Goats or Sheep?

“People will feel the way they feel.” - LL Cool J

On a months old podcast with Bill Simmons, LL Cool J claimed that he invented the modern definition of G.O.A.T. with his album release in 2000. I had no idea this was the case and much like Simmons voiced his surprise, I had just assumed that it had been around since at least the 60’s or 70’s. After a Middle Schooler’s attempt at research (which is what I classify as any Google Search where you stay on the first page and take less than a minute to select your “expert” article(s) that you may or may not read in their entirety), you can find a 2018 SI article by Charles P. Pierce that speaks more of the older expression of a scapegoat or a Charles Curtis article from 2017 and published by USA Today that shows the lineage may actually lies when Lonnie Ali incorporated Greatest of All Time Inc to help consolidate and license her husband Muhammad’s intellectual properties. Although I believe Curtis gave credit to Frank Deford’s NPR article from 2011 as his main source. However it was Curtis’ brief look that brought my search full circle by connecting it back to Cool James (with whom the ladies love) by having him quoted in saying, “Without Muhammad Ali, there would be no ‘Mama Said Knock You Out, and the term G.O.A.T. would have never been coined.” However, even that was apparently in reference to a site called Grammarphobia and a Rolling Stones article. Confused yet?

I mention all of this, because as an acronym that was meant to simplify the term - Greatest of All Time - down to a four letter word, but instead has actually over-complicated the concept as much as my extended search. It is clearly an expression of someone who seems to be so dominant or transcendent in their sport or field of work, that people feel the need to compare them to other generations. If you hadn’t overheard the term before this period of self isolation, then you probably did once “The Last Dance” began. With no live sports to debate, every talking head and personality had to weigh in, even though many had already done so, on who is better: Michael or Lebron? We were also treated to a potential G.O.A.T. in the NFL deciding to take his talents to Tampa earlier in the quarantine, which then began a conversation to look at how many of these great figures made the same decision. Michael went to Washington, Montana to the Chiefs, Favre to the Jets & Vikings, Mays and Berra finished with the Mets, O.J. finished as a 49er before things got weird, and Bobby Orr finished as a Blackhawk. Now, not all of this crew were GOAT’s, but some of them were GOSomeT or otherwise known as MVP’s.

All of this had me thinking, why is it so easy to say “I don’t care” - then a second later get into an hour long heated conversation about who may or may not be considered the greatest? What compels us to keep arguing about something we can’t possibly ever “prove”?

Intellectually we know this is more about perspective. If you lived through MJ’s prime years, you will argue that his numbers are only part of the equation. Look at his desire. Consider how sociopath he is about losing. Or for those who have ever met him (or at least been in a room with him), they will tell you about his presence and how he owned every crowd. What they are really saying is that athletes can’t be judged solely by numbers (which seems to be true) and winning may or may not matter more than anything else (which depends). But what about sports where one guy can’t make as much of an impact?

---

Get Ready Rabbit Hole, Here I Come

In Baseball, there really isn’t one GOAT. Some will argue how Ruth was so far ahead of his time that he qualifies. Others will look at all around players like Mays who was literally the prototype for a 5 tool player. In a modern context, you don’t have anyone who isn’t completely tarnished with padded HGH related numbers, except maybe Griffey Jr. Pitchers are an odd category as they don’t throw as much as they did in previous eras, so many of the untouchable numbers represent a time when there weren't 5 guys pitching in rotation. Pitchers also have a tough spot as they only get to help their team every once in a while. But forget about GOAT for a second and think about someone like Clayton Kershaw. How can he be properly assessed? 8 All-Star appearances, 3 Cy Youngs, one MVP and twice in the top 10 in voting for that award. In terms of this era of pitching, he is among the most celebrated, but if you know anything about baseball, you already know the down side. He has been a part of a team that has been to the playoffs 9 out of the past 12 years (and remember, it’s actually hard to make the playoffs in baseball) - and this includes each of the last 7 years where 6 of those times the Dodgers made the NLCS making them a top 4 team, and twice they made the World Series. However, in the post season, his numbers are way down and he has never won a World Series ring. This doesn’t account for the fact that his team has been close and that the two times he lost in the World Series (Houston in ‘17 and Boston in ‘18) apparently those two teams were cheating and signaling pitches. Yet - if this stands - he will not be known for his greatness but his proximity to it. He will join the lovable and talented loser list alongside Barkley, Bonds, Banks, Bure, Baylor, Butkis… and that’s just the B’s. Even the aforementioned Griffey Jr. is a captain of that list, being considered by many to be the best of his generation and yet was never really even close to winning it all. However, if there is an article out there arguing that Derek Jeter is a better overall player than Griffey, I would naturally assume it was written by a die hard Yankees fan who would use the number of championships as their prime argument.

Baseball aside, this argument almost always comes down to winning versus stats. Because the majority of non-Patriots fans actively seem to despise them, the us-versus-them nature of Brady being considered a GOAT always boils down to the number of rings. There are several other QBs that have done more in terms of numbers, but no one who has had this level of sustained success. I think this is why most fans are interested in seeing how Tampa v New England turns out. Was it Brady - or was it Belicheck? A QB clearly has more impact on the sustained success of a football team than any single baseball player would have - but they are only on the field half the time. This year, one could make a strong case that Brady had far less to do with the Patriots success than Stephen Gilmore. I mean, Gilmore did only have one less running related TD last year. But with football, unless someone has a dominant usage percentage (see Christian McCaffrey) then we typically associate the QB with success and failure. It is their ability to control the ball, keep it safe from turnovers, and manage each player that makes us defer to them for most MVPs and to blame them for systematic or structural failures.

Hockey, for those who care about it, doesn’t have a strict in-game leader and isn’t as skill specific dependent as baseball, so the conversation is more well rounded. Goalies aside, we tend to look at centers for their varied skill set and ability to play both ways. However, inevitably, when a team makes a deep run to the cup, we almost always look at the goalie who gets hot, or the defensive stopper that makes it impossible to score. Playoff hockey is a totally different beast and I would argue that among the big four sports in North America, it has the greatest difference between regular season and postseason style of play. So while we look at Gretzky for being the greatest, it’s usually his numbers that speak the loudest. The fact that the Oilers won after he left, and he didn’t win after he left them for L.A. is testament that the sport needs a complete unit rather than just one individual, even if that player is the “Great One”.

---

Back to the Hard Court

Inevitably, when speaking about GOATs in sport, the general discourse tends to fall back to a sport like basketball. The sport just lends to it. You don’t need to play shift work like hockey. You should be a two way player, unlike football. Specialties are still present, but not exclusive like in baseball. And, one player has arguably more of an impact. Not every top tier player will win a title, but historically you NEED a win one to be considered truly great. There are exceptions, but they are rare. So it is damaging to any ex-player when they don’t win a title as it suggests that they were merely flirting with greatness. If you don’t believe me, watch any player who has even had beef with someone like Barkley. It comes up - pretty much every time - that he didn’t win a ring. They don't mention that he was in his prime while Jordan was dominating an entire league or that most of his team went limp during the 93 finals while he put up a solid fight - because ultimately it doesn’t matter. You win or you don’t. It’s one of the rare cases of absolute we have.

There is nothing more compelling to an argument than the number of titles a player has or doesn’t have. Even more, if they did it with a different cast of characters. Look at the legacies of a player like Nowitzki versus players like Carmelo, Vince Carter or T-Mac. Go ahead and randomly choose an article to read about any of these players and look for the language used and the narratives chosen. It comes down to one season where Dirk put it together and the other three didn’t. There are other number and longevity arguments there - and to be clear - Dirk did score 5 or 6 thousand more points than Melo and VC - so maybe putting them on the same plateau isn’t completely fair, but it doesn’t change the narrative. If you want a closer stat comparison, look at Kevin Garnett. At the time of this article, Melo is 17th all time in scoring, KG is 18th and Carter is 19th. Aside from Melo playing less games, and Garnett shooting way less 3’s than the other two, they have some significant stat similarities (offensively…. KG rebounded way more due to position). Yet again, Garnett was part of a mega team that took home a title in ‘08 and the other two never really made a serious run. None of those three will be considered a GOAT or even the best of that era as they played with Kobe and Duncan - but one season of winning completely changed how we remember KG. Winning is now a part of his narrative whereas TMac and Vinsanity are more known as really solid players who were cousins but probably not as great as we thought they could have been. If people talk about your relatives instead of your greatness - you have an issue with your legacy.

---

They're Grrrreat

Rambling aside - we love arguing about the greatest of all time - because we love talking about greatness in general. I think it boils down to two major factors.

1 - We don’t need experts to have opinions. We can read who we want, listen to who we want and most importantly, interject our real life experiences to put together an argument or case that works for us. You can’t “prove” us wrong with numbers as we have numbers of our own. This is a personal choice that represents who we are and what we believe in. Other arguments aside, I think it is that simple. Old people (and I’m including myself) will argue Jordan. Young people will argue Lebron. Really old people might argue for Kareem, or even older people may make the case for Chamberlain or Russell. And when we don’t, it’s a statement about what we value more than anything else. If you grew up with Jordan but argue Lebron, it probably means you either want to seem more relevant or you value consistency. If you’re young and argue Jordan, maybe you want to be counterculture to your generation or you value the end result and how it will justify the means. Regardless, you don’t need me or anyone else with expertise to tell you about it. You choose the numbers that matter the most to you and make a decision. It’s your call. It is a shame that some feel the same way about science - but that’s a ramble for another day.

2 - We are fascinated with excellence. Perhaps we don’t understand it fully so we put significant value in results. We can’t turn ourselves away from someone being truly great at something. The difference between someone like Brady or Jordan (both of whom I actively cheered against during their careers) and others is the expectation. I hated when Jordan had a second of space to get a shot off when he had the ball at the end of a game because my default setting was that I truly believed that when he shot it, it was going to go in. If it was in the 4th quarter and the game was tight, I was shocked when he missed. Same goes for Brady. I do not want him with the ball in his hands during the pivotal times of the game. I just feel he will make the right decision and I’m screwed. And similarly, when he fails I’m surprised. I think that’s what makes cheering against them so fun. They are supposed to win so you it’s worth noting when they don’t. I think it was also why I ultimately enjoyed cheering for Payton Manning a bit more (even though I didn’t really root for him either, so this was situational), as it was a bit of a surprise when things went well for him, even though he was also great. The only two people in Baseball I felt like that about was probably Pedro in the late 90’s and Rivera throughout his career. It was a big deal when the Jays put a dent on either of them. But I don’t think either was personal. I was just in awe of them as they did something I liked better than other people. I think we look at greatness the same way we look at fire. We understand it to an extent, but there is this element that we don’t fully grasp that draws us in. It’s why I’ve started hundreds of fires in my life, but when I’m trying and the spark just isn’t catching, I get flustered. Then - it hits - and I feel this odd sense of accomplishment as I was a part of something that while expected, I can’t fully explain. I feel the same with watching someone excel. I get it, but I still respect it and can’t really explain why. These are all silly games. Putting balls or pucks in nets - throwing or running a ball into a space - or trying to smack a ball far enough away so I can run in a circle. Not Herculean. But when someone is doing it better than anyone I’ve seen, I’m transfixed.

This obviously applies outside of the sporting realm, but it’s just harder to witness. I don’t get to see a Nobel Laureate conduct research, nor would I want to. I get a similar feeling when I’m reading something that is polished and provoking or when I’m watching a movie that does something in a way that moves me - but I think the two differences are time and objectivity. The author, scientist or director had time and edits to do the things that are great. That shouldn't matter, but I love the ability to adapt on the spot. Tough to replicate that when I don’t see the process. The second is objectivity. If I love a movie, there are likely those who hate it. So if I want to argue it’s greatness, there aren’t really numbers to support it. Oscars are often wrong and really only value a certain type of movie. Box office revenue as an argument of success as it relates to movies, stopped working when I was 14 and realized that popularity isn't a measure of quality. Saying that a movie made 100 million didn’t make me think it was necessarily good or well made, just marketed really well and had good looking people in it. Sports have a winner that not only gives certainty but also has a sense of accomplishment. They beat someone who was allowed to try and stop them. And while I would pay to see authors and directors fight each other, I don’t think it would make their products objectively better.

So while most greatness that actually matters isn’t celebrated, a certain level of greatness that has actually no direct impact on the world gets a huge chunk of my attention. I defend sports greatness as it reminds us of potential and achievement. There is a difference between expectation and execution, regardless of the forum and those who perform do deserve attention at they are demonstrative of potential and achievement. I think Yoda famously spoke of doing or not doing and to minimize our value in trying, but as MJ said:

“Why would I think about missing a shot I haven’t taken?” or even more appropriate for this point: “My mentality was to go out and win at any cost. If you don’t want to live that regimented mentality, then you don’t need to be alongside of me.”