Developing the American post player
Do Americans lack height or patience when developing skilled posts?
Note: Last chance today to purchase paperback books at 30% off on Lulu.com with code TWINKLE30. This is the best deal of the year.
Doc Rivers stirred up the American verse European argument again, reportedly saying: “These young American players better watch out because the European players are better players coming into the league; they’re better prepared coming into the league.”
Everyone sees Victor Wembanyama and nods, although everyone also acknowledges he is an outlier, a one of one, a unique talent nobody has seen before (except those exclaiming, “Bol Bol!”). Despite Rivers’ assertion and Wemby mania, thus far this season, the American players appear better prepared to play in the NBA, with the one giant outlier the exception, not the rule (Jaime Jaquez is shown with a Mexican flag, but he was born in Irvine and went to high school in Camarillo, so while he may play for the Mexican NT, he developed in the United States).
Of course, one month of an NBA season is meaningless in the greater scope of things, and by season’s end, Bilal Coulibaly, Toumani Camara, Sasha Vezenkov, or Vasilije Micić could be among the leaders, although Vezenkov and Micić are nearing 30 and should be more prepared than teenagers. Over their careers, who knows who will be the best? Rivers mentioned preparation. Those who are more NBA-ready should demonstrate greater early success.
One season, and one month of a season, is not proof of anything, just as Wembanyama or Nikola Jokić do not prove anything about larger systems by themselves. There are certainly some advantages to European systems, but there are negatives as well. The problem is people provide few solutions when discussing development or systems.
Several years ago, many were convinced Darius Bazely was going to revolutionize the path to the NBA and demonstrate the superiority of private training. Bazely opted out of college and the G-League and spent the year between high school and the NBA working for New Balance for $1-million and training individually. At 23 years old, he currently is unsigned; he shot 31% from the three-point line and 67% from the free-throw line during his NBA career, despite an entire year dedicated to his individual skill development.
Most seem to think there is some magic formula all Europeans use to develop players, and we simply need to import this formula to the States. Of course, every player has a different path. Luka Doncic moved from Slovenia to Madrid at 12 or 13 and was playing in the ACB and EuroLeague by 16. Wembanyama actually left a EuroLeague team prior to last season to play for a less-competitive French club to receive more playing time. Giannis Antetokounmpo played in the second and third divisions of Greek basketball prior to being picked in the NBA Draft. Playing in the Real Madrid system is a far different experience than playing and training with a third division Greek club.
The European dominance is primarily 6’10+ players and Luka Doncic. Noticeably, the U.S. lacks the highly-skilled post player, as international players, and specifically Europeans, dominate the center position: Nikola Jokić (Serbia), Domantas Sabonis (Lithuania), Jusuf Nurkić (Bosnia), Kristaps Porziņģis (Latvia), Rudy Gobert (France), Jonas Valančiūnas (Lithuania), Jakob Poeltl (Austria), Ivica Zubac (Croatia), Goga Bitadze (Georgia), Nikola Vucevic (Montenegro), Alperen Şengün (Turkey), Clint Capela (Switzerland), and Maxi Kleiber (Germany).
Wembanyama (France), Giannis Antetokounmpo (Greece), Dario Šarić (Croatia), Franz Wagner (Germany), and Santi Aldama (Spain) are also highly-rated, 6’10+ players playing more as forwards than centers. Other top bigs either were born outside the United States (Joel Embiid, Al Horford, DeAndre Ayton), play for other national teams (Karl Anthony-Towns), or are not 6’10 (Bam Adebayo, Draymond Green).
The United States either lacks enough people over 6’10 or is not developing highly-skilled centers for the NBA game, and the angst about European preparation and skill development should be qualified to account for height: Europeans develop better post players or centers or maybe players with outlier height.
There are, of course, great American players over 6’10 who do not play as traditional centers (or even non-traditional, Jokić/Sabonis/Şengün-type centers): Anthony Davis, Kevin Durant, Holmgren, Evan Mobley, Jaren Jackson, Jr., Paolo Banchero, Michael Porter Jr., and Jabari Smith, Jr. There are some some starting centers too: Brook Lopez, Wendell Carter Jr., Daniel Gafford, Nicolas Claxton, Jalen Duren, Myles Turner, Zach Collins, Jarrett Allen, Mitchell Robinson, Walker Kessler, and Mark Williams.
The vast majority of centers developed in the United States are defensive-first, athletic-type centers: Shot blockers and rim runners (Gafford, Duren, Robinson, Claxton, Allen, Kessler, Williams, Lively II). Lopez started as a back to the basket center, but has transitioned into a three-point shooter and defender, similar to Turner, whereas Collins is noted for his passing, similar to many of the European centers, although he lacks their physical stature and strength.
The first thing to note is the rarity of someone over 6’10. The 13 European centers I listed represent 12 countries. If one country had the secret sauce for developing post players, why are there not more? Why only one from Serbia? Where are the other Jokić?
Second, post player development requires more patience. I coached a 6’11 high-school freshman one season, and the varsity coach was ready to cut him because he was uncoordinated. How many seven-foot individuals are there? In a game that values height, why cut a near 7-footer?
I watched several varsity coaches not play 6’4 girls, instead relying on more athletic 5’11 centers to win high-school games. I signed a 6’3 player as a junior-college head coach, and she had played mostly on the junior-varsity in high school because her coach wanted to press and used a 5’8 center. The 5’8 center walked on to our team, but had to develop her guard skills. The coach’s high-school system failed both players developmentally, although they advanced further in the playoffs than the school had in years.
Everyone knows the stats: Roughly 3% of high-school players play college basketball, and most college athletes will be going professional in something other than their sport. The definitive endpoints in the system — entering high school, graduating high school, graduating college — create a quandary. If only 3% of high school players play in college, should we view varsity high-school basketball as an end with the focus on competitiveness and winning a state championship or as a developmental level because players are still teenagers and there are higher levels of competitive basketball?
College and NBA coaches naturally see high-school basketball as developmental levels to serve the higher levels. They do not care about the high-school state championship; they want better players to help them win at their levels.
With such strong endpoints, and few alternative pathways — very few players are un-recruited out of high school, sign up for intramural basketball, then find their way back to a competitive college team — there is a reason to view varsity as a competitive endpoint. If adolescents are unlikely to play in college, why not specialize to win a state championship? Varsity is likely the pinnacle of their athletic careers. With that attitude, ignoring the taller, but still developing post players makes some sense, as they are unlikely to help win right now. However, that also means spending the most time, resources, energy, and repetitions on players unlikely to play beyond high school because of their lower ceilings due to height, speed, or skill. Is varsity the competitive level because few continue in the competitive stream or a developmental level because few teenagers have reached their ceilings?
In European clubs based on age not grade level, and with no artificial endpoints, there is no reason to cut or not play a taller player. He does not have to excel by 18 years old. We had a taller player who was not ready for our men’s team, but he was already 18 and therefore had no youth team. The federation had a rule that an 18-year-old could play U18s, but only if he did not play for a men’s team. A 17-year-old could play for a men’s team and U18s because it is his appropriate age group and you can play up. However, to keep players involved, especially in smaller clubs, they have the rule that an 18 year old can play U18s.
We actually benefitted from another player joining our club because of the same rule. His previous club would not give him minutes on the professional team, and he did not want to repeat U18s. His club had no teams between U18s and the pro team, so he moved to our club and played men’s 1st and 2nd Division. There is no age where a player falls out of the competitive stream. All of our U18s moved to a men’s team the next season as 18 year-olds; the only question was whether they joined the professional team, 1st division, or 2nd division, while one moved to a club across town to play more on the 2nd division team than he would on our 2nd division team.
They have opportunities to continue to move up; a 2nd division player is not resigned to the 2nd division for four years. Within our club, players moved up and down from the end of the professional team’s bench to the 1st division to play more or between the 1st and 2nd divisions based on roster needs and availability. They stay in the stream even when they lack the coordination or skill to make the big jump at 18 years old. Therefore, continuing to give the 6’10 player minutes makes sense because the goal is not to win the U18 championship, but to develop players for the professional team and national team.
Most coaches lack patience. Just listening to television analysts, one senses the bias against tall players. A tall player misses a contested layup and “must do better” or gets substituted by the coach, whereas a guard misses an open layup and “it was a great move” and the coach does not substitute. The post blocks out, but the rebound bounces elsewhere, and the analyst notes the coach’s frustration with the post player giving up an offensive rebound, but the guard runs at the basket and the rebound bounces directly over her head, and “she was unlucky”. The posts are still growing and developing their coordination due to longer and often later growth spurts, but coaches demonstrate less patience with them because we assume they have advantages because of their height.
The United States does not have the same post-player deficiencies in women’s basketball, as many of the best women’s basketball players in the world are American post players: Aja Wilson, Brittney Griner, Aliyah Boston, Jonquel Jones, Candace Parker, and Cheyenne Parker, not to mention skilled 6’4+ forwards like Breanna Stewart, Elena Delle Donne, and DeWanna Bonner. One reason for the discrepancy is finishing: an NBA point guard like Ja Morant can attack bigs at the rim and dunk, whereas a WNBA point guard such as Kelsey Plum has to be craftier to finish inside against bigger players. An NBA pick-and-roll for an alley-oop dunk is an almost guaranteed two points, whereas the same player with the same amount of space often ends up in a contested layup in the WNBA.
Therefore, developmentally in high school and AAU, a rim-running, slam-dunking, shot-blocking athletic post provides immense value, and often is not asked to do more, whereas low-post play has greater value in women’s basketball because finishing a layup is a lower-percentage shot than a dunk. Getting the ball inside has greater value in women’s basketball.
Essentially, a women’s player has to be more skilled to provide the same value because the shots are harder, whether a guard’s layup or a post’s. The same is true with shorter NBA players: Kyrie Irving and Steph Curry have to be more skilled finishers than Robinson or Williams because they have to find ways to finish around or over bigger defenders. Robinson, Williams, and others dunk over and through smaller defenders. Wilson cannot just jump early and dunk over Griner; she must make a move and create a shot, much as guards create shots with footwork, fakes, and craftiness.
At lower levels, coaches favor the rim-running, slam-dunking, shot-blocking athletic posts because they impact the games more immediately than a slower, less athletic, less coordinated post still growing into his body. With the win-now, fast-approaching endpoint for all but the most talented, coaches favor the immediate impact. A player like Jokic may get lost at 16 years old because he possibly had not fully actualized his skills and his body, especially if playing in a more individualistic environment.
The rules and the refereeing in the United States favor smaller players. Posts often are called for fouls against smaller players for the slightest contact, but smaller players can wrestle post players with no whistle. The rules favor players playing in space where the smallest contact draws a foul, not in the post where players battle in hand to hand combat for entire possessions without a whistle. Guards dominate the game through dribble penetration, whereas in FIBA rules where more contact is allowed on the perimeter and against drivers, the rules encourage more passing and cutting, and post players often are used as the fulcrum around which the cuts occur.
In the States, passing into the post, if a team uses the low or high post, generally is the end of the play. Players pass into the post and watch the post make a move and shoot. In international play, the pass into the post often starts the play, as players cut and screen, more like how the Warriors play when they enter into the low post.
When people like Doc Rivers comment about European players, some comments are hyperbole, as nobody can look at this rookie class beyond Wembanyama and believe European players are more prepared for the NBA, and some are simply unspecific: Currently, skilled post players are developed outside the United States, but that same development does not transfer as much to other positions or even to the women’s game.
The systemic problems influencing the differences tend to relate to patience and the rules. The scholastic system puts definitive endpoints where players must be ready to move up, and also sees a drastic reduction in teams and playing opportunities. Players, especially pre-NBA, can be very effective by being tall, athletic, and finishing dunks, and often are not asked to do more in the rush to competitiveness, especially as the rules favor the more individualistic, guard-centric, penetration-heavy style of play.
To develop better low-post players, if that is a goal, or even a Jokic-like player, we need more patience with young, taller players and a greater emphasis on ball movement more so than dribble penetration. For good or bad, the most talented taller players in the United States end up as perimeter players like Kevin Durant and Chet Holmgren because of the style of play that leads to the most success at most levels in the United States. Why pass into the low post where players can bang on the taller player with no fouls when they can handle in space and benefit from the same whistles as smaller guards? It is not so much a lack of development, but a different emphasis on the skills and types of players developed in the American system verse the European system.