Who can compare?There's a psychology to this. I think it comes down to insecurity. Most people don't understand the true complexity of an athlete's game -- from his brain to his body. For example, a vast majority of people that know who Lebron James is don't exactly know what makes him so good. The same with Dirk Nowitzki. In fact, let's go ahead and include every athlete -- professional or no.
Sports fans know how to play a game. They don't know how to dissect it or enjoy the nuance.
This is why we have sports writers, radio guys and the pundits we see on ESPN or we might read at Baseball Prospectus. It's what makes an OK color analyst on TV a great color analyst on TV: The ability to explain those subtleties and details to a dumb audience.
One of the biggest hubs of controversy in the recent NBA Finals were the comps of James to Michael Jordan (or Magic Johnson ... or Scottie Pippen) and those of Nowitzki to Larry Bird.
The camps were at a stalemate. James' comparisons were based on the observation that he stunk. Nowitzki's comparison were based on him being very good.
Comps are made because A) we're lazy; and B) we're stupid.
Both go hand in hand really. At first, we're stupid. Luckily, if you watch enough of the sports, read about it, study it, read more, listen to others you might develop a true grasp of the game with the ability to make salient and insightful points.
Most remain stupid and don't want to put the work into it. They just want to know why Tony Romo can't just throw the ball to Jason Witten 40 times a game. That's laziness.
Most people can't look at Nowitzki's game and tell another person what's so good about it: Maybe his ability to get his shot off against smaller guys, his touch, the ability to take certain guys off the dribble and, frankly, his noted improvement every year from passing to rebounding to understanding the flow of a game.
Comparisons are often shortsighted. Nowitzki is compared to Bird because they could both shoot, they have shaggy haircuts and they are both white. Those are actually where the comparison ends.
Truth is -- and I love Dirk Nowitzki -- but he is no Larry Bird.
Here's another truth: Of the 250,000 people that crammed into downtown Dallas yesterday, I would predict 95 percent have not seen Bird play a substantial amount of basketball.
Some are too young. Others merely just jumped on the Mavericks' bandwagon. Still, a vast majority have no idea what Bird was about.
First and foremost, he was not a good defender. He was a fantastic defender. He was gritty and tough his entire career. Nowitzki can not come even close to touching him here.
Bird was the superior passer. He was the superior rebounder.
Bird has three NBA titles. And three MVP awards. Bird was simply better.
Comparing the two is unfair ... to both.
For one, Bird was the superior player and if his name has to keep fighting off more and more white guys for eternity, then it sort of devalues what he was actually about.
It's unfair to Nowitzki, too. Bird had no comps. No one was watching him win those titles in the 1980s and simply commenting on his ability by saying he was in the mold of George Gervin or Jerry West. I don't remember anyone comparing Michael Jordan to Julius Erving or Oscar Robertson. They simply watched the game and enjoyed the brilliance.
If we are smart, we'd do the same. Instead of attempting to look "smart" and say so and so reminds me of so and so, why not take these players for what they are and enjoy it?
Fact is, most of us are dumb. A vast, vast, vast majority have never seen Erving, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Rick Barry, Bob Cousy, Moses Malone or Earl Monroe play the game. Many others have never really seen Magic, Bird or, even, Jordan.
Just leave the comps alone.
