First, I think you misrepresent the current system for recognizing and developing domestic talent. Sure, the McDonald's all-stars get the press, but there are over 300 division I schools handing out up to 6 scholarships per year, never mind division II, and junior colleges. Clearly, any potential NBA player is caught up in this net.

The issue then is whether these players are "mishandled" in their development. And here, I don't see the argument for gross imperfections in the system. Winning matters throughout, and winning depends not only on "raw", athletic-based scoring ability. There is everything else about offense, then defense, and rebounding, and, I would add another category, ball-handling (a.k.a the ability to not turn the ball over prior to a scoring opportunity).

As long as there is an institutional framework where the paramount goal is winning games, the presumption must be that all skills are being developed for all players, NBA-aspirants included. Perhaps these could be done better (the European vs. American system debate), but the best institutional arrangement is a separate question.

And a distinct point about ball-handling and offensive rebounding in particular, the relative return to these skills at lower levels of competition (i.e. where scoring efficiency is lower) is higher than they are at the NBA level. So, to the contrary, based on incentives within the system, one should expect surfeits, not deficits, in these skill areas come draft time.

Finally, there is the general (mis)perception of existing NBA shortcomings. Though the statistical evidence is indirect, I do not get any sense that NBA defensive orrebounding ability is lacking for the talent development system that exists in the USA. Taking APM (or RAPM) as the metric (not for its particular player rankings but for the general range of values it yields) what estimates consistently show is that elite offensive players (in their Off APM) contribute somewhat, but not a lot, more than elite defenders (in their Def APM). This is structurally as it should be (I think, as great position defenders are limited by their inability to channel the offense through them) but the point is that the gap isn't huge, suggesting that the current system does not under-produce defensive ability.

Additionally, in terms of the existing institutional factors being derelict in recognizing and developing NBA talent, the list of elite NBA defenders does not consist of late second round draftees. (Eyeballing various lists suggests that these players were somewhat under-appreciated at draft time - and it would be interesting to see some empirical work on this comparison - but not categorically.)

Heck - the Arizona football player that could play basketball (maybe somewhat unrefined - chose football over basketball) were often SIGNIFICANTLY better than the best rec players - often because the were so athletic and strong. They were usually the best players in intermurals.

I've gotten into so many arguments with people when they claim they are better than so and so who's in the NBA. When Avery Johnson won a championship - that was common among pick up PG's - "I'm better than that Avery Johnson guy - I just never got a chance". Absurd.

Heck - I could take a recent Arizona "scrub" - say Fendi Onobun - and wipe the court with pretty much any rec league team anywhere no matter who we put around him. If the average joe ever played a few games on the same court with Hassan Adams - a super athlete who will probably never make the NBA - he would undoubtably say Hassan was the greatest player he had ever seen, and should be a star in the NBA. But, Hassan is not - because NBA players are the ultra elite.

As far as player development goes, I don't know how much I agree with this post. Basically, for the positions of 4 and 5 most of those guys don't ever learn how to be athletic since its not necessary for most of their lives. For the wing positions, most of us aren't going to be blessed with arms that hang down to our knees. Those pre-requisites are what set NBA players apart. Freak genetics.

This is why guys who start off with questionable offensive games while obviously being incredible athletes who can defend and rebound at a high level (Pippen / Rodman both come to mind) often find themselves on less than spectacular college squads.

Some guys can work their asses off in a gym, but there is a point where some freak gentics comes into play and literally separates us from professionals who make millions to play ball.

What you say is true. NBA basketball players ARE almost a different species. I had a similar moment in my basketball "career." I was a 6-4 center in a crappy New England private school league. I never thought I was a great basketball player, but my senior year I was second or third in the league in rebounding, averaging 15 points per, and feeling pretty good about my Reggie Evans imitation. Then I had my run in with the number one rebounder in the league, Dan Gadzuric.

Currently, he is a bit of an NBA laughingstock because of his big contract and lack of offensive skills. The Sports Guy loves to rip on him. But let me tell you something. That guy is FREAKING ENORMOUS and very athletic. This was in high school before he filled out and he barely knew how to play the game, but It was like lining up against a teradactyl. His arms stretched across half the court and he ran the floor like a deer. He went for about 38 and 18 and dunked over me 7 times before we fouled him out. When he held the ball over his head I could barely reach it.

As you say, the worst NBA players (though I think Gadzuric gets more crap than he deserves) are in another stratosphere compared to the rest of us...