I get that he is young and has a lot of room to grow, I've admitted to that fact, and to the fact that it is unfair to judge him at such a young age, but I still don't see the offensive skill-set that makes me go, "wow, this guy can be the best player in the league in a few years". And as I said before to you I believe, unfortunately, offense is how we determine the best players in the game. I mean, if you look at the way he plays on offense and compare him to everyone you would consider to be a superstar wing in the league, he just doesn't fit in for me...even in LeBron's, KD's, Harden's, Melo's, Wade's rookie years you could see that they had skills that are very rare. I just don't see that with Wiggins right now. Does that mean he can't grow into that skill-set? Of course not, I can't predict the future, but I'd like to see it before I begin acting like it is absolute.
If we going solely from offensive production, then no, I wouldn't categorize him that way. I don't think he'll be that kind of player.
But again, Paul George is not on your list, but he was also the most complete player outside of LeBron and KD.
George had the ability to not only outscore you on any given night, but also could be a DPOY candidate.
He's not going to have 50-pt games like a Curry, Harden, Irving, Kobe, Melo, or James. Because he's not as good of a scorer as those guys are. But he could consistently put up 22-26 ppg, somewhere in there, perhaps even more.
If he's playing elite level defense, which he has the potential to do, then like Paul George, I think that makes him worthy of an MVP.
Again, if you remove defensive considerations, then we'd completely agree with one another. I'm just not willing to do that.
Also, he has no chance being the best player in the world during his prime as long as Anthony Davis stays healthy.
We don't know... Again, the possibility exists because the raw material is there. We have no idea what Anthony Davis' future holds. He could be injured.
Hell, we all agreed that Parker would win ROY, and look what happened?
I'm not talking projection, I'm talking strictly how he looks as a player right now.
Then I think that misses the point. I think a lot of people are more concerned with how he looks right now, rather than where he's going.
If I take a plotted line of a function, and reduce the visible output of that function to a single point, what do I know about the function that generated it?
Almost nothing.
I know that the function intersects this point... That's it. I don't know anything else, so in reality, I know very little.
But give me several points of data, not just right now, but in the past, then I might be able to tell you what is probable in the future.
That's why looking at such a narrow view of the present isn't necessarily useful for projection, which is really what we're doing when we're talking about a 19-year old rookie who is considered to be a "raw talent."
If you compare him to rookie Paul George, I'll agree with you...but current Paul George?
There is no "but" here.
Comparing him to current Paul George makes no sense.
Why
would you do that? PG had 6 seasons (2 collegiate, 4 NBA) of professional basketball under his belt before being injured. Wiggins has 1.75. PG was 23 years old, Wiggins was 19.
What we need to ask ourselves is, 'Does Wiggins have the potential to be Paul George? Yes or No.; and if yes, what is the likelihood of him reaching and/or exceeding George?"
I think the answer to that question is a definite 'yes,' and I'd say the likelihood is fairly good considering George's game and how much he relies on his reach, athleticism, and physical talents as well as his solid shooting and commitment to defensive principles. Andrew Wiggins, as you and many others have said, is very much like a young Paul George but with greater physical talents.
Defense on the other hand...
Indeed.
And Paul George certainly has become a playmaker. That is how he took the next step. There is no legit PG on that team with George Hill and CJ Watson, so George took a lot of the playmaking duties on by himself, and his numbers back that up.
Paul George's numbers do
not back that up.
His numbers are indicative of a team that relies on ball movement, with another player besides George to create offense (that runs through George).
With respect to generating assists, the team balanced the offense through a group of players.
Ast/48:
1. Lance: 6.26
2. Hill: 5.22
3. George: 4.68
4. West: 4.33
George ended the season with only 3.5apg, but he worked within the flow of an offense designed to get him good looks.
Honestly, I have no idea how to compare Wiggins. I have never seen a rookie wing that athletically and instinctively gifted on defense, who can shoot the ball at a decent clip as a 19 year old, but who can't take you off the dribble consistently enough to utilize his athleticism or create for his teammates on offense. Part of the reason why I hesitate to compare him to George, or anyone for that matter, is because I have never seen how this type of player pans out.
Sure you did, you said so yourself. Paul George.
George is one of the few players these days, at the SF position, who is not an isolation scorer or great ball-handler. George literally scores half his points completely off-the-ball.
He almost never scores in the post, and isolates at a far lower rate than other players like Harden, Curry, Westbrook, James, Melo, etc.
I think you and other people who keep responding to me for pointing out his lack of playmaking ability think that I don't believe Wiggins can be a star or that I think he is no good.
I'm not speaking for anyone else though. I appreciate your opinion and your insight.
I think he certainly can, but I need to see the skills first. I hate the rigid belief of potential in sports. It's just talk until it is shown on the floor, and that's all I'm waiting for.
Well, that's really what the draft is all about isn't it; especially when there isn't a clear cut best pick or, in the majority of instances, when you don't have access to those players.
It shouldn't be a crap shoot.
