Nobody is talking him down. They're simply saying he's playing poorly right now. And that there's no 100% guarantee that he'll be a star or a superstar. There's nothing tangible to indicate he'll be a star... even though we all hope he does. But there is tangible evidence to suggest he's playing poorly right now.
I don't see what's wrong with this. EVERY other player is open to this criticism.
Then again, this is the same forum that attacked me in the past for using stats to show that the hubris shown toward Rashad McCants and Michael Beasley might be a bit premature. The same forum that ripped me for saying that I thought Westbrook has a bigger impact than Rubio. So maybe I shouldn't be surprised that anything less than glowing praise gets chastised.
The title of this thread is "Wiggins is a huge disappointment". And the points that have been made are exactly the same points that have been made about him since he has been scouted. If these issues were clearly known, then how can anyone be disappointed? Unless they thought Wiggins would magically transcend the work of professional scouts as a 19 year old. If someone was offering a new observation that hasn't been repeated since he was a freshman at Kansas, then this thread would make sense. Instead we have a bunch of amateur scouts coming to the same conclusions through 26 games that pros have been saying about Wiggins and acting like it is some sort of revelation that should be rehashed after every time his well known weaknesses manifest themselves. Wiggins is far from the disappointment of this season. The optimism is already being combated by our awesome record.
The beauty of basketball is that it includes stats. And the eye test. And chemistry. And creativity. One factor doesn't override the others.
So yes... the scouts indicated that Wiggins was raw and athletic and needed work on his handle.
Now, we're using tangible stats and the eye test to see how that actually translates into real life. Into real basketball situations.
For example, Wiggins' true shooting percentage is 295th out of 322 qualified players. That adds something tangible to a draft blurb like "Too often settled for long range shots and did not venture out of his comfort zone enough, still has many things to learn in terms of creating mid range shots and counter moves." And it might even reflect his lack of a solid handle to get better looks.
Or, we can point out (as others have) that Wiggins isn't using his one skill everybody knows he has to its full advantage: his athleticism. He has only 13 dunks. That would indicate his athleticism isn't leading to easy opportunities.
Draft reports tell us Wiggins will be a great player. The stats don't support it yet. The eye test reveals a bit of both. The rest is up for debate (or not) depending who you ask. But to say that the first 26 games is irrelevant just because the stats don't support your projection? Don't know if I agree with that.
It doesn't guarantee he'll be a bust. But it definitely offers up some tangible reasons why over-the-top HOF comparisons might be a bit optimistic right now.
So what are we supposed to debate? You know my stance, do I have to be more transparent?
Hicks123 wrote:So wait, we can't talk about the development of our players until they are CLEARLY at their peak? Folks were talking about Rubio years prior to even being drafted (heck, after like 4 years, it seems we are still having the same discussions about him). Everyone on here hypothesizes about virtually every college player prior to every draft. Cool and Kahns....are you saying you don't do this? If so...as you say....what's the point? They are CLEARLY going to be different players 3-4 years down the road....good or bad. You absolutely CAN'T have it both ways.
All we have right now is 1 year of college and 20+ NBA games to hypothesize about Wiggins. While I won't say that he will never be good, I will definitively tell you that I haven't been impressed. What is it about his game that excites you? His best attribute by far is his athleticism. The problem I see with Wiggins, is that his basketball skills aren't nearly as seductive as his ability to jump over a building. A supreme athlete does not a basketball player make! Nothing about Wiggins was elite coming out of Kansas....with the exception of his athleticism. This is the issue, IMO, when evaluating his potential long-term impact vs a guy like Anthony Davis (let's use him as a comparison as he has been talked about a lot). While Davis is also an elite athlete, more important than that was that he was already an elite defender coming out of Kentucky, and he showed that immediately in the NBA. Wiggins, on the other hand, while he may be "OK" (personally, I think even OK is generous), he gets a pass from the fanbase on this based on what? I will tell you....his potential to become elite based on his physical tools. Does he get a pass because he plays on a bad team? How has Anthony Davis's team been?
While I am not a huge Wiggins guy, I too (like everyone) want him desperately to succeed. As with Rubio before him, these guys have to hit for us to go anywhere. But that doesn't change the fact that Wiggins own play is bringing about these concerns.
Nobody cares whether you're impressed or not. What we do care about is whether his highs and lows so far actually mean something. And if so, what? And yes, your opinion is meaningful, otherwise I wouldn't read it.
Nobody is talking him down. They're simply saying he's playing poorly right now. And that there's no 100% guarantee that he'll be a star or a superstar. There's nothing tangible to indicate he'll be a star... even though we all hope he does. But there is tangible evidence to suggest he's playing poorly right now.
I don't see what's wrong with this. EVERY other player is open to this criticism.
Then again, this is the same forum that attacked me in the past for using stats to show that the hubris shown toward Rashad McCants and Michael Beasley might be a bit premature. The same forum that ripped me for saying that I thought Westbrook has a bigger impact than Rubio. So maybe I shouldn't be surprised that anything less than glowing praise gets chastised.
The title of this thread is "Wiggins is a huge disappointment". And the points that have been made are exactly the same points that have been made about him since he has been scouted. If these issues were clearly known, then how can anyone be disappointed? Unless they thought Wiggins would magically transcend the work of professional scouts as a 19 year old. If someone was offering a new observation that hasn't been repeated since he was a freshman at Kansas, then this thread would make sense. Instead we have a bunch of amateur scouts coming to the same conclusions through 26 games that pros have been saying about Wiggins and acting like it is some sort of revelation that should be rehashed after every time his well known weaknesses manifest themselves. Wiggins is far from the disappointment of this season. The optimism is already being combated by our awesome record.
The beauty of basketball is that it includes stats. And the eye test. And chemistry. And creativity. One factor doesn't override the others.
So yes... the scouts indicated that Wiggins was raw and athletic and needed work on his handle.
Now, we're using tangible stats and the eye test to see how that actually translates into real life. Into real basketball situations.
For example, Wiggins' true shooting percentage is 295th out of 322 qualified players. That adds something tangible to a draft blurb like "Too often settled for long range shots and did not venture out of his comfort zone enough, still has many things to learn in terms of creating mid range shots and counter moves." And it might even reflect his lack of a solid handle to get better looks.
Or, we can point out (as others have) that Wiggins isn't using his one skill everybody knows he has to its full advantage: his athleticism. He has only 13 dunks. That would indicate his athleticism isn't leading to easy opportunities.
Draft reports tell us Wiggins will be a great player. The stats don't support it yet. The eye test reveals a bit of both. The rest is up for debate (or not) depending who you ask. But to say that the first 26 games is irrelevant just because the stats don't support your projection? Don't know if I agree with that.
It doesn't guarantee he'll be a bust. But it definitely offers up some tangible reasons why over-the-top HOF comparisons might be a bit optimistic right now.
So what are we supposed to debate? You know my stance, do I have to be more transparent?
Sometimes, there isn't a debate. This thread could have been over pages ago with a simple "OK, we'll agree to disagree." Or, "I guess we'll all just wait and hope."
Right now, we're debating how others are posting a lot more than Andrew Wiggins. And that's why it's devolved into a bit of a clownshow...
Nobody is talking him down. They're simply saying he's playing poorly right now. And that there's no 100% guarantee that he'll be a star or a superstar. There's nothing tangible to indicate he'll be a star... even though we all hope he does. But there is tangible evidence to suggest he's playing poorly right now.
I don't see what's wrong with this. EVERY other player is open to this criticism.
Then again, this is the same forum that attacked me in the past for using stats to show that the hubris shown toward Rashad McCants and Michael Beasley might be a bit premature. The same forum that ripped me for saying that I thought Westbrook has a bigger impact than Rubio. So maybe I shouldn't be surprised that anything less than glowing praise gets chastised.
The title of this thread is "Wiggins is a huge disappointment". And the points that have been made are exactly the same points that have been made about him since he has been scouted. If these issues were clearly known, then how can anyone be disappointed? Unless they thought Wiggins would magically transcend the work of professional scouts as a 19 year old. If someone was offering a new observation that hasn't been repeated since he was a freshman at Kansas, then this thread would make sense. Instead we have a bunch of amateur scouts coming to the same conclusions through 26 games that pros have been saying about Wiggins and acting like it is some sort of revelation that should be rehashed after every time his well known weaknesses manifest themselves. Wiggins is far from the disappointment of this season. The optimism is already being combated by our awesome record.
The beauty of basketball is that it includes stats. And the eye test. And chemistry. And creativity. One factor doesn't override the others.
So yes... the scouts indicated that Wiggins was raw and athletic and needed work on his handle.
Now, we're using tangible stats and the eye test to see how that actually translates into real life. Into real basketball situations.
For example, Wiggins' true shooting percentage is 295th out of 322 qualified players. That adds something tangible to a draft blurb like "Too often settled for long range shots and did not venture out of his comfort zone enough, still has many things to learn in terms of creating mid range shots and counter moves." And it might even reflect his lack of a solid handle to get better looks.
Or, we can point out (as others have) that Wiggins isn't using his one skill everybody knows he has to its full advantage: his athleticism. He has only 13 dunks. That would indicate his athleticism isn't leading to easy opportunities.
Draft reports tell us Wiggins will be a great player. The stats don't support it yet. The eye test reveals a bit of both. The rest is up for debate (or not) depending who you ask.
I get that, but don't get how his well known weaknesses manifesting themselves in struggles in his rookie season are causing disappointment. Wiggins was not scouted as someone with no offensive weaknesses in his game (he was not Lebron, Rose etc in the analysis of his offensive game coming into the NBA). His well scouted weaknesses are showing up in his statistical output. What is the revelation here that is causing disappointment? He is performing exactly what one would expect from how his offense was scouted. So you are saying the stats support that the scouts were right on the areas he need to work on in his offensive game? If your outcome is ambiguity then why repeat what is obvious? Even if it is supported by stats, which is what one would expect at this point.
My beef is more with trying to use 26 games worth of statistical data to try to move the needle that is his future level of play one way or the other. It is just not a big enough sample size to start raising questions already when he has played to a T the same as his scouting report before the draft. If the scouting report says he is a few years away from being a polished offensive player, why do the stats in his first 26 games matter on any level? As I've said before, if he plays this way for the rest of the year it will start to raise concerns for me, but to use his stats up to this point to move the needle either direction is just dumb. It's not an indicative sample size. It's not even a big enough chuck to determine his projection for the rest of this year let alone what it might mean for his future. To me the stats just don't matter right now and that is what I am having to argue against.
Nobody is talking him down. They're simply saying he's playing poorly right now. And that there's no 100% guarantee that he'll be a star or a superstar. There's nothing tangible to indicate he'll be a star... even though we all hope he does. But there is tangible evidence to suggest he's playing poorly right now.
I don't see what's wrong with this. EVERY other player is open to this criticism.
Then again, this is the same forum that attacked me in the past for using stats to show that the hubris shown toward Rashad McCants and Michael Beasley might be a bit premature. The same forum that ripped me for saying that I thought Westbrook has a bigger impact than Rubio. So maybe I shouldn't be surprised that anything less than glowing praise gets chastised.
The title of this thread is "Wiggins is a huge disappointment". And the points that have been made are exactly the same points that have been made about him since he has been scouted. If these issues were clearly known, then how can anyone be disappointed? Unless they thought Wiggins would magically transcend the work of professional scouts as a 19 year old. If someone was offering a new observation that hasn't been repeated since he was a freshman at Kansas, then this thread would make sense. Instead we have a bunch of amateur scouts coming to the same conclusions through 26 games that pros have been saying about Wiggins and acting like it is some sort of revelation that should be rehashed after every time his well known weaknesses manifest themselves. Wiggins is far from the disappointment of this season. The optimism is already being combated by our awesome record.
The beauty of basketball is that it includes stats. And the eye test. And chemistry. And creativity. One factor doesn't override the others.
So yes... the scouts indicated that Wiggins was raw and athletic and needed work on his handle.
Now, we're using tangible stats and the eye test to see how that actually translates into real life. Into real basketball situations.
For example, Wiggins' true shooting percentage is 295th out of 322 qualified players. That adds something tangible to a draft blurb like "Too often settled for long range shots and did not venture out of his comfort zone enough, still has many things to learn in terms of creating mid range shots and counter moves." And it might even reflect his lack of a solid handle to get better looks.
Or, we can point out (as others have) that Wiggins isn't using his one skill everybody knows he has to its full advantage: his athleticism. He has only 13 dunks. That would indicate his athleticism isn't leading to easy opportunities.
Draft reports tell us Wiggins will be a great player. The stats don't support it yet. The eye test reveals a bit of both. The rest is up for debate (or not) depending who you ask.
I get that, but don't get how his well known weaknesses manifesting themselves in struggles in his rookie season are causing disappointment. Wiggins was not scouted as someone with no offensive weaknesses in his game (he was not Lebron, Rose etc in the analysis of his offensive game coming into the NBA). His well scouted weaknesses are showing up in his statistical output. What is the revelation here that is causing disappointment? He is performing exactly what one would expect from how his offense was scouted. So you are saying the stats support that the scouts were right on the areas he need to work on in his offensive game? If your outcome is ambiguity then why repeat what is obvious? Even if it is supported by stats, which is what one would expect at this point.
The Wolves were expecting Wiggins to be 295th out of 322 guys in TS% about 30% through the season?
Sometimes, stats can show us just how much some guys need to improve. 26 games is only 26 games. We all understand 82 games is a better sample size. Or, even 250+ games as is the case with other guys on the roster. But it's what we have right now.
And since the franchise kept an apathetic fanbase at bay with yet another The Promise of Hope campaign led by Andrew Wiggins, it's good to check in on that progress from time to time.
The next step is to see if the next 26 games show an improvement over these first 26. Often, that's when we start to learn about what types of guys are legit and which ones are possible fool's gold. You want the young potential stars to keep improving... because NBA history is littered with cases of this being the evolution of superstars. The list of players who plateaued or regressed and then rebounded to be stars is much much shorter.
The Wolves were expecting Wiggins to be 295th out of 322 guys in TS% about 30% through the season?
Sometimes, stats can show us just how much some guys need to improve. 26 games is only 26 games. We all understand 82 games is a better sample size. Or, even 250+ games as is the case with other guys on the roster. But it's what we have right now.
And since the franchise kept an apathetic fanbase at bay with yet another The Promise of Hope campaign led by Andrew Wiggins, it's good to check in on that progress from time to time.
The next step is to see if the next 26 games show an improvement over these first 26. Often, that's when we start to learn about what types of guys are legit and which ones are possible fool's gold. You want the young potential stars to keep improving... because NBA history is littered with cases of this being the evolution of superstars. The list of players who plateaued or regressed and then rebounded to be stars is much much shorter.
Were the Wolves expecting Wiggins to be one of the best 3pt shooters on the team? Probably not. There are going to be a lot of statistical issues to look at as the season goes on. I think Wiggins has a lot of improving to do as well. His shot selection is skewed in the wrong direction. This seems to be an issue with the whole team (no PG?). I think improving has to involve real struggle, especially for a player as unique as Wiggins. His path to greatness is going to have unique challenges, but I believe it's all there and am willing to put myself out there beyond ambiguity.
ABE - Sometimes, there isn't a debate. This thread could have been over pages ago with a simple "OK, we'll agree to disagree." Or, "I guess we'll all just wait and hope."
Right now, we're debating how others are posting a lot more than Andrew Wiggins. And that's why it's devolved into a bit of a clownshow...
Wow, true Abe. I was in a pissy mood after that game and posted a pissy post. But the good news is, I've never had a post get over 100 replies. Thanks for that
Andrew Wiggins vs. 2003 LeBron
David Thorpe December 23, 2014
It makes sense in so many ways to compare this year's No. 1 overall draft pick, Andrew Wiggins, to the current best player in the world,LeBron James. Not just because each was the top pick in loaded draft classes -- and drafted by Cleveland -- but because they are both elite-level athletes at the wing position who dominated their peers in high school and were clearly the best prospects in their classes. That's no small similarity.
Since 1998, the only players who were ranked as the top players in their class by every major high school scouting service were LeBron,Dwight Howard, Greg Oden and Wiggins. In fact, scouts who studied Wiggins in high school wrote that he was the best athlete as a forward since LeBron.
Is Wiggins on track to be a superstar like LeBron? Let's examine how LeBron played as a rookie, compared to what we're seeing from Wiggins. Given that Wiggins spent a year getting fine coaching on the fundamentals at Kansas, is he a better player now than LeBron was in 2003?
2014 Wiggins vs. 2003 LeBron: Athleticism and motor
When evaluating how athletic a player is, it is wise to also consider the player's motor. A lazy but gifted athlete will often be outdone in the "athlete" category by a less athletic player who simply tries harder. But toughness and relentlessness are talents that can be developed in some cases, which is where we begin with Wiggins.
Purely as a physical specimen -- combining his speed, quickness, jumping and overall agility -- Wiggins might indeed be slightly more athletic than LeBron was in his first season. This may sound absurd when considering what a freak athlete LeBron was at 18 years old (and about 45-50 pounds heavier than Wiggins), but that's just how gifted Wiggins is.
However, and this is the point, Wiggins' athleticism doesn't always show on the court. That's because his motor is just mild most of the time, so his supreme athletic gifts are not registering as often as we saw from LeBron when he was a rookie playing with a hot motor at all times. Wiggins appears to be faster than 2003 LeBron, but only when he doesn't have the ball or is running at his top speed. In order to see how LeBron made a greater impact with his athleticism, just look at his 2003 stats.
Wiggins may be a better pure athlete than LeBron, but he is not using those gifts as well as LeBron did, with or without the ball. It's something that Wiggins can improve on, and he is already making progress.
Advantage: 2003 LeBron
2014 Wiggins vs. 2003 LeBron: Shooting
Wiggins' shooting skills are special.
LeBron didn't make better than 36.2 percent of his 3s until the 2011-12 season, and he has never made 80 percent of his free throws. He simply was not a consistent shooter throughout his teens and early/mid-20s, often changing form from shot to shot and rarely staying balanced.
Like most guys who can drive by just about any defender (or defenders), LeBron did not think like a shooter, resulting in his tepid percentages. But great defenses, and some wear and tear, helped him to focus on his form and shot selection over the past few years, and he's seen very good results.
Wiggins, as mentioned in previous rookie reports, looks beautiful shooting the ball. He has basically the same form on almost every shot, putting good arc on the ball and taking long shots that are typically, if not almost always, uncontested.
At the free throw line, Wiggins is shooting 70 percent, which is solid for a rookie. Free throws tend to be more about concentration than anything else, an area where Wiggins needs to improve, just as every other teenager does. In time, his form projects him to be an 80-plus percent shooter from the line. And no one would be surprised if he shot 38 percent from 3 in the near future.
Advantage: 2014 Wiggins
2014 Wiggins vs. 2003 LeBron: Scoring
LeBron hit the NBA running, scoring 25 points in his first game and averaging 21 for the season, thanks to his incredible combination of athleticism, power and ballhandling wizardry.
Most young players at LeBron's size get slower when they have to dribble (see Wiggins), but the best ball handlers use the dribble to make them even harder to guard. Change of speed, change of direction, misdirection -- all are used as tools in their effort to beat a defender. LeBron earned 7.1 free throws per 48 minutes as a rookie thanks in large part to those talents and skills.
Wiggins is almost the complete opposite. His lack of a dribble attack, in fact, takes away most of his athletic skills on the perimeter. However, this has served him well with his shooting because he has had to focus on that part of his game in order to make an impact on offense.
His lack of dribbling skills has also helped him in another key area: Wiggins has an advanced post game for a small forward who is 19. He looks to post often, tries to attack the middle much of the time (as he should) and has a few countermoves when the defense stiffens toward his middle probes. He can make the quick baseline spin or just size up a smaller defender and shoot over him.
Wiggins attacking middle
Wiggins using quick baseline spin
Wiggins shooting over smaller defender
Wiggins isn't as involved in the transition game as LeBron was (LeBron was often a primary ball handler), but once Ricky Rubio returns for the Wolves that should get better. Still, Wiggins' post work has helped him earn 6.4 free throws per 48 minutes, which is impressive considering how much less he has the ball compared to LeBron. LeBron took 22.9 shots per 48 minutes as a rookie, Wiggins is at 18 shots.
It's not likely that Wiggins will end up leading the league in scoring during his career, as it will take him a long time to learn how to be effective using his dribble to create consistent scoring chances, which is necessary for a perimeter player to be a dominant scorer. But can he score 25 points per night efficiently in the seasons ahead? Absolutely.
Advantage: 2003 LeBron
2014 Wiggins vs. 2003 LeBron: Defense
In this area, the one season Wiggins spent at Kansas has given him a huge advantage over LeBron, who didn't go to college.
Wiggins spent about 50 hours on defensive drills in his one college season, working on footwork and technique in dealing with screens and actions, terminology and systems, etc. LeBron, during his first season, survived on pure athletic talent, physical advantages and a great motor and mindset. But he used poor technique on and off the ball frequently as a rookie.
Over time, of course, LeBron became the best wing defender in the game (evidence against the argument that a young player needs to go to college to learn basketball fundamentals). Wiggins has that exact kind of potential.
In Minnesota, Flip Saunders has Wiggins defend primary scorers throughout every game. That is helping him gain valuable experience, which will quicken his ascent.
Advantage: 2014 Wiggins
2014 Wiggins vs. 2003 LeBron: Passing and feel
An elite passer, LeBron drew comparisons to Magic as a rook.
If there is one area where these two differ the most, it's here. Wiggins moves within the flow of the game fine. Sure, he can get lost at times, but that is as much due to his lack of primary ballhandling skills as anything; if the main guard does not get him the ball when he is open, Wiggins can't be blamed.
He does not stand out, though, when it comes to that obvious "he just has it" quality of elite players who always seem to be in the right place, making the special pass or brilliant-thinking play, like Bird, Magic, Chris Paul, Steve Nash, etc.
LeBron, of course, is in that club, too, having had his passing compared to Magic since he was a rookie. LeBron is one of the most gifted passers to ever play the game, and he is also one of the smartest. His basketball IQ and feel for the game are better than any single player playing today.
Projecting Wiggins to be this kind of talent in this category is not possible. His limited ball skills greatly inhibit the impact he can make with his passing. Although his basketball IQ can and should improve greatly, as will his passing, he likely won't be at LeBron's level ever in this category.
Advantage: 2003 LeBron
Conclusion
Though these two players have been mentioned together in scouting reports for a few years now, thanks to the kind of size and athletic talents Wiggins showed in his mid-teen years, the first two months of this NBA season do not suggest that he will be as good as LeBron has been during his career, or was as a rookie. That's no harsh knock, as it is entirely possible that LeBron will go down as a top-10 or top-five player of all time, just as he was an incredibly special player his first season.
Wiggins' lack of ball skills and overall feel, and perhaps a motor that just doesn't run hot often enough, lowers his ceiling. (His floor as a player is the current version of Harrison Barnes -- a starter on the league's best team.) If Wiggins begins to play more ambitiously night after night, and then trains in the offseason as if he wants to be the best player to ever play -- as Kobe has done for nearly two decades -- the Timberwolves forward can be a great team's best player on offense and defense for many seasons. As Paul George has been for a few seasons in Indiana.
Wiggins can be better than Kawhi Leonard, the reigning Finals MVP, or another Finals MVP, Paul Pierce. But the key is Wiggins can be, not necessarily will be. He needs help from his franchise and coaches, and from teammates and good fortune, to be at the level of those guys, much less be better.
Wiggins doesn't have a chance to be a top-five player of all time, but he can be a top-five player in the NBA for a number of years. And that should make everybody happy.
