The debate is almost as old as professional sports itself – who is the greatest player of all time? Who’s the G.O.A.T.?

In the NBA, it’s normally a debate between Michael Jordan or LeBron James.

The NFL, the debate normally circles around those that have played at the quarterback position. Most often the conversation is about Tom Brady versus *insert your favorite old school quarterback here*.

In the MLB, some will push for Mike Trout (who’s currently still playing). Others will make an argument for Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb.

And in the NHL, most will say that it’s the man whose nickname is “the Great One”; otherwise known as Wayne Gretzky. A case can be made for Gordie Howe or Mario Lemieux, but that’s just it – a case can be made for any number of players to determine who’s the greatest player of all time. That’s the problem.

Before we go any further, a question must be posed. What does crowning a player as the G.O.A.T. accomplish? This isn’t a question disguised as a troll, it’s genuine. What does certifying a player as the greatest of all time truly accomplish?

Let’s say (for now) I consider LeBron James the greatest player to have ever played professional basketball. He has three titles and has been to the NBA Finals in eight consecutive seasons. He’s currently ranked seventh all-time in scoring among all NBA/ABA players and has shown no signs of slowing down. Indisputable G.O.A.T. right?

Here’s a portion of a list who have at least three titles to their name: James Jones, Gerald Henderson, Udonis Haslem, Sam Cassell, Rick Fox and Byron Scott.

Are any of those players even in the conversation to be considered the G.O.A.T.? If you answered no, then what measures greatness?

Charles Haley is tied with current New England Patriots starting quarterback Tom Brady with five Super Bowl victories for most as a player. Haley was a defensive end, accumulating 100.5 sacks in his career. Brady has amassed 488 passing touchdowns in his career. Are the two comparable?

Pro-Football-Reference has a statistic they call “approximate value.” Its name is what it sounds like – it’s a metric developed to roughly estimate the value a player added in a single season based on a combination of how often they started and, in some cases, if they made the Pro Bowl. Tom Brady is second all-time in that category with a score of 255, behind Peyton Manning’s 271. This past season, Brady was tied with Los Angeles Rams running back Todd Gurley with a score of 19. Since they play two different positions, should Gurley’s impact be viewed as comparatively less since Tom Brady is a quarterback?

Ty Cobb holds the career batting average record, checking in at .366. Mike Trout (at the time of this writing) is tied for 139th with a career .306 batting average, tied with Paul Molitor. Astros star and perennial (AL) MVP candidate Jose Altuve (again, at the time of this writing) is tied for 55th all-time in batting average (.317); tied with Hall of Famer Vladimir Guerrero. Should Jose Altuve be considered the G.O.A.T.?

Wayne Gretzky is the career leader in goals (894, 93 more than the next closest member on the list, Gordie Howe), assists (1,963; 714 more than the next person on the list, Ron Francis), points (2,857, 936 more than the next person on the list, Jaromir Jagr) and points in the postseason (382, 87 more than the next person on the list, Mark Messier). Since there’s such a large disparity on the standard, er, standards most players are measured by in the NHL, does that automatically make Gretzky the G.O.A.T.?

Bill Russell is the current leader in championships won by a player (11) in NBA history. He holds career averages of 15.1 PPG and 22.5 RPG. He also shot 44% from the floor for his career. Let’s just say he averaged that line last season. He would have ranked seventh, first and 22nd among qualified centers, respectively. Does this lessen Russell’s legacy?

That last question pertains to the most important factor that most sports fans leave out when arguing about who is the G.O.A.T. – context.

Russell Westbrook took home the MVP award two seasons ago, largely due in part to the fact that he averaged a triple-double and led Oklahoma City to the postseason after Kevin Durant left to join the Golden State Warriors. Russell Westbrook averaged a triple-double again this past season, but James Harden took home the MVP this time. Did Westbrook lose because he had Paul George and Carmelo Anthony on his team? Did James Harden win because the Houston Rockets added Chris Paul to the team; or is James Harden just that good of a basketball player? How you answered those last two questions can say a lot about how you measure greatness.

The MVP stands for Most Valuable Player. In the NBA, most people would say that LeBron should win it every year, and I think there’s merit to that argument. In every year that LeBron won MVP, the Cavaliers never won a championship.

What about the other leagues?

Since 2012, a new player has won the MVP in the NFL up until present day. No player has won consecutive MVPs since Peyton Manning did it with the Indianapolis Colts in the 2007-08 and 2008-09 seasons. Coincidentally, the Indianapolis Colts did not win the Super Bowl in either of those years.

The MLB has two different leagues within the MLB, so there are two MVPs every year, one for the NL and one for the AL. A pitcher hasn’t won the MVP Award since Clayton Kershaw in 2014, and he was the first pitcher to win it since Justin Verlander in 2011 with the Detroit Tigers. Neither playing got a World Series ring that year.

In the NHL, Canadiens netminder Carey Price won the Hart Memorial Trophy in the 2014-15 season, becoming the first goalie to win it since Jose Theodore in the 2001-02 season. Neither of the aforementioned players’ teams won the Stanley Cup that year.

Finally, I want to address the event that most fans have grown to hate – the All-Star games.

The NFL calls it the Pro Bowl, while the NBA, NHL and MLB host All-Star Games, but really, it’s just a popularity contest.

(No, this isn’t an article about how social media has ruined All-Star Games).

What this article is about is that there are so many layers to a player’s game, it’s hard to compare them, even if they’re playing in the same era.

LeBron James is often compared to Michael Jordan in terms of legacy and basketball abilities. One of the main problems with that is that Jordan was more of a two-way player and played in an era where the positions listed on a roster were the positions players played at; while LeBron James is more of an all-around player and has been in the league long enough where he’s seen multiple offensive and defensive philosophies change leaguewide.

Wayne Gretzky played in a time where the overall level of talent was arguably lesser than today’s. Does that lessen the statistical achievements he had?

Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb were certainly great baseball players but played in eras that were marred by corruption, greed, and economic downturn. Recent greats like Ken Griffey Jr. and Mariano Rivera played in an era where steroids and PEDs reigned supreme.

Tom Brady has five Super Bowl rings, and no one can take that away from him. (He also models man Uggs, but that’s beside the point). The “what-if” game can be played until you’re blue in the face. Would we be lauding him if Drew Bledsoe never went down? Would we appreciate Aaron Rodgers if Brett Favre had a competent offensive line, or if the NFL was honest about its knowledge about CTE and concussions?

The problem with the G.O.A.T. debate isn’t about whether or not stats or championships matter. It’s not about whether or not a player’s supporting cast should strengthen or lessen his impact on the field. Nor is it about the level of competition the player did or didn’t face.

LeBron has never been a general manager of an Eastern Conference team before (half-kidding).

Tom Brady has never been general manager of the Miami Dolphins, Buffalo Bills, or New York Jets.

Wayne Gretzky was just one guy.

It’s about all of those factors and then some.

@_Mason_Jar