Since sports talk shows have become a greater part of sports media, debates comparing various players throughout a sport’s history have become more pertinent. A main draw of sports talk shows is hearing bigger personalities, such as Stephen A. Smith or Shannon Sharpe, make broad claims. Who is the best? Who is the greatest? It's a deceptively simple question that fuels endless arguments across every sport, and yet after decades of debate, no clear answer has emerged. Why? Because fans keep conflating two words that aren't the same. Best and greatest are not synonyms. Nevertheless, if you turn on your TV you will hear sports analysts give a passionate soliloquy interchanging the words. The two words may sound similar but they measure totally different things: one is about peak dominance and the other is about lasting impact.

When distinguishing the best from the greatest, it's important to note why we can't flip-flop between the terms. “Greatest” encompasses the totality of one's achievements, including but not limited to personal awards, team awards, overall statistics, longevity and most importantly impact. On the other hand, “best” refers to a player's peak and dominance in a given moment at the height of their abilities. 

Imagine two players in the NBA. Player “A” wins 1 Most Valuable Player award and is selected for the All-Star game three times before suffering a catastrophic injury resulting in medical retirement. Player “B” never comes close to winning MVP but plays longer, making five All-Star and winning one championship as a role player. By most standards, player B is “greater;” the career longevity and team success give them the edge in terms of legacy. Despite player B’s higher rank all time, player A is “better.” At their peak, player A reached heights B never did; this distinction is subtle but essential. 

Of course, even with clear definitions sports debate never escapes the universal problem of bias, specifically when discussing players across decades or eras. How do you compare Patrick Mahomes to Tom Brady when one player’s career is still ongoing? How do you weigh peak dominance versus sustained excellence? 

Longevity can skew perception, making it easier to crown and award the player with more rings, records and MVPs, but that doesn't always mean they were the “better” athlete when they were at their best. The Mahomes vs. Brady debate is the best example of this. At 30 years old and in the prime of his career, we are in the midst of Mahomes’ illustrious career. His talent and dominance in the NFL coupled with the heights reached in both regular and post-season is something we've never seen before. There may never have been a “better” quarterback than Mahomes. Yet, Brady’s unmatched longevity, consistency and record-breaking seven super bowls cement him as the “greatest” to many. When people argue that Brady is better, they often point to his seven championships and list of passing yard records, but by doing this, the conversation is shifted. Those accomplishments are marks of greatness, not being the best.

There’s no true way to remove bias from the equation; the best we can do is recognize our own and stick to the framework. If you're debating “greatest,” everything within the career is fair game. If you're debating the “best,” limit the conversation to awards, dominance and impact during the player’s peak. 

Whether among friends at a lunch table, in a barbershop or on a podcast, sports dialogues will forever remain unanswered and never reach a consensus. Fans will always find reasons to defend their players, even to the point of irrationality. If we can agree on one thing, it's that “best” and “greatest” aren't synonymous. Understanding that difference won't end debates but it might finally make them meaningful.