The Chet Holmgren/Victor Wembanyama comparisons are inevitable, boring, and wrong. Both are rookies. Both are tall and so thin as to be two-dimensional. Both have untraditional skills for seven-footers, and both are fierce basketballhawks on defense. But the details are decidedly different.
Amazing that only 7-12 years ago, the NBA was panicking that the big man had gone the way of the dodo. We've come a long way from having to pretend that nice, productive players like Bogut, Bynum, Chandler, DeAndre, and Drummond are truly among the league's elites; exactly ten years ago, the three All-NBA centers were:
First team: Joakim Noah, averaged 12.6 points on a 48-win team
Second team: Dwight Howard's first Houston year
Third team: Al Jefferson posting up every possession and playing no defense for the Bobcats
Nice analysis. l think it's a lot harder to be the main guy on a bad team that just started it's rebuild, who's getting everyone best look, and has no all-star level teammates to draw attention from him or open up the game for him, than it does to be a guy who's team has been tanking and stacking players for 6-7 years previously until now, has an all-star level player to take away all the attention from him, making his job a heck of a lot easier on a nightly basis. That's why Chet has a high chance of being ROTY, his team will finish higher in the standings. They both have unfair expectations. I like the analysis of his play though. Hopefully the Spurs can get the draft picks to stack up against teams like OKC one day, they are just a lot further behind on their rebuild. And don't have the length and explosiveness on defense to contend with the players they do have currently, aside from a few.