truly emerged as an elite level scorer on par with guys like KD and Steph.

How do you know that there are no 2nd round picks like Jimmy or like a Jokic that are currently undervalued and will emerge as superstar level players in the next few years? The answer is you don't. So to state that there are no Americans in the league currently that will get to that level is very foolish.