by Andrew on Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:16 pm
Being a number one pick and signing big contracts carries some weighty expectations, so to some extent I think the criticism and disappointment is justified. It's fair to say that there's some exaggeration and unfairness though, and it comes down to common problems with these discussions: impatience, overlooking context, oversimplification, personal bias, and perhaps most importantly, the false dichotomy where anything or anyone that doesn't tick all the boxes for excellence is written off as terrible with no nuanced ratings in between.
Wiggins obviously has skill and talent. There are things he can do at least reasonably well at the NBA level. That he doesn't necessarily play as efficiently as other players or hasn't had the same success doesn't mean that he isn't talented and capable, or that he couldn't be performing better in a different role or system. Players much older than him have finally blossomed into better players, or been able to find a place where they can make positive contributions on winning teams. There's also a ton of middle ground between excellent and terrible; it's not just those two extremes separated by a distinct line, but that's pushed aside in favour of bold absolutes. Sometimes mediocrity is acknowledged, but even that's a rough midway point with plenty of other notches either side of it on the scale.
Labels also tend to stick. Remember when Vince Carter was labelled as being injury prone? He had a couple of unlucky years in the early 2000s, but was quite durable before and after that. Nevertheless, people kept talking about how he was injury prone and soft. Now he's playing in his record 22nd season, and is the first player to play in four different decades. Go figure. Players get labels before they're due, and we don't always change those labels when they prove to be ill-fitting. For people who have decided that Wiggins is a total bust and a terrible player, any evidence to the contrary - or at least, evidence that suggests that while he may not be a franchise player, he's nowhere near as bad as they say - simply doesn't matter. The evidence is picked based on the label, rather than the label coming from what's actually evident.
Anyway, a fresh start might be what he needs. A new role with a well-coached team with less turnover and turmoil, and more talent when healthy, could allow him to settle into a role he's suited to and can perform well. It's hard to shake an ill-fitting label, but it's not impossible.