The decline of superstar level development in US Basketball - How Fortnite and Minecraft killed US superstars

[dhsilv2]

you're comparing entire careers of prior players against guys who are just entering their prime lol.

Tatum is already 4x 1st team all-nba, Ant has 2 2nd team all nba and looks like he could be an MVP caliber player at 24.

Basketball is different now, the top players are just as talented as they were in any era.

Tatum and Ant for as good or talented as they are, aren’t anywhere near the level of players like Duncan, Kobe and etc in my perspective at same ages.

You can think otherwise… but it is a hard sell for people who have watched them throughout their career.

If you would have said SGA and Luka… yeah I can buy that.

Of course you picked Duncan and Kobe who's development isn't exactly the normal "american" development. With Kobe spending time in europe growing up and Duncan coming from a territory.

[peZt]

Anthony Edwards' young years, at least according to his Wikipedia bio, also conflict with the argument in this thread.

Im talking about a general trend, not about specific or anectodal cases.

Fact is, backed by studies and research, that kids are spending less and less time outside, anectodal and eye test also supports the claim that fewer and fewer kids spend their afternoons on the street court playing Basketball. LeBron is literally on record saying "Street Ball paid a huge part in my development. The development on the street court does not happen anymore"

We have the case of Football where federations have analysed and realised this trend, countries who noticed this trend the first and changed their youth programs the first, are now the #1 producer of talent in the world (England). They correctly analysed the decline of street football and changed their entire youth program to compensate for that. England is teaching football in a completely different way than they did 2 decades ago. Incorporating aspects of street football into their training methods to make up for the lack of it. And boom, they turn from a country that was known for producing athletic, non technical footballers, to now producing some of the most technically versed and skilled footballers in the world.
Germany has turned their entire football devleopment program on its heads 5 years ago after they realised the same trend, only after England did so. And are now doing the same.

So in the case of Footbal they've realised this. In european Basketball I assume as well, and also players like LeBron have indicated so. But there seems to be no systematic adaptation to this phenomenon in the US, which is why we are seeing the decline of superstar talent in the US.

And just logic alone dictates that if the general population of kids (not speaking of specific examples or cases) does not spend thousands of hours playing Basketball on the street court for years, that their development will be worse than if they had done so. In every skill, trade or whatever it is accepted that putting in the hours makes you better. But somehow in this case this does not apply? Kids are playing less and less outside, this is a fact. And this naturally has an effect on the development, the thousands of hours of development that is done there are missing.

So the only touchpoint that these kids have to Basketball is the school. Where again, the schools can not nearly compensate for the lack of street ball given the development system in the US. This huge part in developing the skills of kids in the past is missing.

[dhsilv2]

With basketball becoming a global sport it's not surprising that the extreme outlier athletes are coming from all over. But we're still far and away developing the most star talent.

This sums up my thoughts. The top players should be less and less from one country with 300 million people.

[peZt]

With basketball becoming a global sport it's not surprising that the extreme outlier athletes are coming from all over. But we're still far and away developing the most star talent.

This sums up my thoughts. The top players should be less and less from one country with 300 million people.

This does not explain why the top players of the US are getting worse. Im not comparing the US top talent to international top talent, but to US top talent of previous generations.

Slovenia producing Doncic is not mutually exclusive to the US producing an equal superstar in the same era. But we have the rest of the world producing more superstars than they did in the past, whereas the US is not nearly as good at producing these absolute top level players as they were until this era.
One is getting better, the other is clearly getting worse.

Tatum was arguably the best US american player. Now its probably Ant. I love Ant and Tatum, but come on, its evident that the US does not have the superstars that they always had until this era. Nobody is on the level of a KD, Curry or even Harden. Nobody is on the level of a prime Wade, Duncan, Shaq or Kobe. In the previous era we have MJ etc. There is a clear trend. And its not going upwards

[Mephariel]

But here’s the thing. 2 out of the last 3 MVP winners while yes weren’t born in the US, used the US development system.

Embiid barely played any basketball before moving out here to go to US high school/AAU then college. SGA moved to the US to go to US high schools for the entire reason to get better competition and development.

Now we just had Cooper Flagg enter the league. And if it wasn’t for the alien Wemby, he’d probably be the most hyped rookie since LeBron.

Now ya the game is far more global than ever before. And just from sheer numbers there is a better chance to find a freak physical human outside of the US.

Wemby is unlike anyone we’ve ever seen. Giannis is literally called the Greek freak. Someone his size that moves that like him is freakish and rarely comes around. And Jokic is just Jokic haha.

Ya the game is far more global than ever before. So expect more superstars that come internationally. We’re also not all that separated from NBA fans getting tired of LeBron and Curry dominating the league and meeting up in the finals every year.

It is not just Cooper Flagg. Peterson, Dybantsa, and Boozer are looking like they could be great stars.

But really, what "stars" have the European system developed? All the stars that people talked about, like Shai, Luka, Wemby, Jokic, and Giannis are either developed in America, or they are outliers.

Take out Wemby, who is a crazy outlier, are other French players that much better than America players? Who in France is better than Tatum, Edwards, and Hali besides Wemby?

Take out Luka, who in Slovenia is better than American stars?

Take out Jokic, who in Serbia is better than American stars?

Same with Greece.

To me, Europe just happens to enter a phase of outliers. But the way people talk, they act like Europe is churring out stars, which is not true.

[Message Boar]

While I do think there's at least something here in terms of the original post, I'm still not convinced that the same effect shouldn't be happening in other places too

[dhsilv2]

With basketball becoming a global sport it's not surprising that the extreme outlier athletes are coming from all over. But we're still far and away developing the most star talent.

This sums up my thoughts. The top players should be less and less from one country with 300 million people.

This does not explain why the top players of the US are getting worse. Im not comparing the US top talent to international top talent, but to US top talent of previous generations.

Slovenia producing Doncic is not mutually exclusive of the US producing an equal superstar in the same year. But we have the rest of the world producing more superstars than they did in the past, whereas the US is not nearly as good at producing these absolute top level players as they were until this era.

Tatum was arguabyl the best US american player. Now its probably Ant. I love Ant, but come on, its evident that the US does not have the superstars that they had until this era. Nobody is on the level of a KD, Curry or even Harden. Nobody is on the level of a prime Wade, Duncan, Shaq or Kobe. In the previous era we have MJ etc. There is a clear trend. And its not going upwards

When dealing with samples of 5 out of billions of people. We can't conclude this is anything but randomly chance. That is if I even believe that the talent is declining which I'm not convinced is actually true in the first place.

As noted give your argument, Kobe and Duncan weren't purely developed in the US system either. Or by that Embiid and SGA weren't not developed in the US system. It's just not convincing.

[peZt]

But here’s the thing. 2 out of the last 3 MVP winners while yes weren’t born in the US, used the US development system.

Embiid barely played any basketball before moving out here to go to US high school/AAU then college. SGA moved to the US to go to US high schools for the entire reason to get better competition and development.

Now we just had Cooper Flagg enter the league. And if it wasn’t for the alien Wemby, he’d probably be the most hyped rookie since LeBron.

Now ya the game is far more global than ever before. And just from sheer numbers there is a better chance to find a freak physical human outside of the US.

Wemby is unlike anyone we’ve ever seen. Giannis is literally called the Greek freak. Someone his size that moves that like him is freakish and rarely comes around. And Jokic is just Jokic haha.

Ya the game is far more global than ever before. So expect more superstars that come internationally. We’re also not all that separated from NBA fans getting tired of LeBron and Curry dominating the league and meeting up in the finals every year.

It is not just Cooper Flagg. Peterson, Dybantsa, and Boozer are looking like they could be great stars.

But really, what "stars" have the European system developed? All the stars that people talked about, like Shai, Luka, Wemby, Jokic, and Giannis are either developed in America, or they are outliers.

Take out Wemby, who is a crazy outlier, are other French players that much better than America players? Who in France is better than Tatum, Edwards, and Hali besides Wemby?

Take out Luka, who in Slovenia is better than American stars?

Take out Jokic, who in Serbia is better than American stars?

Same with Greece.

To me, Europe just happens to enter a phase of outliers. But the way people talk, they act like Europe is churring out stars, which is not true.

Im explaining it in my initial post why these countries are not better than US in general.

Player development can be described with a mathematic formula.

The varibales are:
1) Physical traits – Will they have NBA level body and athleticism later on?
2) Work ethic – Do they have the necessary work ethic and drive to work on their game
3) Natural talent – Not everyone is born with the same talent, some learn faster, adapt quicker and so on
4) Quality of development – How good is the coaching, the youth development program, how are they developing their skills
5) Size of player pool.

The number of pro players a country develops is basically these variables multiplied with each other.
Making up numbers:


2 and 3 are the same across countries. 1 I would argue that the US has a massive edge compared to european countries, so here you already have one factor that plays a role in why the US is producing more talent.
5) is also much better in the US, since you have a huge population and Basketball is probably #1 sport among kids when it comes to participation. In Europe its probably not even #10. You have 500,000 boy playing Basketball in High School. Thats more u18 boys that exist in Serbia and Slovenia COMBINED. You have more boys playing just High School Basketball than boys even live in Serbia and Slovenia combined.

The only variable that is clearly bnetter in Europe is 4), quality of player development. Because there is no denying that a professional club with its professional youth coaches, professional youth structure and development, with a squad of trainers etc. can offer a much better development program than a random school in the US can. That's why clubs are spending millions of millions of dollars into their youth departments. Cause they know, the more you invest and spend, the better players you will develop

BUT, this can only make up so much. Its a numbers game.

If there are 1,500,000 u18 year olds playing Basketball in USA, no matter how worse the actual development program is, you will develop a huge number of players.
Basketball is probably not even top 5 participation sports in Europe. In Turkey I know that there are 10,000 kids in total playing organised basketball. Then you have a population that is on average less athletic than the US population. So you have a much lower, smaller and "worse" player pool. No matter how good your player development program is, you will not make up for this massive difference in numbers.

IF you are lucky and a natural talent like Wemby or Giannis or outliers like this decide to play Basketball in Europe (they have to actively join a club, they dont get discovered in school) then they are developed better. That's why you have these superstars in Europe. But the issue is, due to the super low participation numbers and player pool, you dont have more of them.

But I can guarantee you, move the 1,500,000 american kids to Europe, put them into the european club system and they will become much much better than they would have if they stayed here


So putting the formula from above into action and comparing USA and Turkey. Work Ethic and Talent are the same, I will just make up 25% likelihood for both of them. USA has a more athletic population, so likelihood of a american kid developing the necessary NBA body I would make up with 3% likelihood and for Turkey 1%. And then you have 1,500,000 kids in the US playing organised Basketball and 10,000 in Turkey.
And quality of player development I will value at 40% for Turkey and 20% for USA.

USA:
3% * 25% * 25% * 20% * 1,500,000 = So the 1,500,000 kids in the US playing organised Basketball will produce 562 NBA players

Turkey:
1% * 25% * 25% * 40% * 10,000 = The 10,000 kids playing organised Basketball in Turkey will produce.... 3 NBA players...

So its a numbers game. The quality of development is better in Turkey due to its club system and professional teams. But it just can not make up for the other variables. You can have the best coaches and facilities and programs as you want, you can only produce so much NBA talent with a pool of only 10,000 kids

[Duke4life831]

But here’s the thing. 2 out of the last 3 MVP winners while yes weren’t born in the US, used the US development system.

Embiid barely played any basketball before moving out here to go to US high school/AAU then college. SGA moved to the US to go to US high schools for the entire reason to get better competition and development.

Now we just had Cooper Flagg enter the league. And if it wasn’t for the alien Wemby, he’d probably be the most hyped rookie since LeBron.

Now ya the game is far more global than ever before. And just from sheer numbers there is a better chance to find a freak physical human outside of the US.

Wemby is unlike anyone we’ve ever seen. Giannis is literally called the Greek freak. Someone his size that moves that like him is freakish and rarely comes around. And Jokic is just Jokic haha.

Ya the game is far more global than ever before. So expect more superstars that come internationally. We’re also not all that separated from NBA fans getting tired of LeBron and Curry dominating the league and meeting up in the finals every year.

It is not just Cooper Flagg. Peterson, Dybantsa, and Boozer are looking like they could be great stars.

But really, what "stars" have the European system developed? All the stars that people talked about, like Shai, Luka, Wemby, Jokic, and Giannis are either developed in America, or they are outliers.

Take out Wemby, who is a crazy outlier, are other French players that much better than America players? Who in France is better than Tatum, Edwards, and Hali besides Wemby?

Take out Luka, who in Slovenia is better than American stars?

Take out Jokic, who in Serbia is better than American stars?

Same with Greece.

To me, Europe just happens to enter a phase of outliers. But the way people talk, they act like Europe is churring out stars, which is not true.

Agreed. I think its fair to toss up Wemby and Giannis as just physical freaks. Obviously hard work and all that goes into it as well. But ya, their games are built off of being physical phenoms.

Luka and Jokic are definitely freakishly skilled. So the question is, is that just them being naturally gifted in those aspects (again obviously throwing in the work ethic and hard work) or did they have some different level of development program?

Slovenia and Serbia arent some hot bed for cranking out super stars. So next is look at their development paths. For Luka, Barcelona is a top tier Euro League team. But outside of Luka, who are the other All NBA guys that guys coming from the Barcelona developmental pipeline? Same goes for the path Jokic took.

Sometimes guys are just naturally freaks when it comes to being naturals when it comes to basketball skills. Take the Curry brothers. Same parents, similar athleticism, basically identical developmental paths, while ya Steph is an inch or two taller. That doesnt make up the gigantic overall skill level between the brothers. So I think its fairly safe to say, Luka and Jokic are just skill anomalies (like a Steph).

[Mephariel]

But here’s the thing. 2 out of the last 3 MVP winners while yes weren’t born in the US, used the US development system.

Embiid barely played any basketball before moving out here to go to US high school/AAU then college. SGA moved to the US to go to US high schools for the entire reason to get better competition and development.

Now we just had Cooper Flagg enter the league. And if it wasn’t for the alien Wemby, he’d probably be the most hyped rookie since LeBron.

Now ya the game is far more global than ever before. And just from sheer numbers there is a better chance to find a freak physical human outside of the US.

Wemby is unlike anyone we’ve ever seen. Giannis is literally called the Greek freak. Someone his size that moves that like him is freakish and rarely comes around. And Jokic is just Jokic haha.

Ya the game is far more global than ever before. So expect more superstars that come internationally. We’re also not all that separated from NBA fans getting tired of LeBron and Curry dominating the league and meeting up in the finals every year.

It is not just Cooper Flagg. Peterson, Dybantsa, and Boozer are looking like they could be great stars.

But really, what "stars" have the European system developed? All the stars that people talked about, like Shai, Luka, Wemby, Jokic, and Giannis are either developed in America, or they are outliers.

Take out Wemby, who is a crazy outlier, are other French players that much better than America players? Who in France is better than Tatum, Edwards, and Hali besides Wemby?

Take out Luka, who in Slovenia is better than American stars?

Take out Jokic, who in Serbia is better than American stars?

Same with Greece.

To me, Europe just happens to enter a phase of outliers. But the way people talk, they act like Europe is churring out stars, which is not true.

Im explaining it in my initial post why these countries are not better than US in general.

Player development can be described with a mathematic formula.

The varibales are:
1) Physical traits – Will they have NBA level body and athleticism later on?
2) Work ethic – Do they have the necessary work ethic and drive to work on their game
3) Natural talent – Not everyone is born with the same talent, some learn faster, adapt quicker and so on
4) Quality of development – How good is the coaching, the youth development program, how are they developing their skills
5) Size of player pool.

The number of pro players a country develops is basically these variables multiplied with each other.
Making up numbers:


2 and 3 are the same across countries. 1 I would argue that the US has a massive edge compared to european countries, so here you already have one factor that plays a role in why the US is producing more talent.
5) is also much better in the US, since you have a huge population and Basketball is probably #1 sport among kids when it comes to participation. In Europe its probably not even #10. You have 500,000 boy playing Basketball in High School. Thats more u18 boys that exist in Serbia and Slovenia COMBINED. You have more boys playing just High School Basketball than boys even live in Serbia and Slovenia combined.

The only variable that is clearly bnetter in Europe is 4), quality of player development. Because there is no denying that a professional club with its professional youth coaches, professional youth structure and development, with a squad of trainers etc. can offer a much better development program than a random school in the US can. That's why clubs are spending millions of millions of dollars into their youth departments. Cause they know, the more you invest and spend, the better players you will develop

BUT, this can only make up so much. Its a numbers game.

If there are 1,500,000 u18 year olds playing Basketball in USA, no matter how worse the actual development program is, you will develop a huge number of players.
Basketball is probably not even top 5 participation sports in Europe. In Turkey I know that there are 10,000 kids in total playing organised basketball. Then you have a population that is on average less athletic than the US population. So you have a much lower, smaller and "worse" player pool. No matter how good your player development program is, you will not make up for this massive difference in numbers.

IF you are lucky and a natural talent like Wemby or Giannis or outliers like this decide to play Basketball in Europe (they have to actively join a club, they dont get discovered in school) then they are developed better. That's why you have these superstars in Europe. But the issue is, due to the super low participation numbers and player pool, you dont have more of them.

But I can guarantee you, move the 1,500,000 american kids to Europe, put them into the european club system and they will become much much better than they would have if they stayed here


So putting the formula from above into action and comparing USA and Turkey. Work Ethic and Talent are the same, I will just make up 25% likelihood for both of them. USA has a more athletic population, so likelihood of a american kid developing the necessary NBA body I would make up with 3% likelihood and for Turkey 1%. And then you have 1,500,000 kids in the US playing organised Basketball and 10,000 in Turkey.
And quality of player development I will value at 40% for Turkey and 10% for USA.

USA:
3% * 25% * 25% * 20% * 1,500,000 = So the 1,500,000 kids in the US playing organised Basketball will produce 562 NBA players

Turkey:
1% * 25% * 25% * 40% * 10,000 = The 10,000 kids playing organised Basketball in Turkey will produce.... 3 NBA players...

So its a numbers game. The quality of development is better in Turkey due to its club system and professional teams. But it just can not make up for the other variables. You can have the best coaches and facilities and programs as you want, you can only produce so much NBA talent with a pool of only 10,000 kids

None of what you said proves that development of basketball is better in Europe. Julien Alfred won the 100 meters sprint for St. Lucia in the 2024 Olympics and her country only has 180K people total. Does that mean St. Lucia has a better sprinting development program than the USA? Sports is a mixture of culture, training, skills, talent, and luck. Sometimes the stars align for you. You can find unlikely winners in small population countries everywhere. The USA basketball program developed majority of the stars in the world. Giannis didn't even become a monster in Europe. He did after years of development under the guidance of NBA staff. Same with Jokic. Shai went to school in America.

In most recent U19 basketball tournament, the USA basketball team dominated the field. It was possibly the most dominant field ever. The USA has been on the podium 13 out of 17 times. I am not saying there aren't things that European ball clubs do better than America. I am sure there are. But saying that all 1.5 million ball players would be better off training in Turkey or Europe is baloney. Where is the evidence for this?

[jasonxxx102]

Anthony Edwards' young years, at least according to his Wikipedia bio, also conflict with the argument in this thread.

Im talking about a general trend, not about specific or anectodal cases.

Fact is, backed by studies and research, that kids are spending less and less time outside, anectodal and eye test also supports the claim that fewer and fewer kids spend their afternoons on the street court playing Basketball. LeBron is literally on record saying "Street Ball paid a huge part in my development. The development on the street court does not happen anymore"

We have the case of Football where federations have analysed and realised this trend, countries who noticed this trend the first and changed their youth programs the first, are now the #1 producer of talent in the world (England). They correctly analysed the decline of street football and changed their entire youth program to compensate for that. England is teaching football in a completely different way than they did 2 decades ago. Incorporating aspects of street football into their training methods to make up for the lack of it. And boom, they turn from a country that was known for producing athletic, non technical footballers, to now producing some of the most technically versed and skilled footballers in the world.
Germany has turned their entire football devleopment program on its heads 5 years ago after they realised the same trend, only after England did so. And are now doing the same.

So in the case of Footbal they've realised this. In european Basketball I assume as well, and also players like LeBron have indicated so. But there seems to be no systematic adaptation to this phenomenon in the US, which is why we are seeing the decline of superstar talent in the US.

And just logic alone dictates that if the general population of kids (not speaking of specific examples or cases) does not spend thousands of hours playing Basketball on the street court for years, that their development will be worse than if they had done so. In every skill, trade or whatever it is accepted that putting in the hours makes you better. But somehow in this case this does not apply? Kids are playing less and less outside, this is a fact. And this naturally has an effect on the development, the thousands of hours of development that is done there are missing.

So the only touchpoint that these kids have to Basketball is the school. Where again, the schools can not nearly compensate for the lack of street ball given the development system in the US. This huge part in developing the skills of kids in the past is missing.

you're hyper focused on this singular point and it has absolutely nothing to do with development of basketball skill

[Fencer reregistered]

By the way -- absolutely nobody in the age range of Tatum or even Edwards played Fortnite growing up. It hasn't existed that long.

Minecraft is somewhat older, but mainly the point stands for that game as well.

[peZt]

It is not just Cooper Flagg. Peterson, Dybantsa, and Boozer are looking like they could be great stars.

But really, what "stars" have the European system developed? All the stars that people talked about, like Shai, Luka, Wemby, Jokic, and Giannis are either developed in America, or they are outliers.

Take out Wemby, who is a crazy outlier, are other French players that much better than America players? Who in France is better than Tatum, Edwards, and Hali besides Wemby?

Take out Luka, who in Slovenia is better than American stars?

Take out Jokic, who in Serbia is better than American stars?

Same with Greece.

To me, Europe just happens to enter a phase of outliers. But the way people talk, they act like Europe is churring out stars, which is not true.

Im explaining it in my initial post why these countries are not better than US in general.

Player development can be described with a mathematic formula.

The varibales are:
1) Physical traits – Will they have NBA level body and athleticism later on?
2) Work ethic – Do they have the necessary work ethic and drive to work on their game
3) Natural talent – Not everyone is born with the same talent, some learn faster, adapt quicker and so on
4) Quality of development – How good is the coaching, the youth development program, how are they developing their skills
5) Size of player pool.

The number of pro players a country develops is basically these variables multiplied with each other.
Making up numbers:


2 and 3 are the same across countries. 1 I would argue that the US has a massive edge compared to european countries, so here you already have one factor that plays a role in why the US is producing more talent.
5) is also much better in the US, since you have a huge population and Basketball is probably #1 sport among kids when it comes to participation. In Europe its probably not even #10. You have 500,000 boy playing Basketball in High School. Thats more u18 boys that exist in Serbia and Slovenia COMBINED. You have more boys playing just High School Basketball than boys even live in Serbia and Slovenia combined.

The only variable that is clearly bnetter in Europe is 4), quality of player development. Because there is no denying that a professional club with its professional youth coaches, professional youth structure and development, with a squad of trainers etc. can offer a much better development program than a random school in the US can. That's why clubs are spending millions of millions of dollars into their youth departments. Cause they know, the more you invest and spend, the better players you will develop

BUT, this can only make up so much. Its a numbers game.

If there are 1,500,000 u18 year olds playing Basketball in USA, no matter how worse the actual development program is, you will develop a huge number of players.
Basketball is probably not even top 5 participation sports in Europe. In Turkey I know that there are 10,000 kids in total playing organised basketball. Then you have a population that is on average less athletic than the US population. So you have a much lower, smaller and "worse" player pool. No matter how good your player development program is, you will not make up for this massive difference in numbers.

IF you are lucky and a natural talent like Wemby or Giannis or outliers like this decide to play Basketball in Europe (they have to actively join a club, they dont get discovered in school) then they are developed better. That's why you have these superstars in Europe. But the issue is, due to the super low participation numbers and player pool, you dont have more of them.

But I can guarantee you, move the 1,500,000 american kids to Europe, put them into the european club system and they will become much much better than they would have if they stayed here


So putting the formula from above into action and comparing USA and Turkey. Work Ethic and Talent are the same, I will just make up 25% likelihood for both of them. USA has a more athletic population, so likelihood of a american kid developing the necessary NBA body I would make up with 3% likelihood and for Turkey 1%. And then you have 1,500,000 kids in the US playing organised Basketball and 10,000 in Turkey.
And quality of player development I will value at 40% for Turkey and 10% for USA.

USA:
3% * 25% * 25% * 20% * 1,500,000 = So the 1,500,000 kids in the US playing organised Basketball will produce 562 NBA players

Turkey:
1% * 25% * 25% * 40% * 10,000 = The 10,000 kids playing organised Basketball in Turkey will produce.... 3 NBA players...

So its a numbers game. The quality of development is better in Turkey due to its club system and professional teams. But it just can not make up for the other variables. You can have the best coaches and facilities and programs as you want, you can only produce so much NBA talent with a pool of only 10,000 kids

None of what you said proves that development of basketball is better in Europe. Julien Alfred won the 100 meters sprint for St. Lucia in the 2024 Olympics and her country only has 180K people total. Does that mean St. Lucia has a better sprinting development program than the USA? Sports is a mixture of culture, training, skills, talent, and luck. Sometimes the stars align for you. You can find unlikely winners in small population countries everywhere. The USA basketball program developed majority of the stars in the world. Giannis didn't even become a monster in Europe. He did after years of development under the guidance of NBA staff. Same with Jokic. Shai went to school in America.

In most recent U19 basketball tournament, the USA basketball team dominated the field. It was possibly the most dominant field ever. The USA has been on the podium 13 out of 17 times. I am not saying there aren't things that European ball clubs do better than America. I am sure there are. But saying that all 1.5 million ball players would be better off training in Turkey or Europe is baloney. Where is the evidence for this?

The evidence is common sense and logic. Or do you think that a random ass school can offer the same kind of quality of development and training that professional clubs can?
Do you think a club like Bayern Munich spends 100! million in the development of their own youth program just because they want to?
IF the Lakers just like european clubs had their own academies and were told "Hey, here is a 10 year old kid. He can sign a contract with you already and he has all the talent and gifts in the world and you can decide if you want him to attend and play Basketball in a random school until he joins your senior team or if you want him to attend your own academy and go through the ranks there", do you think they would say "Oh yeah, send him to school, the coaches there can teach and develop better than ours can?"
No, because all of them realize that maximizing the potential and getting the best out of prospects requires investments, requires professioanl structures, the best possible coaches, trainers etc.
And these things random schools in the US can not offer

Again, 2 scenarios:

1) Kid grows up attending a random school with no professional structures or coaches until he reaches the top level of prep/high school level
2) Kid grows up playing in the team structure of a professioanl club with its professional coaches etc.

What do you think is the better environment to develop the skills? To develop the player? Not counting any of the other variables and factors like player pool, athletic requirements and gifts etc. Just the development? I think its baloney to think that 1) is better


There is a reason why US soccer has gone away from the school system and adapted the european style of club academies. And its not because they think school system is better.

The US school system is great at recognizing talent, at increasing the player pool. But not great at individually developing these recognized players the best way possible. They are still the best country in the world because of the sheer numbers, not because they development program is so great. I mean in a sense it is great, because you wouldnt have this huge player pool without this system, so its directly responsible for the dominance of US basketball by creating such a big player pool. BUt its not great at the individual developmend and training of kids

[Doctor MJ]

The decline of superstar level development in US Basketball

So my thoughts on the concern generally:

1. We should always remember that outlier talents are gifts from the basketball gods. While the level of the average player in the NBA in generally goes up and up each year with the rare exception of times of rapid expansion, we absolutely get times where we're blessed with outlier talents and times where we're cursed with the lack of them.

2. We should keep in mind how the rise of international basketball skews are perspective. If we weren't getting international outliers right now, the current batch of Americans wouldn't seem as meh as they do.

3. We need to keep in mind that most of the international outlier talents aren't succeeding due to their home country doing anything special, but rather on the back of the growth in their game after getting under the mentorship of Americans. Here are our international MVPs since this new era began:

Giannis
Jokic
Embiid
Shai

I would suggest it's a mistake to actually think of any of these guys other than Jokic as truly foreign players. Giannis, Embiid & Shai are American products regardless of where they were born and we shouldn't forget that.

4. Jokic is indeed a different story. He's a product of Serbian (or more broadly Eastern European) basketball that has two big things going for it:

a) It teaches players to play a team-oriented style that focuses on making quick decisions based on what your teammates are doing as well as the opponent.

b) It doesn't start off by implicitly telling white guys that they can't compete.

This to say that if Jokic were born in the US, excellent chance he never makes the NBA, and that's a huge problem...

but we shouldn't pretend that the convincing of White Americans that they suck at basketball is something that just started. Almost all of us who will read this thread grew up well after Black America came to dominate the sport, and yet also came of age at a time when the US still produced the best players.

As such, there's a component here about some international basketball teaching players to play in a debatably style than modern American basketball does, but this isn't a new phenomenon, and thus it is really a satisfying answer.

5. As we look forward, we see Luka & Wemby as the big new international talents who haven't won MVPs yet. What's up with them?

Well with Luka first and foremost I think we need to look at him as him as someone coming from a basketball family. When the son of a former pro player who was also a coach, if he has the talent he's probably going to get great mentorship from a young age.

I see Luka as a story more in line with Steph Curry or Jalen Brunson than I do with anything else.

And Wemby? I mean he's 8 feet tall. End of story mostly.

6. I say "mostly" though because I do think that the laissez faire capitalistic approach of modern AAU -> NBA basketball is about identifying obvious talents and then letting them do whatever the hell they want.

By contrast, other nations are using public subsidized organizations trying to give their players the best skills and habits possible... otherwise known as what American youth basketball used to do.

7. Still, current American basketball training issues aren't the reason we haven't seen a new American LeBron whose physical talent was obvious to all in grade school.

The reason we haven't seen another LeBron is because we literally haven't had another human being born with LeBron's talents since LeBron.

[prophet_of_rage]

Why do you say Tatum, Antman, Morant, Zion aren't thr suoerstars that their previous counterparts aren't?

Are you comparing the toyality of thwir careers, stats, accolades? What?

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[Mephariel]

Im explaining it in my initial post why these countries are not better than US in general.

Player development can be described with a mathematic formula.

The varibales are:
1) Physical traits – Will they have NBA level body and athleticism later on?
2) Work ethic – Do they have the necessary work ethic and drive to work on their game
3) Natural talent – Not everyone is born with the same talent, some learn faster, adapt quicker and so on
4) Quality of development – How good is the coaching, the youth development program, how are they developing their skills
5) Size of player pool.

The number of pro players a country develops is basically these variables multiplied with each other.
Making up numbers:


2 and 3 are the same across countries. 1 I would argue that the US has a massive edge compared to european countries, so here you already have one factor that plays a role in why the US is producing more talent.
5) is also much better in the US, since you have a huge population and Basketball is probably #1 sport among kids when it comes to participation. In Europe its probably not even #10. You have 500,000 boy playing Basketball in High School. Thats more u18 boys that exist in Serbia and Slovenia COMBINED. You have more boys playing just High School Basketball than boys even live in Serbia and Slovenia combined.

The only variable that is clearly bnetter in Europe is 4), quality of player development. Because there is no denying that a professional club with its professional youth coaches, professional youth structure and development, with a squad of trainers etc. can offer a much better development program than a random school in the US can. That's why clubs are spending millions of millions of dollars into their youth departments. Cause they know, the more you invest and spend, the better players you will develop

BUT, this can only make up so much. Its a numbers game.

If there are 1,500,000 u18 year olds playing Basketball in USA, no matter how worse the actual development program is, you will develop a huge number of players.
Basketball is probably not even top 5 participation sports in Europe. In Turkey I know that there are 10,000 kids in total playing organised basketball. Then you have a population that is on average less athletic than the US population. So you have a much lower, smaller and "worse" player pool. No matter how good your player development program is, you will not make up for this massive difference in numbers.

IF you are lucky and a natural talent like Wemby or Giannis or outliers like this decide to play Basketball in Europe (they have to actively join a club, they dont get discovered in school) then they are developed better. That's why you have these superstars in Europe. But the issue is, due to the super low participation numbers and player pool, you dont have more of them.

But I can guarantee you, move the 1,500,000 american kids to Europe, put them into the european club system and they will become much much better than they would have if they stayed here


So putting the formula from above into action and comparing USA and Turkey. Work Ethic and Talent are the same, I will just make up 25% likelihood for both of them. USA has a more athletic population, so likelihood of a american kid developing the necessary NBA body I would make up with 3% likelihood and for Turkey 1%. And then you have 1,500,000 kids in the US playing organised Basketball and 10,000 in Turkey.
And quality of player development I will value at 40% for Turkey and 10% for USA.

USA:
3% * 25% * 25% * 20% * 1,500,000 = So the 1,500,000 kids in the US playing organised Basketball will produce 562 NBA players

Turkey:
1% * 25% * 25% * 40% * 10,000 = The 10,000 kids playing organised Basketball in Turkey will produce.... 3 NBA players...

So its a numbers game. The quality of development is better in Turkey due to its club system and professional teams. But it just can not make up for the other variables. You can have the best coaches and facilities and programs as you want, you can only produce so much NBA talent with a pool of only 10,000 kids

None of what you said proves that development of basketball is better in Europe. Julien Alfred won the 100 meters sprint for St. Lucia in the 2024 Olympics and her country only has 180K people total. Does that mean St. Lucia has a better sprinting development program than the USA? Sports is a mixture of culture, training, skills, talent, and luck. Sometimes the stars align for you. You can find unlikely winners in small population countries everywhere. The USA basketball program developed majority of the stars in the world. Giannis didn't even become a monster in Europe. He did after years of development under the guidance of NBA staff. Same with Jokic. Shai went to school in America.

In most recent U19 basketball tournament, the USA basketball team dominated the field. It was possibly the most dominant field ever. The USA has been on the podium 13 out of 17 times. I am not saying there aren't things that European ball clubs do better than America. I am sure there are. But saying that all 1.5 million ball players would be better off training in Turkey or Europe is baloney. Where is the evidence for this?

The evidence is common sense and logic. Or do you think that a random ass school can offer the same kind of quality of development and training that professional clubs can?
Do you think a club like Bayern Munich spends 100! million in the development of their own youth program just because they want to?
IF the Lakers just like european clubs had their own academies and were told "Hey, here is a 10 year old kid, he has all the talent and gifts in the world and you can decide if you want him to attend and play Basketball in a random school or if you want him to attend your own academy and go through the ranks there", do you think they would say "Oh yeah, send him to school, the coaches there can teach and develop better than ours can?"
No, because all of them realize that maximizing the potential and getting the best out of prospects requires investments, requires professioanl structures, the best possible coaches, trainers etc.
And these things random schools in the US can not offer

Again, 2 scenarios:

1) Kid grows up attending a random school with no professional structures or coaches until he reaches the top level of prep/high school level
2) Kid grows up playing in the team structure of a professioanl club with its professional coaches etc.

What do you think is the better environment to develop the skills? To develop the player? Not counting any of the other variables and factors like player pool, athletic requirements and gifts etc. Just the development? I think its baloney to think that 1) is better


There is a reason why US soccer has gone away from the school system and adapted the european style of club academies. And its not because they think school system is better.

Common sense and logic? If basketball was a routine skill maybe. Like if all you do in basketball is shoot free throws, then yeah, train them like gymnasts. As others on this board have pointed out, there is more to basketball than putting a 10 year old kid in an academy. Most of the greatest basketball players got their skills early on from the playground. That is because developing daily passion for the game, creativity, and individual skills matters as much as structural skills. James talked about this in his podcast Mind the Game. And it is not just James. Superstars like Gary Payton, Michael Jordan, Stephen Marbury, Allen Iverson, all talked about how their love for the street game shaped their style of play later on.

I am not oppose to building more academies in America. And our youth basketball program can always use improvements. But if you want to prove the European development is better, you got to do more than just "we stick them in an academy when they are 10 years old." What tangible evidence do you have showing this system works best?

[peZt]

None of what you said proves that development of basketball is better in Europe. Julien Alfred won the 100 meters sprint for St. Lucia in the 2024 Olympics and her country only has 180K people total. Does that mean St. Lucia has a better sprinting development program than the USA? Sports is a mixture of culture, training, skills, talent, and luck. Sometimes the stars align for you. You can find unlikely winners in small population countries everywhere. The USA basketball program developed majority of the stars in the world. Giannis didn't even become a monster in Europe. He did after years of development under the guidance of NBA staff. Same with Jokic. Shai went to school in America.

In most recent U19 basketball tournament, the USA basketball team dominated the field. It was possibly the most dominant field ever. The USA has been on the podium 13 out of 17 times. I am not saying there aren't things that European ball clubs do better than America. I am sure there are. But saying that all 1.5 million ball players would be better off training in Turkey or Europe is baloney. Where is the evidence for this?

The evidence is common sense and logic. Or do you think that a random ass school can offer the same kind of quality of development and training that professional clubs can?
Do you think a club like Bayern Munich spends 100! million in the development of their own youth program just because they want to?
IF the Lakers just like european clubs had their own academies and were told "Hey, here is a 10 year old kid, he has all the talent and gifts in the world and you can decide if you want him to attend and play Basketball in a random school or if you want him to attend your own academy and go through the ranks there", do you think they would say "Oh yeah, send him to school, the coaches there can teach and develop better than ours can?"
No, because all of them realize that maximizing the potential and getting the best out of prospects requires investments, requires professioanl structures, the best possible coaches, trainers etc.
And these things random schools in the US can not offer

Again, 2 scenarios:

1) Kid grows up attending a random school with no professional structures or coaches until he reaches the top level of prep/high school level
2) Kid grows up playing in the team structure of a professioanl club with its professional coaches etc.

What do you think is the better environment to develop the skills? To develop the player? Not counting any of the other variables and factors like player pool, athletic requirements and gifts etc. Just the development? I think its baloney to think that 1) is better


There is a reason why US soccer has gone away from the school system and adapted the european style of club academies. And its not because they think school system is better.

Common sense and logic? If basketball was a routine skill maybe. Like if all you do in basketball is shoot free throws, then yeah, train them like gymnasts. As others on this board have pointed out, there is more to basketball than putting a 10 year old kid in an academy. Most of the greatest basketball players got their skills early on from the playground. That is because developing daily passion for the game, creativity, and individual skills matters as much as structural skills. James talked about this in his podcast Mind the Game. And it is not just James. Superstars like Gary Payton, Michael Jordan, Stephen Marbury, Allen Iverson, all talked about how their love for the street game shaped their style of play later on.

I am not oppose to building more academies in America. And our youth basketball program can always use improvements. But if you want to prove the European development is better, you got to do more than just "we stick them in an academy when they are 10 years old." What tangible evidence do you have showing this system works best?

That's literally my whole point dude. That this playground thing and learning on the street is very important and since this does not happen anymore, the european system can make up for it better. That's literally the whole premise of my post. That its bad that kids dont go outside anymore to play on the playground and therefore a crucial aspect of player development is missing. BUT that the european system is better at making up for it than the schools. Because again, there is no denying that when the question is between professional club structure and professional coaches and a random school, that the former can provide better development in spite of kids not playing on the playground at high rates anymore.

My whole point is not that european club system is better than playing on the playground, it is that kids DO NOT go to play in the playground at high rates anymore, so therefore it is better suited to make up for this lack of crucial development than the school system

I literally even quoted LeBrons statement from that podcast in my initial post. He said that street ball was very important to his development and that to his peers and that this does not happen anymore and therefore the kind and type of development has changed, to a more indoor, organised setting. And when you compare these 2 kinds of organised settings:
1) School system
2) Professional club system

2) is clearly better at developing skill. Not better at recognizing talent and increasing player pool, that's where 1) excels, but better at developing and training the kids that do decide to play BAsketball

And thats my reasoning as to why the US has gotten worse at develping top level players. Like LeBron said, playing street ball does not happen at that rate anymore. And the organised setting of the US is not able to make up for this

[Wolveswin]

The evidence is common sense and logic. Or do you think that a random ass school can offer the same kind of quality of development and training that professional clubs can?
Do you think a club like Bayern Munich spends 100! million in the development of their own youth program just because they want to?
IF the Lakers just like european clubs had their own academies and were told "Hey, here is a 10 year old kid, he has all the talent and gifts in the world and you can decide if you want him to attend and play Basketball in a random school or if you want him to attend your own academy and go through the ranks there", do you think they would say "Oh yeah, send him to school, the coaches there can teach and develop better than ours can?"
No, because all of them realize that maximizing the potential and getting the best out of prospects requires investments, requires professioanl structures, the best possible coaches, trainers etc.
And these things random schools in the US can not offer

Again, 2 scenarios:

1) Kid grows up attending a random school with no professional structures or coaches until he reaches the top level of prep/high school level
2) Kid grows up playing in the team structure of a professioanl club with its professional coaches etc.

What do you think is the better environment to develop the skills? To develop the player? Not counting any of the other variables and factors like player pool, athletic requirements and gifts etc. Just the development? I think its baloney to think that 1) is better


There is a reason why US soccer has gone away from the school system and adapted the european style of club academies. And its not because they think school system is better.

Common sense and logic? If basketball was a routine skill maybe. Like if all you do in basketball is shoot free throws, then yeah, train them like gymnasts. As others on this board have pointed out, there is more to basketball than putting a 10 year old kid in an academy. Most of the greatest basketball players got their skills early on from the playground. That is because developing daily passion for the game, creativity, and individual skills matters as much as structural skills. James talked about this in his podcast Mind the Game. And it is not just James. Superstars like Gary Payton, Michael Jordan, Stephen Marbury, Allen Iverson, all talked about how their love for the street game shaped their style of play later on.

I am not oppose to building more academies in America. And our youth basketball program can always use improvements. But if you want to prove the European development is better, you got to do more than just "we stick them in an academy when they are 10 years old." What tangible evidence do you have showing this system works best?

That's literally my whole point dude. That this playground thing and learning on the street is very important and since this does not happen anymore, the european system can make up for it better. That's literally the whole premise of my post. That its bad that kids dont go outside anymore to play on the playground and therefore a crucial aspect of player development is missing. BUT that the european system is better at making up for it than the schools. Because again, there is no denying that when the question is between professional club structure and professional coaches and a random school, that the former can provide better development in spite of kids not playing on the playground at high rates anymore.

My whole point is not that european club system is better than playing on the playground, it is that kids DO NOT go to play in the playground at high rates anymore, so therefore it is better suited to make up for this lack of crucial development than the school system

I literally even quoted LeBrons statement from that podcast in my initial post. He said that street ball was very important to his development and that to his peers and that this does not happen anymore and therefore the kind and type of development has changed, to a more indoor, organised setting. And when you compare these 2 kinds of organised settings:
1) School system
2) Professional club system

2) is clearly better at developing skill. Not better at recognizing talent and increasing player pool, that's where 1) excels, but better at developing and training the kids that do decide to play BAsketball

And thats my reasoning as to why the US has gotten worse at develping top level players. Like LeBron said, playing street ball does not happen at that rate anymore. And the organised setting of the US is not able to make up for this

Two documentaries you need to watch.

In Search of Greatness.

Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel: The Norwegian Way

[Blame Rasho]

you're comparing entire careers of prior players against guys who are just entering their prime lol.

Tatum is already 4x 1st team all-nba, Ant has 2 2nd team all nba and looks like he could be an MVP caliber player at 24.

Basketball is different now, the top players are just as talented as they were in any era.

Tatum and Ant for as good or talented as they are, aren’t anywhere near the level of players like Duncan, Kobe and etc in my perspective at same ages.

You can think otherwise… but it is a hard sell for people who have watched them throughout their career.

If you would have said SGA and Luka… yeah I can buy that.

Of course you picked Duncan and Kobe who's development isn't exactly the normal "american" development. With Kobe spending time in europe growing up and Duncan coming from a territory.

I picked them because of eras and positions and relative accomplishments at the same age.

It is a simple question, who is better at their age. I think it very clear.

Duncan was an avid gamer of dungeon and dragons but that didn’t seem to affect him.

Let’s change Duncan and put KG instead and instead of Kobe let’s put Wade.

I still think the those two are better than Edwards and Tatum.

In this inflated stat era, numbers are easy to come by. I am talking about impact, however you want to measure it.

I don’t see Edwards and Tatum as MVP level players compared to Kobe, Duncan, KG and Wade.

I doubt we will ever say wow… Edwards and Tatum are the best players in the world unlike at times we have said about the players I have mentioned.

The entire premise of this thread is absurd, as if gaming does something to someone ability to perform at an elite level. It comes down to actual ability and skills.

[sashaturiaf]

Fortnite sucks but American development has always been weak.

Kobe grew up in Italy and Duncan in the virgin islands so they didn't even develop in the American system.

And Lebron and Shaq are once in a generation genetic freaks, I doubt the system did anything for them, just look at their free throw %s lol. Worse than high schoolers