Deadspin Explains Andrew Wiggins

[D.o.s.]

Well worth reading regardless of whether you think he's overrated or a bust or Maple Jordan.

If Wiggins and LeBron are so different, why does everyone insist on comparing the two?

Comparing Wiggins to anyone else doesn't make sense, just because they were both getting hyped so hard and so quickly. James changed everything when he landed his first Sports Illustrated cover and was anointed "The Chosen One" as a high school junior. Wiggins got his first SI cover last month. Eleven years ago, James's high school games aired on ESPN2, because the WWL thought, for some reason, that we'd watch James play against children. (We did!) This summer, we saw Wiggins play in the McDonald's All-American game and the Jordan Brand Classic. This season, Canadian sports network TSN is broadcasting every single Jayhawks game.

His senior year, James was named Gatorade's male athlete of the year. Shortly thereafter, he agreed to $90 million sneaker deal with Nike. Wiggins won the same award this year, and may or may not already have a $180 million Adidas contract waiting for him when he leaves Kansas.

ould the hype be too much?

There's the rub. It's easy to forget that LeBron was drafted two years before YouTube and three years before Twitter. James's arrival wasn't heralded by scores of videos of him rejecting shots, shattering ankles, wrecking rims, and swishing threes. Also, hyped as he was, LeBron played an entirely different position than Jordan, the greatest of all time. Wiggins can't fly under any radar, and he won't escape "at this point in their careers" comparisons to LeBron.

Because Wiggins is so much bigger, faster, stronger, and better than his peers, he hasn't actually been tested much. Maybe there actually aren't holes in his game, but we won't really be able to judge until we see him play against top college competition. We might not even know then. Still, some have already felt the need to level strong takes about why Wiggins is overhyped, why he could or maybe even will fail at the sport's highest level.

http://deadspin.com/so-whos-this-andrew-wiggins-kid-an-explainer-1456392439/@barryap

[LarBrd33]

See... I don't buy the premise that he's just being hyped, because of our internet culture.  That's nonsense.  It's not like the internet didn't exist in 2003. 

The first player I saw get hyped like this in the modern era would be Yao Ming.  They were calling him the next great player.  And honestly, all things considered... Yao basically panned out.  In his prime he was a 27 points, 10 rebounds and 2 block guy.  Yes, I realize his career was short-lived and injury-plagued, but it's fair to say the hype was warranted.

LeBron was the next one.  And they had that guy on SI covers and ESPN televised games before he even played a game.  100 million dollar contract straight out of high school.  It seemed almost impossible for him to live up to the hype.  From his very first NBA game, he began not only living up to expectations, but in some ways shattering them.  The dude is a legend.  Hype was warranted.

Next was Oden and Durant.  Both were seen as can't miss dominant prospects.  Oden was supposed to be a dominant transcendent big.  Durant was the most "can't-miss" prospect to have entered the league since LeBron.  Arguably the best freshman in College basketball history.   Nobody could really predicted Oden's injury history.  Hard to call him anything other than a bust (so far).  But he did show that talent early on... prior to getting injured he had Per-36 numbers that were like 17 points, 13 boards, 4 blocks and 66% shooting.  Dude had it in him if he had stayed healthy and learned to stay out of foul trouble.   Meanwhile, Durant has absolutely lived up to expectations.  He's a phenom. 

Now Wiggins.   Same thing.  Super hyped.   Give NBA scouts a little more credit than this.  It's not like they fabricated this because of Youtube videos and twitter.   He's thought to be the real deal.  I have no doubt they'll get it right once again.  It's not often that they label someone "can't-miss"...   Most recent there was Yao, LeBron, Oden, Durant and now Wiggins.  Basically only Oden can really qualify as a complete bust and that was due to horrific unprecedented injuries... not lack of talent.  I'm sure Wiggins is legit.  I hope we draft him.

[D.o.s.]

See... I don't buy the premise that he's just being hyped, because of our internet culture.  That's nonsense.  It's not like the internet didn't exist in 2003. 

That's not really the point, though. In 2003, the internet wasn't a daily interaction device for most sports fans. To put it in perspective, Blockbuster had over 9,000 locations in 2003--only half the homes in the US had any kind of internet access at all.

There are leagues of difference between the way sports media is covered on the web now and ten years ago. There's a lot more information going a lot faster.

Which is where a lot of the backlash to the hype comes from--people being bombed with information about Wiggins. It has nothing to do with whether the hype is warranted (which, we both agree, it is).

[Lucky17]

Maple Jordan? That's catchy. I like it.

[LarBrd33]

See... I don't buy the premise that he's just being hyped, because of our internet culture.  That's nonsense.  It's not like the internet didn't exist in 2003. 

That's not really the point, though. In 2003, the internet wasn't a daily interaction device for most sports fans. To put it in perspective, Blockbuster had over 9,000 locations in 2003--only half the homes in the US had any kind of internet access at all.

There are leagues of difference between the way sports media is covered on the web now and ten years ago. There's a lot more information going a lot faster.

Which is where a lot of the backlash to the hype comes from--people being bombed with information about Wiggins. It has nothing to do with whether the hype is warranted (which, we both agree, it is).

I think Lebron was more well-known, hyped and talked about as a high school freshman than Wiggins is today. 

Sorry I just don't agree with the premise.  It's all the same media doing the hyping and it all comes from roughly the same scouts. 

And back then internet forums were chalked full of people doubting the "overhyped" leBron James... everyone anxiously waiting to call him LeBust James. 

[D.o.s.]

See... I don't buy the premise that he's just being hyped, because of our internet culture.  That's nonsense.  It's not like the internet didn't exist in 2003. 

That's not really the point, though. In 2003, the internet wasn't a daily interaction device for most sports fans. To put it in perspective, Blockbuster had over 9,000 locations in 2003--only half the homes in the US had any kind of internet access at all.

There are leagues of difference between the way sports media is covered on the web now and ten years ago. There's a lot more information going a lot faster.

Which is where a lot of the backlash to the hype comes from--people being bombed with information about Wiggins. It has nothing to do with whether the hype is warranted (which, we both agree, it is).

I think Lebron was more well-known, hyped and talked about as a high school freshman than Wiggins is today. 

Sorry I just don't agree with the premise.  It's all the same media doing the hyping and it all comes from roughly the same scouts.

I agree with your last sentence.

Either way, the article does a great job breaking down Wiggins, especially in light of all these fun "is the 2014 draft class reallllllly as good as people say?" threads.


Missed the bit you added in.

I'm sure there were people on the internet talking about how LeBron was going to be a bust.

But, again, that's not really the point. There are many, many, many, many more people contributing more noise about more things over the internet than there were at the outset of the 2002-2003 season. Hype fatigue is much easier to come by now then it was then.

[LarBrd33]

See... I don't buy the premise that he's just being hyped, because of our internet culture.  That's nonsense.  It's not like the internet didn't exist in 2003. 

That's not really the point, though. In 2003, the internet wasn't a daily interaction device for most sports fans. To put it in perspective, Blockbuster had over 9,000 locations in 2003--only half the homes in the US had any kind of internet access at all.

There are leagues of difference between the way sports media is covered on the web now and ten years ago. There's a lot more information going a lot faster.

Which is where a lot of the backlash to the hype comes from--people being bombed with information about Wiggins. It has nothing to do with whether the hype is warranted (which, we both agree, it is).

I think Lebron was more well-known, hyped and talked about as a high school freshman than Wiggins is today. 

Sorry I just don't agree with the premise.  It's all the same media doing the hyping and it all comes from roughly the same scouts.

I agree with your last sentence.

Either way, the article does a great job breaking down Wiggins, especially in light of all these fun "is the 2014 draft class reallllllly as good as people say?" threads.

I know it sounds ridiculous, but if ESPN and sites like Draftexpress tell me that this is the best draft class since 2003, I'm just going to take it at face value.  Scouting is surprisingly good in the last decade when it comes to players they peg as "elite".  Blake Griffin more or less panned out. Anthony Davis is more or less panning out.  I was told Chris Paul was going to be an incredible PG, and he's an incredible PG.  I was told Dwight Howard was raw, but had serious defensive potential... Dwight Howard was raw and had serious defensive potential.  I was told Derrick Rose was going to be awesome and he is.   The guys they peg as future superstars seem to be pretty accurate.  Theres some fluctuation with the weak drafts and unproven prospects.  I don't know if they've really gotten a handle on European players.  They were really high on Rubio when he was 17 years old.   As a 23 year old, he looks solid, but could improve.   More often than not, if they tell me a guy is going to be a star, he's panned out. 

[LarBrd33]

See... I don't buy the premise that he's just being hyped, because of our internet culture.  That's nonsense.  It's not like the internet didn't exist in 2003. 

That's not really the point, though. In 2003, the internet wasn't a daily interaction device for most sports fans. To put it in perspective, Blockbuster had over 9,000 locations in 2003--only half the homes in the US had any kind of internet access at all.

There are leagues of difference between the way sports media is covered on the web now and ten years ago. There's a lot more information going a lot faster.

Which is where a lot of the backlash to the hype comes from--people being bombed with information about Wiggins. It has nothing to do with whether the hype is warranted (which, we both agree, it is).

I think Lebron was more well-known, hyped and talked about as a high school freshman than Wiggins is today. 

Sorry I just don't agree with the premise.  It's all the same media doing the hyping and it all comes from roughly the same scouts.

But, again, that's not really the point. There are many, many, many, many more people contributing more noise about more things over the internet than there were at the outset of the 2002-2003 season. Hype fatigue is much easier to come by now then it was then.

More people might be blogging and there might be more people arguing on forums, but the level of hype is unchanged.  It's like comparing a comiccon today vs one 20 years ago.  There's probably 10x as many people going to them today, but the level of nerding out remains untouched.  In-fact, in some ways the level of nerding out was more dramatic with the early adopters.  I imagine a mainstream comic-con today with thousands of casual fans dressing up will never reach the level of slobbering nerdom of a roomful of neckbeards in the mid 80s. 

In the early 00s, we were were having these same discussions on sites like RealGm, ESPN, nbadraft.net, etc.  But in some ways they were even more insane.   My theory was that because the information was so new to us, we were apt to lose our heads. It was a new thing for us average joes to have access to any kind of scouting reports.  So you'd have people reading "So and so is the next Larry Bird according to nbadraft.net" or "woah, this guy sounds like he could be the French Michael Jordan!"...  You fell in love with drafts based on sketchy information.  It's the reason why people convinced themselves Darius Miles was the next KG or Eddy Curry was the next Shaq was simply because we knew the names.  Highlight videos were also a new thing... we weren't familiar with them.  It was really easy for people to get carried away.    If anything, time has made us somewhat immune to these random highlight videos.  We know that just because we see a bunch of dunks, it doesn't mean the guy is the future of the league.  It was a lot easier to think Gerald Green was the future of the NBA back in 2005 than it is in 2013.  Many were convinced Shaun Livingston was the next Magic Johnson.  Fans would read about some random guy projected in the 2nd round and convince themselves he was the steal of the draft... then freak out when we didn't draft the eventual bust.   

Summer league was a new thing too... it was really easy to see Joe Forte dominate and convince yourself he was the future of the league.  We're use to summer league now.  There's enough fans saying "Calm the F down... let me remind you of Joe Forte" that the hype doesn't get out of control.

If anything, we're more use to getting burned.  We've had years of over-excitement about players like Kedrick Brown being the next 'Nique.  Now, you have internet greybeards who will actually swing in the other direction and temper any over-hype.  I really don't believe Wiggins-mania will reach the level of LeBron mania.   There might be more blogs, but the hype isn't manufactured. 

[RIPRED]

See... I don't buy the premise that he's just being hyped, because of our internet culture.  That's nonsense.  It's not like the internet didn't exist in 2003. 

That's not really the point, though. In 2003, the internet wasn't a daily interaction device for most sports fans. To put it in perspective, Blockbuster had over 9,000 locations in 2003--only half the homes in the US had any kind of internet access at all.

There are leagues of difference between the way sports media is covered on the web now and ten years ago. There's a lot more information going a lot faster.

Which is where a lot of the backlash to the hype comes from--people being bombed with information about Wiggins. It has nothing to do with whether the hype is warranted (which, we both agree, it is).

I'm pretty sure that I was coming to this site every day in 2003 (or some time shortly thereafter). I was definitely going to the ESPN Forums every day. 2003 was only 10 years ago...it's not like it was 1935.

[BballTim]

See... I don't buy the premise that he's just being hyped, because of our internet culture.  That's nonsense.  It's not like the internet didn't exist in 2003. 

That's not really the point, though. In 2003, the internet wasn't a daily interaction device for most sports fans. To put it in perspective, Blockbuster had over 9,000 locations in 2003--only half the homes in the US had any kind of internet access at all.

There are leagues of difference between the way sports media is covered on the web now and ten years ago. There's a lot more information going a lot faster.

Which is where a lot of the backlash to the hype comes from--people being bombed with information about Wiggins. It has nothing to do with whether the hype is warranted (which, we both agree, it is).

I think Lebron was more well-known, hyped and talked about as a high school freshman than Wiggins is today. 

Sorry I just don't agree with the premise.  It's all the same media doing the hyping and it all comes from roughly the same scouts.

I agree with your last sentence.

Either way, the article does a great job breaking down Wiggins, especially in light of all these fun "is the 2014 draft class reallllllly as good as people say?" threads.

I know it sounds ridiculous, but if ESPN and sites like Draftexpress tell me that this is the best draft class since 2003, I'm just going to take it at face value.  Scouting is surprisingly good in the last decade when it comes to players they peg as "elite".  Blake Griffin more or less panned out. Anthony Davis is more or less panning out.  I was told Chris Paul was going to be an incredible PG, and he's an incredible PG.  I was told Dwight Howard was raw, but had serious defensive potential... Dwight Howard was raw and had serious defensive potential.  I was told Derrick Rose was going to be awesome and he is.   The guys they peg as future superstars seem to be pretty accurate.  Theres some fluctuation with the weak drafts and unproven prospects.  I don't know if they've really gotten a handle on European players.  They were really high on Rubio when he was 17 years old.   As a 23 year old, he looks solid, but could improve.   More often than not, if they tell me a guy is going to be a star, he's panned out.

  That's a pretty selective memory. If you could convince people that the number of players chosen in the top 4-5 picks that shouldn't be has been significantly dropping over time then you'd have a decent case that scouting was getting more accurate. I don't think that's the case. If you're going to embrace the ESPN ratings don't forget that they had Avery Bradley rated at the top of his HS class.

[D.o.s.]

See... I don't buy the premise that he's just being hyped, because of our internet culture.  That's nonsense.  It's not like the internet didn't exist in 2003. 

That's not really the point, though. In 2003, the internet wasn't a daily interaction device for most sports fans. To put it in perspective, Blockbuster had over 9,000 locations in 2003--only half the homes in the US had any kind of internet access at all.

There are leagues of difference between the way sports media is covered on the web now and ten years ago. There's a lot more information going a lot faster.

Which is where a lot of the backlash to the hype comes from--people being bombed with information about Wiggins. It has nothing to do with whether the hype is warranted (which, we both agree, it is).

I think Lebron was more well-known, hyped and talked about as a high school freshman than Wiggins is today. 

Sorry I just don't agree with the premise.  It's all the same media doing the hyping and it all comes from roughly the same scouts.

But, again, that's not really the point. There are many, many, many, many more people contributing more noise about more things over the internet than there were at the outset of the 2002-2003 season. Hype fatigue is much easier to come by now then it was then.

More people might be blogging and there might be more people arguing on forums, but the level of hype is unchanged.  It's like comparing a comiccon today vs one 20 years ago.  There's probably 10x as many people going to them today, but the level of nerding out remains untouched.  In-fact, in some ways the level of nerding out was more dramatic with the early adopters.  I imagine a mainstream comic-con today with thousands of casual fans dressing up will never reach the level of slobbering nerdom of a roomful of neckbeards in the mid 80s. 

In the early 00s, we were were having these same discussions on sites like RealGm, ESPN, nbadraft.net, etc.  But in some ways they were even more insane.   My theory was that because the information was so new to us, we were apt to lose our heads. It was a new thing for us average joes to have access to any kind of scouting reports.  So you'd have people reading "So and so is the next Larry Bird according to nbadraft.net" or "woah, this guy sounds like he could be the French Michael Jordan!"...  You fell in love with drafts based on sketchy information.  It's the reason why people convinced themselves Darius Miles was the next KG or Eddy Curry was the next Shaq was simply because we knew the names.  Highlight videos were also a new thing... we weren't familiar with them.  It was really easy for people to get carried away.    If anything, time has made us somewhat immune to these random highlight videos.  We know that just because we see a bunch of dunks, it doesn't mean the guy is the future of the league.  It was a lot easier to think Gerald Green was the future of the NBA back in 2005 than it is in 2013.  Many were convinced Shaun Livingston was the next Magic Johnson.  Fans would read about some random guy projected in the 2nd round and convince themselves he was the steal of the draft... then freak out when we didn't draft the eventual bust.   

Summer league was a new thing too... it was really easy to see Joe Forte dominate and convince yourself he was the future of the league.  We're use to summer league now.  There's enough fans saying "Calm the F down... let me remind you of Joe Forte" that the hype doesn't get out of control.

If anything, we're more use to getting burned.  We've had years of over-excitement about players like Kedrick Brown being the next 'Nique.  Now, you have internet greybeards who will actually swing in the other direction and temper any over-hype.  I really don't believe Wiggins-mania will reach the level of LeBron mania.   There might be more blogs, but the hype isn't manufactured.

I'd agree with that. My point was that the average fan is much more exposed to it now than ten years ago--which explains the hype fatigue we see in the media and in threads re: Wiggins.