The argued correlation between versatility across statistical categories and a player's value is illogical. Simply because someone is a top all-time performer in every category does not mean they can achieve GOAT status. Why should someone in the top three of many statistics be better than another player who far surpasses him in one statistic? The arbitrary definition of stats like RBI, total bases, etc. as the MOST important is ungenerous to other stats in which Hank Aaron was not in the top three all-time (like slugging percentage, for which he is twentieth all-time).
To claim that batting solely makes a player versatile discounts other areas of the game like outfielding and pitching (defense). The prioritization of one all-time batting mark over the other, as well as over entirely separate defensive statistics, is problematic, and to promote his value and historical significance in the annals of baseball based off of this assumption is to promote an illogical premise.