This post is inspired by the "Better Peak: Howe vs Lemieux" thread, but is applicable to various other scenarios and I feel that it warrants a thread of its own. I can't count how many time I have read in the HOH forum that a player like Lemieux or Malkin is lesser than a comparable player like Howe or Sakic because "you don't get credit for games that you didn't play". It seems that there needs to be a distinction between "better" and "more valuable" or "more accomplished". For a player to be "more valuable" or "more accomplished", clearly it is necessary for them to actually be playing. But a player can still be "better" than his contemporaries despite having the misfortune of being injured. In the cases of players like Lemieux and Malkin, we're talking about players who were consistently the best among the best players in the league throughout their entire careers. It is very easy to judge how "good" these players were, and in any given game in which they play and are healthy, they would be expected to perform better than mostly anyone else. Hypothetically, let's disregard defense and say that points are the absolute measure of offense. Consider the following scenario: - Player X plays 80 games and records 100 points - Player Y plays 60 games and records 100 points In this scenario, it would be reasonable to conclude that both players were equally valuable (at least if their teams recorded the same number of goals) and equally accomplished. However, Player Y is clearly the better player in this scenario. If you could take either player healthy for a single game, the obvious choice would be to take Player Y. But in many of the discussions on this board, I see the line between "better" and "more valuable" or "more accomplished" being blurred. I am unsure whether people are misunderstanding the difference between these descriptions, or whether they are intentionally being ignorant or dishonest to prop up their arguments for certain players. I am inclined to believe the latter, since their seems to be an inherent bias in the HOH forum towards the legends of the game from the past. I say this in part because Bobby Orr seems to be given a free pass for his injury problems in all-time rankings, while others such as Lemieux and Malkin are criticized as a result of their own injury issues. When putting together an all-time ranking list, I have always considered who were the "best" players in the league. As such, players like Orr, Lemieux, Crosby, Malkin, Forsberg and Lindros fare quite well in my lists. But what criteria do the rest of you consider when putting together your own all-time ranking lists. And does anyone else see the some pervasive bias towards the legends of old in these lists?