Yesterday Pete Thamel published a
piece hack job at Sports Illustrated where he managed to disparage Canadian basketball, call Andrew Wiggins lazy with "warning signs" of impending failure, use a 3-year old trip to North Carolina as a sign that his recruiting might be dirty, suggest without evidence that he's not going to qualify, and refer to Wiggins' father as "an unemployed former NBA guard best remembered for a two-year suspension for testing positive for cocaine."
In other words, it was Pete Thamel being Pete Thamel.
His coach, Rob Fulford, responded: "The entire article was based on things everyone already knew. I thought it was unfair … classless. I challenged Andrew (to realize) that's not going to be the last negative piece written on him, his dad, school, character issues, things like that from his past."
And then Wiggins responded. All he did was make 24-28 shots from the field on his was to 57 points.
Andrew Wiggins is going to continue to do his thing, and grown men are going to continue disparaging him without supplying any evidence.
The only thing which is even debatable is whether or not Wiggins takes nights off. But these kids play games 12 months a year, and in the vast majority of those games there is no one on the opposition that can do much to stop Wiggins. Even his coach admits that he'll play harder in spurts, but who doesn't? He's a high school kid. Thamel using that to question his work ethic and wonder if he'll just "coast on talent" in the NBA is poor, shoddy, journalism.
Why doesn't Thamel go visit Huntington Prep, and watch him work, and then write a story about it? Seems a little ironic to question a high school kid's work ethic, while as a journalist, he covered the story at home in his pajamas without actually talking to or watching the kid he's disparaging. I think there's a work ethic issue in this story, but Thamel might be pointing a finger in the wrong direction.