It's not a matter of him being better or worse than Hayward, it's that they're such different players. If Doncic is a 40% shooter from three (which is the hypothetical jcwkings was asking that you responded to) and an elite (albeit athletically limited) playmaker he's got more in common with Steve Nash than Gordon Hayward. Was Steve Nash better than Gordon Hayward? He passed the 18 ppg mark just twice in 18 seasons. He was also an 8 time All-Star, 2 time MVP, and is now in the Hall of Fame. How are we defining what a star is? Do you have to be a leading scorer to be a star? Until Steve got to Phoenix in his 9th season was he even considered a star? Most people didn't think so (including Marc Cuban who preferred rookie Devin Harris). Did D'Antoni and Amare make him into a star? Sometimes being in the right situation will radically change how we view a player. Ben Simmons averaged 16, 8, and 8 this season and can't shoot a lick and people are projecting stardom for him already. What if he averaged those same numbers but the Sixers only won 30 games, does that change how much we value those stats?
Does Luka Doncic need to be another James Harden to be worthy of a top pick? What if he's some kind of hybrid version of Dirk Nowitzki, Manu Ginobili, Steve Nash, and Peja Stojakovic? There are so many different nuances here that determine who is or isn't a star, I don't think it's fair to simplify this down to "not athletic = can't be a star". That's not what you're saying here, you're just saying he reminds you of Gordon Hayward. But I don't think that kind of comparison really matters. Especially if you're using it in a way to show that you like him less than other prospects (Jaren Jackson for instance) because his ceiling is lower. I don't see you arguing that we should we draft Trae Young because he might be Steph Curry. Isn't Steph Curry more accomplished than Anthony Davis? I think we all recognize that none of these players are exact clones of anyone. If Jackson ends up being, I don't know, 70% of Anthony Davis and Luka Doncic ends up being 85% of James Harden does that change your mind? We could nudge those numbers around all day but I feel like it's only distracting from what we actually want to know which is: (1) How good is Jaren Jackson Jr. going to be as an NBA player and (2) How good is Luka Doncic going to be as an NBA player. I don't know the answer to that, it's just a best guess kindof thing. I'd rather keep the comparisons out of it though. They're almost always misleading.