I'm mostly curious for those who think Lemieux, Orr, Howe, or whoever else was the better player - would playing another couple years and reaching more milestones, but at the cost of some PPG average have helped him or hurt him? Gretzky finished with 894 goals. 1963 assists. 2857 points. Those numbers are staggering, obviously. But with 1 more season he probably breaks 900 goals, putting him we'll guess more than 100 ahead of anyone else (Howe 2nd at 801), probably over 2000 assists. 2 seasons would have seen him probably exclipse 3000 points. My thoughts are though - would that matter? I mean, for people who care about such things, Gretzky's already way in front. Is 2000 assists really better than 1963, which is more than anyone else has points? Anyone who already thinks Gretzky's the best isn't going to think he's that much better just because of more points, are they? Most those who don't consider Gretzky the best are either going on things like Lemieux's adjusted PPG, or else Orr's 2 way dominance. I clearly understand the arguement for Orr - honestly, to me he's the only player with a legitimate arguement over Gretzky (though I personally still take Wayne). Or they use arguements about teammates, era, etc. But Gretzky spent plenty of years on other teams besides Edmonton, and in eras other than the 80's. So would 2 more seasons have mattered there either? This isn't just Gretzky specific either. My thoughts are that most people have an opinion of a player. Reaching a few more milestones or a few less isn't going to convince anyone one way or another. For anyone who thinks Lemieux was better, would Gretzky scoring 50 in 37 have mattered? Or 96 goals instead of 92? Or playing 2 extra years to break 3000 pts and 2000 assists? Probably not. But who knows - maybe I'm wrong. That's why I'm curious to see what others think on this. Maybe more milestones, even at the cost of a few PPG, would sway some people. Maybe Gretzky having a lower PPG than Lemieux would sway some the other way.