'The Last Dance' Further Proved That Comparing Players From Different Eras is Useless

It's a common topic for sports fans to debate: the hypothetical. What if Michael Jordan played in today's league? How would LeBron James fair in the rough-and-tough NBA of the 90s? While we'll never get any answers, these questions make for some of the most interesting ones in sports.

Time and time again, these conversations reach a dead end, however. Different eras mean different styles of play and pointless comparisons. The Last Dance makes that reality more apparent than ever.

For example, by looking at the stats alone, it may seem that James is a more dominant Finals performer than Jordan was. But in a modern NBA where stats are much easier to come by, how valid is that argument? And as The Last Dance showed us, Michael Jordan had quite a bit more to juggle than people may have otherwise considered.

In a much smaller NBA, Jordan was not just a celebrity, he was revered as a god. With all the tests on the court came an equally challenging yet unknown life off the court. But in the modern age, the challenges are more visible than ever before with social media and a more invasive media. Furthermore, changing style of play and growing league exposure make the modern NBA impossible to compare to previous eras.

Did we forget about the size of today's players too? There was never someone of Kevin Durant's stature with the ability to score like he does. And today's 3-point heavy game? How could have Jordan's Bulls defended against the Warriors dynasty?

And how are we supposed to judge players who we have never even seen, like Wilt Chamberlain? In the end, any comparisons across eras is merely conjecture. As The Last Dance shows us, there's always so much more to a player than what we see -- or never saw -- on the court.

So how about we appreciate the successes of guys like MJ and LeBron and forget about the incessant debates?