The reason for comparison in sports is plain: the more comparisons you're able to make, the wider amount of assumptions and ideas you're able to fit under one understanding of what you're seeing. If you filter your idea of basketball through stars? In the Raptors sense, maybe Pascal Siakam's large, dominant playmaking is LeBron-like to you; maybe Fred VanVleet was, for a time, a version of Klay Thompson who had been shortened by a Looney Tunes style hammer to the head (I'm guilty of this one too). These things are all true, until they aren't. And these comparisons aren't true, virtually, at the moment of conception.
A comparison helps us convey an idea quickly and succinctly, but what happens when that comparison starts to guide the dialogue around a player? How do we untangle a proliferated web, where these comparisons helped create illusions of a player's skillset? Or, perhaps they help polarize public opinion? How now, do we look at O.G. Anunoby and remove him from the Kawhi Leonard comparisons, while still providing a holistic look at his strengths? While Anunoby obviously isn't a Leonard-type player, he can't be a '3 and D' player; he's too good at too many things. O, halcyon days, we long for you -- when Anunoby knew his place, his 'role', and scored 10.6 points per game. Surely, everyone understands that's wrong. Even if frustrations are to be had by Anunoby & fans alike while he stretches his legs, everyone dreams bigger.
