Fans and analysts have cited an astonishing array of reasons for the U.S. men?s basketball team struggling in Athens.  Not enough shooters.  Not enough stars.  Too many stars.  Poor teamwork.  Bad fundamentals.  Too many young guys.  Braided hair.  Tattoos.  Larry Brown.

There?s validity in some of these, but the factor now receiving significant scrutiny is perhaps the most important ? the rest of the world is catching up.  Data compiled by analysts from the Association for Professional Basketball Research (APBR) are showing how much the U.S.?s basketball superiority has eroded since the original Dream Team in 1992.

In 1992 ? the first year NBA players participated in the Olympics ? the U.S. was a basketball juggernaut.  Dean Oliver, author of ?Basketball On Paper? (a must read for anyone serious about understanding the game), calculated that the average NBA team was about 40 points better than the rest of the world in 1992.  The Dream Team was 52 points better.

Oliver?s numbers show that this year in Athens, the NBA advantage over the average international team had dropped to nine points ? about the same advantage held by Argentina and Spain.  (Oliver?s article on the subject can be found here: http://www.82games.com/comm52.htm)

Into this atmosphere, the U.S. selected a flawed roster short on shooting and ball handling, and lacking players accustomed to filling roles important to constructing a good team.  Criticisms of these players as selfish are off the mark.  Accepting a ?lesser? role is not just about ego or humility, but is also about skill.  Nearly every player on the American roster was a go-to scorer on his NBA team.  In a tight situation, each of these players was accustomed to taking charge and winning for his team.  Two or three such players are necessary ? 10 are unworkable.

The NBA is an ideal test tube for comparing American to international players.  The best Americans are in the NBA, and enough international players have entered the league to make closer scrutiny worthwhile.

While using slightly different methods and approaches, researchers have come to strikingly similar conclusions.  The two groups of players are roughly equivalent in most statistical categories, but international players as a group win their matchups by a wider margin than Americans playing similar minutes.  And, stats posted by international players appear to contribute more to winning.

According to data compiled by Jerome Luther, over the past two seasons combined, the three teams with the best regular season winning percentage were first, second and fourth in minutes played by international players.  During that time, 13.6 percent of the league?s total minutes were played by international players.  Teams above average in minutes played by internationals had a combined winning percentage of .515.  Below average in minutes played by internationals?  A combined .490.

This results shows up in other areas as well.  Below is a comparison of the 25 international and 156 American NBA players who received at least 1,500 minutes last season.  The per game results:

       U.S.    Int.
Min     30.89   29.59
FG%     .441    .460
FT%     .759    .768
3pt%    .347    .370
Pts     12.68   12.36
Reb     5.25    5.53
Ast     2.88    2.82
Stl     1.03    0.94
Blk     0.59    0.87
PF      2.44    2.52
TO      1.82    1.92
APPA    13.71   14.43


(APPA is a modified Tendex summary measure ? it?s points + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks ? missed field goal attempts ? missed free throw attempts ? turnovers ? personal fouls.  In this case, that number is divided by games played, then Adjusted so that the league average is 10.00.)

The data show that despite averaging more minutes, the U.S. group barely outscored the internationals, and that the international group was competitive or superior in every other category.  It?s also worth noting that the international group had better field goal and three-point percentages, but were only slightly better in free throw percentage.  This may suggest that in pure shooting (as measured by free throw percentage), Americans are comparable to international players.  What then explains the lower in-game shooting percentages for Americans?  Perhaps shot selection plays a role.

The American group fares worse when examining per 40 minute stats:

U.S. INT
Pts 16.42 16.71
Reb 6.80 7.48
Ast 3.73 3.81
Stl 1.33 1.27
Blk 0.77 1.18
PF 3.16 3.41
TO 2.36 2.60
APPA40 10.68 11.98

FG 6.12 6.13
FGA 13.89 13.31
FT 3.22 3.54

FTA 4.24 4.61
3pt 0.96 0.92
3AT 2.76 2.49

(APPA40 is similar to the APPA measure described above.  In this case, it?s a summary measure per 40 minutes, adjusted to set the league average at 10.00.)

The stereotypical American player is the one-on-one artist, who slashes to the basket and draws fouls.  The international stereotype is of the stationary jump shooter.  If those generalizations were true, American players should shoot more free throws.  But, the facts are that international players get to the free throw line more often.  

Dan Rosenbaum, an economics professor at UNC-Greensboro, who developed a rating system that combines plus-minus data with more traditionally reported stats, found a chasm between young American players (23 or younger) and young international players.  http://www.uncg.edu/bae/people/rosenbaum/NBA/olympics1.htm

While young Americans held their own in ?glory stats? (points, rebounds and assists), internationals were superior in every other category.  Most significantly, young international players had a collective plus-minus rating 3.6 points per 40 minutes better than young Americans.

?What this statistic says is that when young internationals step on the floor, their teams play much, much better than do the teams of young Americans,? writes Rosenbaum.  ?And this is after accounting for differences in their teammates and opponents.?

Five of the top seven young players using DanVal (Rosenbaum?s rating system) are internationals.  Considering that seven of the 12 U.S. Olympians were under 23, their struggles were unsurprising.

None of this information should be surprising to NBA general managers.  The trickle of international players has become a torrent, and it?s showing no sign of letting up.  With now two-year old rule changes allowing zone defenses, the trend should gain even more momentum.

The gains made by international players should also not be a surprise to the honchos at USA Basketball who selected the American unit.  The star-laden roster they originally selected ? 10 of whom backed out for various reasons ? would likely have done better than three losses and a bronze medal.  But faced with an opportunity to select replacements well-suited to the international game, the honchos seemed to favor marketing over skills.

The message is clear enough now that even the staunchest jingoist should understand.  Fed on a steady diet of fundamental teaching ? often by American coaches ? the world is catching up.  If the U.S. wants to regain its basketball hegemony, it needs to figure out a better way to train its players.

Kevin Broom is a Senior Writer with RealGM.com. He can be reached at KevinBroom@RealGM.com