Chet is 21. Wemby is 19.
Chet had a year of development in the NBA. Chet is a perfect example of how drastically a year of NBA development can change your body.
Wemby is a rookie that just switched from international basketball to American rules.
Chet is on a really good team, with a great facilitator in Giddey, (i know,) a bonafide superstar guard in Shai, and a point forward in Williams. He is surrounded by elite defenders like Dort and Wallace. OKC is deep, talented, well coached, and almost made the playoffs last season.
Wemby is on a bottom feeder that has struggled for years and really goes about 7ish guys deep. His starting lineup lacks a point guard. There is only one point guard getting minutes in the rotation. Both of the teams leading scorers need to develop as facilitators. Wemby struggles to get the ball where he needs it and is often missed in moments when he should be getting the ball. The team does has some good defenders but still has significant room to grow on that end.
Yet we have pundits genuinely trying to argue that Chet is a more impressive rookie than Wemby. I get why, Chet is really good, and fun to watch, and a good story to pair next to Wemby. Wemby is also struggling in some key areas, like shooting. But realistically the contextual differences are too vast to act like there is a fair comparison to make. Like do people really think the Thunder would be worse right now with Wemby over Chet. Or that Chet would make the Spurs better than Wemby has.
Now, to be clear, I’m not arguing against a Chet ROTY vote. Chet is contributing to a winning team and that is valuable. Instead, what I’m saying is that Wemby is still, imo, far more impressive. I think a lineup of Shai, Wallace, Dort, Williams, Wemby would be absurd defensively. And I think Wemby would be far more impactful offensively within a good team’s offensive system.
You have to remember: Chet wasn’t getting full, game-speed reps until about May this year. So this talk about a full-year in the NBA isn’t true.