u/KingEnwordTheFirst

I just don't get the hype around him at all. He's 6'9 with a 7'0 or 7'1 wingspan, which is good but not great. His entire offensive game is made up of three elements: rim fishing in transition, screen & roll (great roller, not a great screener), and a turn-around jumper in the low-post, which really only works against smaller defenders. In the half-court, he doesn't have a strong enough handle to create offense for himself and can't shoot the three. Defensively, he gets lost a lot. He'll show flashes of lockdown defence and does have the tools to be a capable switch defender in the league, but can’t protect the rim like a traditional 5 would and doesn’t have the instincts of a help-side defender like Giannis or Mobley.

I understand why people are blown away by his athleticism and ability to finish above the rim, but I think the most important thing to ask when evaluating a prospect is how will he be able to create an advantage for himself in the NBA. What is he good at that not many players at his position or size are? Boozer has his IQ, passing, rebounding and ability to stretch the floor as a PF. Dybantsa is a freak athlete who can get by anyone and can get to the line at ease. Peterson is an elite shooter and defender who probably has some untapped athletic potential that he wasn’t able to show this season. I don’t see what that is for Wilson. There are plenty of athletic wings and mobile bigs in the league who can keep up with him.

Probably the strongest argument in favor of his hype is the analytics. Rarely does a player with these kinds of physical tools and upside put up elite numbers in college. Of course the counter-argument against that is it’s easier for a college team to build around a player’s limited strengths and make him look great than it is for a pro team to do that since the opposing talent and level of competition is much higher in the pros.

I would love to hear why I’m wrong. How does he not become another Kuminga? In other words, a player with elite tools who can succeed in a very specific context but is quite easy to scheme against.

Bird, white American, was the best in the league for about 3 years playing for a franchise located in a city with a very low black population.

Jokic, a white non-American, was the best in the league for about 3 years playing for a franchise located in a city with a very low black population.

Personally, I think the backlash against Jokic has to do less with him and more with the perception that his fanbase is made up of white dorks, but nonetheless there's a clear racial divide on how he's rated as a player. I'd be very surprised if his majority-black peers regarded him as anything more than a top 5 player in the league at any point in his career.

With Bird, you get the sense that he wasn't well-liked by the players and black fans, but had their begrudging respect and the animus towards him was largely driven by his racist fanbase. But I wasn't alive then so I have no frame of reference.

Anybody here who was alive then and could offer some insight?