I think the argument is more nuanced than this. First, certainly many companies get wrecked due to crappy VCs. The crappy part is usually their poor selection

I think the argument is more nuanced than this. First, certainly many companies get wrecked due to crappy VCs. The crappy part is usually their poor selection of who to invest in. Second, the companies that VCs find must hit home runs for the VC model to be successful. A lot of companies could definitely be good or great companies that hit singles and/or doubles, but that won't work for the long-term success of the VC. As such, they take the single- and double-hitting companies and they'll them to swing for the fences. These two points are related. Many (Most? All?) companies funded by mediocre VCs from the start don't have home run potential for one reason or another. The fact that VCs run these companies with base hit potential into the ground is simply a fait accompli.