Please, people. Learn the difference between who's "greater/greatest" and who's "better/best" when it comes to ranking players. They are not interchangeable terms, as they are the result of different metrics.

1/

"Greater/greatest" takes into consideration the sum total of one's accomplishments, many of which are team achievements and aren't always a direct consequence of a single player's contribution (but that the individual player still gets credited for as though they were).

2/

"Better/best" strips away everything that is outside the control of the player in question and is an evaluation of the qualities that an individual brings to the table themself, so to speak.

3/

Here are a few examples of how I personally view this:

Tom Brady (greater) vs. Aaron Rodgers (better).

Michael Jordan (greater) vs. LeBron James (better).

Joe DiMaggio (greater) vs. Ted Williams (better).

Emmitt Smith (greater) vs. Barry Sanders (better).

3/

The former in all of these cases are more often than not considered the "greater" of the two, and they all share a common advantage: more championships in a team sport.

But team championships aren't an individual statistic. They are the result of an entire team's efforts.

4/

But if the goal is to determine who's better/best on a player vs. player basis, a player's teammates - especially those on the other side of the ball - shouldn't factor into the equation or be held against the merits of a single particular player.

5/

An individual's number of titles in a team sport shouldn't be the be-all, end-all of who is the better player compared to another. Troy Aikman's three rings don't make him better than Dan Marino, just as Andy Pettitte's five rings don't make him better than Pedro Martinez.

6/6