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

[Mephariel]

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

I think we are really arguing against nothing here. I am not opposed having more academies in the USA, but I also don't see tangible evidence that sticking a kid at the age of 10 in an academy means you develop better top level players. Because to me, an academy doesn't necessarily replace playground skills. The competition and emergent creativity on the playground isn't getting duplicated in an academy.

I also disagree with your central premise that US has gotten worse at developing top level players. Majority of the stars in the NBA are developed in America, including international stars.

[Mephariel]

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

America has produced more NBA stars than any other country and nearly every single international star has gotten American guided development.

[peZt]

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

I think we are really arguing against nothing here. I am not opposed having more academies in the USA, but I also don't see tangible evidence that sticking a kid at the age of 10 in an academy means you develop better top level players. Because to me, an academy doesn't necessarily replace playground skills. The competition and emergent creativity on the playground isn't getting duplicated in an academy.

I also disagree with your central premise that US has gotten worse at developing top level players. Majority of the stars in the NBA are developed in America, including international stars.

The existence of the relative age effect is evidence that the level and quality of development is very important.

What the relative age effect shows is a phenomenon portrayed and seen in all of team sports: The distribution of professional players among the 12 birth months is not equal. Usually you would expect the 12 months to be distributed equally. Cause why would a August kid be more likely to become a pro? But its not, birth months are not distributed equally in all team sports. Its goes doen linearly as you move along the months. If the cut off for a certain age group is January to December, than you have most pro players born in January, then in February and so on until you only have a few in December.
Why? Exactly because academies play such a big role. Players are developed in academies and in professional setups. You dont become pro in a sport if you dont go through an academy unless you are a genuis level talent and its a sport that's "easy" to learn. But Football is one of the hardest sports to learn, one of the least methodical, if you dont start playing in an academy at age 10 its already too late for top level football in 2025.
And here comes the relative age effect in play: When coaches select their team, for example their U12 team in 2025. Then they have a bunch of kids at their exposal that are born in 2013 and are eligible for the U12. But kids can be born in January 1 2013 and another be born in December 31 2013. They are almost 1 year apart, but are still in the same team since they are the same birth year. And in these cases coaches tend to play the January kids, because they are more mature, better at a given stage, than the younger, probably smaller december kid. Then the january kid gets selected to the good academy, runs through the development program and becomes a pro.
The december kid gets ignored, only lands at a mediocre academy and falls behind and can never catch up. Even if he was way more talented than the January kid at first.

If academies were not important, than this would not be happening, the december kid would still become pro, simply because his talent and him playing on his private time would be enough. But its not, you NEED professionall level honing and development, otherwise you fall behind in 2025 where all other kids are trained and developed professionally.


Another proof is that you can put a clock to when the output of players of a country will improve once they have youth projects and intiiatives that they do. Its evidence the whole time, once a country starts a massive project, 10-15 years later they become good.

Belgium in football sucked ass. Then they overhauled their entire youth program, development programs in the early 2000s, and 10-15 years later once the kids who started playing under this new system turned of age, they became one of the best talent producers in the world. IN a country of 8 million people.

Same with England in football who have changed and overhauled their whole youth development program in the 2000s. Now, they are maybe the #1 talent producer in the world and produce a completely different brand of players that they used to produce. Simply because they switched the focus of their academies and philosophy.

You have clubs like San Sebastian in Football, who only source players from their own region. THey dont buy any players from any other part of the world. Only from their own metropol region. Yet, they are consistintently among the best teams in Spain and are able to stay at the top level, despite not buying any players and only producing their own local talent. The region has 2 million people. It would be like if the Houston Rockets only fielded 12 players that were born in Houston, went throguh their own Rockets academy and never traded for or drafted anyone else and with this method were among the best teams in NBA history. And they manage that not by mistake or chance, but because they put all their resources in their development program. They are able to produce enough talent to stay at the top level, because they invest all of their income into their youth development and are so good at it.

And all these investments are done in a sport like Football that is even harder to "learn" than Basketball. Its even less methodical, even less suited to "memorize", yet you still see the benefits of investing in academies and in youth development programs.

Now to Basketball, Germany sucked ass always in Basketball. Its not even a top 10 sport in Germany. Yet, they are now the best team in Europe and a top 4 team in the world. Why? Because they also completely overhauled their development program and infrastructure around late 2000s. They changed their hole way of how they scout, how they exercise, how they train, how they develop etc. And this country that always sucked and never produced proper talent outside of a few stars, and where Basketball is not even popular, still became the best country in Europe in 10 years and are producing the most NBA level talents now after France. Why? Simply becasue they improved their development program.

These are proofs how and why this is so important. Its not random, there is a reason why countries and clubs spend millions when they decide they wanna become good at something. Why they HAVE to spend millions. And they do this because they know, because its evidenced over and over again that you can improve your quality of play and level by improving your development programs. You just need know how and the resources and money to build the infrastructure and quality of academies. If a country sucks ass at a sport despite a big participation, its either that their development programs suck (for example like a random school that is doing the development) or they have the money and resources but dont know how to improve the system, or they have the know how but dont have the resources to put the infrastructure needed in place.

But in european basketball you will always be at a disadvantage due to sheer numbers. The development program is much better, as evidenced by the stuff I mentioned above, but you can only make up so much if you dont have the player pool. If Germany manages to become the best team in Europe and produce so much talent, despite Basketball not even being a top 10 sport there, despite Basketball not even making the news except when they reach the Euro finals. And only because they improved their academies so much, imagine what they could do with 1,500,000 kids playing organised Basketball in Germany, like they are doing in the US...

If academies were not that important, a country like Turkey would dominate football. Because we have the biggest population in Europe, the most football crazy population and the youngest population in Turkey. Its the perfect environment in theory. But we still suck, simply because our academy infrastructure is bad. Kids play outside, but they dont become pro because our academies suck and their talent is not developed properly.

Its not enough to be a genius level talent and play in your free time. You need those skills to be refined and honed and developed in a organised setting. And for this purpose clubs and professionall academies with trained and educated coaches are way better suited than random schools.

[Mephariel]

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

I think we are really arguing against nothing here. I am not opposed having more academies in the USA, but I also don't see tangible evidence that sticking a kid at the age of 10 in an academy means you develop better top level players. Because to me, an academy doesn't necessarily replace playground skills. The competition and emergent creativity on the playground isn't getting duplicated in an academy.

I also disagree with your central premise that US has gotten worse at developing top level players. Majority of the stars in the NBA are developed in America, including international stars.

The existence of the relative age effect is evidence that the level and quality of development is very important.

What the relative age effect shows is a phenomenon portrayed and seen in all of team sports: The distribution of professional players among the 12 birth months is not equal. Usually you would expect the 12 months to be distributed equally. Cause why would a August kid be more likely to become a pro? But its not, birth months are not distributed equally in all team sports. Its goes doen linearly as you move along the months. If the cut off for a certain age group is January to December, than you have most pro players born in January, then in February and so on until you only have a few in December.
Why? Exactly because academies play such a big role. Players are developed in academies and in professional setups. You dont become pro in a sport if you dont go through an academy unless you are a genuis level talent and its a sport that's "easy" to learn. But Football is one of the hardest sports to learn, one of the least methodical, if you dont start playing in an academy at age 10 its already too late for top level football in 2025.
And here comes the relative age effect in play: When coaches select their team, for example their U12 team in 2025. Then they have a bunch of kids at their exposal that are born in 2013 and are eligible for the U12. But kids can be born in January 1 2013 and another be born in December 31 2013. They are almost 1 year apart, but are still in the same team since they are the same birth year. And in these cases coaches tend to play the January kids, because they are more mature, better at a given stage, than the younger, probably smaller december kid. Then the january kid gets selected to the good academy, runs through the development program and becomes a pro.
The december kid gets ignored, only lands at a mediocre academy and falls behind and can never catch up. Even if he was way more talented than the January kid at first.

If academies were not important, than this would not be happening, the december kid would still become pro, simply because his talent and him playing on his private time would be enough. But its not, you NEED professionall level honing and development, otherwise you fall behind in 2025 where all other kids are trained and developed professionally.


Another proof is that you can put a clock to when the output of players of a country will improve once they have youth projects and intiiatives that they do. Its evidence the whole time, once a country starts a massive project, 10-15 years later they become good.

Belgium in football sucked ass. Then they overhauled their entire youth program, development programs in the early 2000s, and 10-15 years later once the kids who started playing under this new system turned of age, they became one of the best talent producers in the world. IN a country of 8 million people.

Same with England in football who have changed and overhauled their whole youth development program in the 2000s. Now, they are maybe the #1 talent producer in the world and produce a completely different brand of players that they used to produce. Simply because they switched the focus of their academies and philosophy.

You have clubs like San Sebastian in Football, who only source players from their own region. THey dont buy any players from any other part of the world. Only from their own metropol region. Yet, they are consistintently among the best teams in Spain and are able to stay at the top level, despite not buying any players and only producing their own local talent. The region has 2 million people. It would be like if the Houston Rockets only fielded 12 players that were born in Houston, went throguh their own Rockets academy and never traded for or drafted anyone else and with this method were among the best teams in NBA history. And they manage that not by mistake or chance, but because they put all their resources in their development program. They are able to produce enough talent to stay at the top level, because they invest all of their income into their youth development and are so good at it.

And all these investments are done in a sport like Football that is even harder to "learn" than Basketball. Its even less methodical, even less suited to "memorize", yet you still see the benefits of investing in academies and in youth development programs.

Now to Basketball, Germany sucked ass always in Basketball. Its not even a top 10 sport in Germany. Yet, they are now the best team in Europe and a top 4 team in the world. Why? Because they also completely overhauled their development program and infrastructure around late 2000s. They changed their hole way of how they scout, how they exercise, how they train, how they develop etc. And this country that always sucked and never produced proper talent outside of a few stars, and where Basketball is not even popular, still became the best country in Europe in 10 years and are producing the most NBA level talents now after France. Why? Simply becasue they improved their development program.

These are proofs how and why this is so important. Its not random, there is a reason why countries and clubs spend millions when they decide they wanna become good at something. Why they HAVE to spend millions. And they do this because they know, because its evidenced over and over again that you can improve your quality of play and level by improving your development programs.

But in european basketball you will always be at a disadvantage due to sheer numbers. So again, the development program is much better, as evidenced by the stuff I mentioned above, but you can only make up so much if you dont have the player pool. If Germany manages to become the best team in Europe and produce so much talent, despite Basketball not even being a top 10 sport there, despite Basketball not even making the news except when they reach the Euro finals. And only because development program plays such a big role and they are so good at it, imagine what they could do with 1,500,000 kids playing organised Basketball in Germany, like they are doing in the US...

If academies were not that important, a country like Turkey would dominate football. Because we have the biggest population in Europe, the most football crazy population and the youngest population in Turkey. Its the perfect environment in theory. But we still suck, simply because our academy infrastructure is bad. Kids play outside, but they dont become pro because our academies suck and their talent is not developed properly.

You talk in board strokes that really doesn't have a lot of weight. "Countries and clubs spend millions when they decide they wanna become good at something." No ****. Every country who is top 5 in the Olympics spends millions in sports. The United States spends millions in basketball programs too. Top college programs spends $20+ million on basketball. "If Germany manages to become the best team in Europe and produce so much talent..." What talent has Germany produced? How many German players are stars in the NBA? "Imagine what they could with 1,500,000 kids playing organized basketball in Germany." They would produce more stars and high level players? Isn't this what the USA is already doing? Also, the scale of athlete development doesn't work that way. If Germany has 1.5 million more kids, they would need far more coaches, facilities, training equipment, classroom time, etc. The same costs would be exponentially higher. Would Germany even have the funding?

You keep saying European countries are getting better and attribute that to academies, but the USA are consistently produce the best basketball players in the world, even now. So what does that say about our development system? I am not opposed to having more academies here, but I am still waiting on evidence that if we put 10 years old kids in academies, Ace Bailey would have became Lebron, and Chet would have became KD.

[DCasey91]

USA basketball development pathways domestically legitmately suck dogsh*t and have no one else to blame but themselves.

Never been involved in a sport where the talent didnt play where it's supposed to age was irrelevant.

European approach across all sports (you play where you belong) has always worked and will continue to do so.

Like the NBA does not have a credible second league ffs lmao.

Easy way to solve this is to zone youth academies for the NBA teams. Does 2 things:

1. You develop the elite top youth properly whereby under tutelage of the best basketball league in the world for even a couple years at their facilities. Train like a professional
2. Zone territories get first dibs on home-grown products (there easy ways to fix it through draft allocations)

Done simple. Brutally effective too btw

[NoDopeOnSundays]

It's not Fortnite or games, kids all around the world play videogames and Fortnite. Kids in Japan play games more than Americans, and yet they are producing insane baseball players, boxers and wrestlers at an astonishing rate now. It's that the US system has privatized skill development, it's why so many kids of players are now appearing because they have the genetics, yes, but most importantly they have the money to get the training. Europe skill development is so far ahead, and all you need to do is try out for a local club team and you're getting training that would cost thousands of dollars here in the US. I've been teaching a young family member basketball since he was a kid, and I'd look at European videos and I noticed a massive difference in how they did things.

First and foremost, the kids play on lowered rims a lot longer than they do here. If you've been to any AAU tournaments you'd see little kids playing with a smaller ball on 10 foot rims, yet you see kids in European videos as old as 13 playing on 9 foot rims. And they have shotclocks, where as here in the US it can vary from state to state, even city to city within the state on whether or not a AAU/HS will use shotclocks. They don't just pigeonhold kids into positions like they do here, it's why we have so many undersized centers and PFs with no skills, because often those kids were bigger than everyone else and never had to learn any skills, European model they all learn the same skills.

You will not see a Giannis, Jokic or Wemby come out of the US, not unless the kid is the son of a former player.

[lambchop]

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.

This. Tatum couldn't even crack team USA's rotation, hitting the side of the backboard on his shots, no confidence, no skill that warranted giving him minutes over 80s babies, like KD and LBJ.

[coldfish]

https://theweek.com/health/height-in-america-shorter-public-health

If you walk around and are older, its kind of frightening how much shorter Gen Z is than Gen X was. Its noticeable. This is just starting with europeans where average height is flattening, but at a higher level.

The difference of a few inches of height in the NBA is significant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/interactive/2025/nba-top-100-players-ranking/

Overall, almost all of the guards in the NBA in the top 100 are americans. America has no issue producing top NBA players. We just have problems producing TALL good NBA players and given how important height is, that's an issue.

No idea why americans are getting shorter. No one knows for sure.

[Lalouie]

"superstar development"

superstars are born not developed, especially in a skill sport like basketball.

however, if you like you can point to the OVERALL advantage of overseas programs. if so then its more likely we're in a wave that will come back to the mean. in influx of foreign athletes is new.

rather than point to the development programs, i'd rather point to lack of focus on the States and a system built around MONEY, most obviously in the introduction of the LOI

wait until the African countries get into gear.

[kingr]

Not sure if mentioned but the last mvp was Shai, and Canada would face the same issues OP (videogames etc).

[Fencer reregistered]

One thing US development has largely lost is team/coaching continuity.

Guys used to play in college for 3+ years. The best no longer do that.

There's less stability at the high school level as well, although I don't know how important that is. (Kevin McHale learned a lot from his high school coach. Who else did?))

[f4p]

"superstar development"

superstars are born not developed, especially in a skill sport like basketball.

.

This is probably the real answer. Overall talent might be a result of the development program but superstars are very low frequency events. We might be in a period like the late 80s and early 90s with no new American superstars other than Shaq.

In the mid 1980s, we drafted Jordan, Hakeem, Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Ewing and drexler. Over a decade later, the 1997 conference finals featured Hakeem, drexler, Barkley, Malone, and Stockton and the winner faced Jordan. In other words, no new superstars had shown up. Other than Shaq, who is a freak who would have developed no matter what, there were basically no new superstars for over a decade. Until we got to Garnett and Kobe and Duncan. Garnett and move were drafted in the mid 90s because they came straight from high school but age they were more late 90s like Duncan. So maybe we are just going through that again. Or maybe there is a problem.

[Lalouie]

"superstar development"

superstars are born not developed, especially in a skill sport like basketball.

.

This is probably the real answer. Overall talent might be a result of the development program but superstars are very low frequency events. We might be in a period like the late 80s and early 90s with no new American superstars other than Shaq.

In the mid 1980s, we drafted Jordan, Hakeem, Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Ewing and drexler. Over a decade later, the 1997 conference finals featured Hakeem, drexler, Barkley, Malone, and Stockton and the winner faced Jordan. In other words, no new superstars had shown up. Other than Shaq, who is a freak who would have developed no matter what, there were basically no new superstars for over a decade. Until we got to Garnett and Kobe and Duncan. Garnett and move were drafted in the mid 90s because they came straight from high school but age they were more late 90s like Duncan. So maybe we are just going through that again. Or maybe there is a problem.

and this is the group most people are familiar with so its easy to think superstars grow on trees.

in any profession in this world, especially the skilled professions - art music sports,,,if you take out the very very very few greats its easy for the public to think you can LEARN to be great.

[jasonxxx102]

"superstar development"

superstars are born not developed, especially in a skill sport like basketball.

.

This is probably the real answer. Overall talent might be a result of the development program but superstars are very low frequency events. We might be in a period like the late 80s and early 90s with no new American superstars other than Shaq.

In the mid 1980s, we drafted Jordan, Hakeem, Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Ewing and drexler. Over a decade later, the 1997 conference finals featured Hakeem, drexler, Barkley, Malone, and Stockton and the winner faced Jordan. In other words, no new superstars had shown up. Other than Shaq, who is a freak who would have developed no matter what, there were basically no new superstars for over a decade. Until we got to Garnett and Kobe and Duncan. Garnett and move were drafted in the mid 90s because they came straight from high school but age they were more late 90s like Duncan. So maybe we are just going through that again. Or maybe there is a problem.

This is what I mean by nostalgia warping people’s perception of the 90s

Stockton, Ewing, and Drexler were not superstars. Very good players but not superstars.

Jordan and Hakeem obviously. Outside of that Barkley and Malone are arguable depending on your definition

[hauntedcomputer]

America can't manufacture anything worth a damn anymore except guns and guitars.

[prophet_of_rage]

"superstar development"

superstars are born not developed, especially in a skill sport like basketball.

.

This is probably the real answer. Overall talent might be a result of the development program but superstars are very low frequency events. We might be in a period like the late 80s and early 90s with no new American superstars other than Shaq.

In the mid 1980s, we drafted Jordan, Hakeem, Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Ewing and drexler. Over a decade later, the 1997 conference finals featured Hakeem, drexler, Barkley, Malone, and Stockton and the winner faced Jordan. In other words, no new superstars had shown up. Other than Shaq, who is a freak who would have developed no matter what, there were basically no new superstars for over a decade. Until we got to Garnett and Kobe and Duncan. Garnett and move were drafted in the mid 90s because they came straight from high school but age they were more late 90s like Duncan. So maybe we are just going through that again. Or maybe there is a problem.

This is what I mean by nostalgia warping people’s perception of the 90s

Stockton, Ewing, and Drexler were not superstars. Very good players but not superstars.

Jordan and Hakeem obviously. Outside of that Barkley and Malone are arguable depending on your definition

Stockton, Ewing, Drexler had superstar publicity. That's all that makes a superstar.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[dhsilv2]

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.

Even if we agree Wade and KG are better, so what? That's random chance. Meanwhile someone like SGA who yes, was born in Canada, was developed the US high school and on. He's easily as good as Wade. I certainly wouldn't argue that Wade is night and day better than Tatum or Edwards and ANT is still very young.

And meanwhile it's difficult to judge this as the average player is just so much better today. We know KG and Wade would be great today, but would they stand out as much? Hard to say.