I attended the 2009 NBA Draft, as I was working with two Canadian filmmakers on a documentary on European and American basketball systems told through Brandon Jennings’ and Ricky Rubio’s stories. On the morning of the draft, I met with Sonny Vaccaro who was angry Jennings was not going #1. He was convinced Jennings was the draft’s best player, and teams were colluding not to select him first to punish Jennings and Vaccaro for sending him to play in Europe.
The debate about the best pathway to the NBA remains unanswered. We assume NCAA Division 1 basketball is best, but population and tradition bias that viewpoint. Would Victor Wembanyama be better prepared for the NBA and have a better NBA career if he played for Duke this season instead of the Metropolitan 92s in the LNB Pro A French League? Would Scoot Henderson be better off if he had played for the University of North Carolina instead of G-League Ignite? Would the Thompson brothers be better off if they played for Michigan State instead of Overtime Elite?
Last week, a soccer scout/analyst tweeted “Bundesliga 2 seems like an interesting place for CB development with recent emerging patterns.” I thought about the characteristics of leagues that promote player development with the NBA Draft tonight.
I asked about the characteristics of 2.Bundesliga that would lead to this player development: Is it style of play, coaching, the clubs, appropriate competitive level, more chances for young players? This is an interesting question, as players will be drafted tonight from G-League Ignite, Overtime Elite, NCAA Division 1, Australian NBL, French LNB Pro A, Spanish ACB/EuroLeague, and Serbian ABA.
The debate about the specific league is less important than the characteristics that promote development and preparation, as these characteristics may be transferable to lower levels. Are the characteristics that develop and prepare a 19-year-old for NBA success the same as those that prepare a 17 or 18-year-old for college basketball or a 14-year-old for high-school basketball? I sent tweets this week about AAU and high school basketball summer basketball after talking to a few high-school coaches over the weekend.
What should we value? What enhances or detracts from development? Is it better to play in a more competitive environment where every game matters? Is it better to play with veteran players to demonstrate professionalism and proper practice habits? Is it better to play a majority of the minutes? Is the coach the most important factor or does the coach matter at all? Are hours on the court most important and going to class an impediment? Is the number of games important? Is the duration of the season? Is a longer offseason better than more time between games? Is the style of play important, and, if so, which style is best? Is the competition important? Is winning important?
One argument in the Jennings/Rubio debate was that Rubio was a starter on a better team in a better league than Jennings, whose minutes were limited by his coach. Rubio probably was the most-hyped European NBA draft prospect in history when he was drafted due to his success playing for Barcelona (since eclipsed by Doncic and Wembanyama). Rubio, and later Doncic, were the most accomplished players before their drafts: They started on teams playing in the best, most competitive leagues outside of the NBA — Spanish ACB and EuroLeague. They played, they played against the best competition, they played well, they won, they played alongside veterans…their experience likely was as good as possible for preparation for the NBA. Of course, they were outliers. The closest comparison in the 2023 NBA Draft is not Wembanyama, who played against lesser competition in France and is not as accomplished as was Doncic, but James Nnaji who played for Barcelona and won the ACB Championship this season, although he was more of a role player than either Doncic or Wembanyama.
The career trajectory of Wembanyama and Nnaji will be interesting. Wembanyama has been the star and the focal point of his team; is that better preparation for the NBA than Nnaji’s experience playing on a better team in better competitions with better teammates? Wembanyama played 34 games and averaged 32 minutes per game and 16 field-goal attempts as an 18/19 year-old, whereas Nnaji played 56 games and averaged 10 minutes per game and 2 field-goal attempts per game as an 18-year-old (8 months younger). Is it the competition, the league, the teammates, and the games or the minutes, the responsibility, and the shot attempts?
Of course there are other leagues, in addition to college basketball. NCAA Division 1’s advantage is the age cap: Every NCAA Division 1 player is draft-eligible (if they enter). An 18-year-old NCAA player does not sit behind a 30-year-old veteran because his club wants to win. Along with the age limitation, college coaches are well-compensated with guaranteed contracts. There is pressure to win, but being in Year 3 of a five-year deal making $1-million per is not quite the same pressure as a non-guaranteed contract making five-figures with the threat of being fired without further compensation after a bad game.
Now, a narrow age range and coaches with guaranteed contracts does not mean NCAA Division 1 is necessarily the best environment to develop players or that college coaches feel less performance pressure and willingness to play younger players and allow them to develop and play through mistakes. Plenty of college coaches favor experienced players and play every minute of every game like a must-win possession.
NCAA Division 1 is also extremely large. There are 360 teams, whereas the ACB in Spain, as an example, has 18 teams. Players may develop better or worse in Power 5 conferences or a specific Power 5 conference; maybe players develop better in dominant mid-major programs.
What characteristics of a league best promote development? How do we find these opportunities? A few of the top 2024 prospects have signed with G-League Ignite and the Australian NBL for next year; others are set for NCAA Division 1 programs. How are these decisions made? What should these players look for to develop and prepare for professional careers?
Player development is multifactorial and cannot be reduced to one thing; no single league or even organization is likely to have the absolute perfect environment for all players to develop. In discussions about player development within the United States, many complain about AAU because of too many games, or not caring about winning, and other related issues. However, if true, these may actually be positives in terms of development. If a player makes a mistake in a morning game, he can learn from the mistake and attempt to change his performance in an afternoon game; he does not need to wait a week to play again. If the emphasis is not winning, players should have more opportunities to try new things and play through mistakes; of course, much of this depends on the individual coaching style.
A balance between competitive games that matter and an environment to try new things and play through mistakes would seem to be the best environment for player development. When games do not matter, when teams are not competing to win anything, bad habits, selfishness, and more may arise. After all, if we are not competing for something meaningful, why shouldn’t I try a 360-dunk in traffic instead of passing to an open teammate? I saw a highlight of one of the top players in the class of 2024; he attacked the rim with all five defenders in the three-second area. He likely should have been called for a change against one, spun off another, intentionally missed off the backboard and jumped over another to rebound and finish. Sure, people only interested in his skill and talent applaud and are awed, but why not pass to any of the four open teammates? Is that a winning play? Does it matter?
The true answer is every player is different, and therefore every player has his own path. A player such as Wembanyama has the physical tools and mentality at 19 to be the go-to player on a professional team. Not every player is ready for that at 19. Some players need more time, whether in smaller leagues or college. A player such as Scoot Henderson has the physical body to compete with men in the G-League; few teenagers possess his physical characteristics to stand up to such physicality.
Overall, balance is best. Competitive games matter, but players also need time and space to try new things and learn from mistakes. Therefore, a level or coach that does not allow for this type of exploration likely impedes player development. Ideally, players have veteran teammates from whom to learn the proper practice habits, including taking care of their bodies, eating properly, and more. Colleges may provide this when programs have 4th and 5th year players, but with the transfer portal evolving, many may lose this aspect, as the veteran players may be on campus for only a few months and may have different histories, backgrounds, and more. Of course, professional teams may have the same turnover with veteran players.
The most important aspect in terms of the coach is trusting the player and providing playing time, while also maintaining standards. Talented players need to play, but they also need to learn to play the right way and not feel entitled to playing time.
The best system of play likely is one that challenges players to learn new things; players playing on and off the ball; playing man and zone defense; defending on-ball screens with different coverages; running sets, but also playing with some freedom. Talented players need to be challenged, not just put in an environment that plays to their strengths.
A common complaint is the coach is not using the player correctly; is that always a bad thing? If Wembanyama’s strength is facing up and playing from the perimeter, is it bad coaching, from a developmental perspective, to also have him post on the block to develop more versatility in his game? If he can dominate defensively by standing in front of the rim, is it wrong to ask him to trap a ball screen or switch occasionally to develop more versatility? Of course, how many coaches can risk losing a game to diversify a player’s skillset? How many coaches at the college or professional levels view developing a player’s skills for the next level as an important component of their jobs?
In the 2009 NBA Draft, it turned out the discussion should not have centered on Jennings/Rubio but James Harden and Steph Curry and maybe Jrue Holiday. Harden played in a Power 5 Conference, but not for the best programs; he played two years of college basketball. Curry played three seasons in a mid-major conference. Holiday played one season for a Power 5 team hoping to return to the NCAA Final Four again. Three years at a mid-major program with a progressive, motion-oriented offensive system and a coach who empowered Curry to shoot appears to have been the best system, but who knows if it would have worked the same for Jennings, Rubio, Harden, or Holiday. Everyone is different.