Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 1

[ChiTownPhilly]

Nothing Orr could do about longevity.

Whether or not Orr (or any player) could do anything about his (their) lack of longevity [on account of physical inability to play] is something I'm not sure is decisively relevant. If you are physically unable to perform, whether it is your fault or not, you are (at that time) a non-asset to your team. It's reasonable to draw a contrast between such a player and players who ARE physically able to perform.

Doubtless, we can't help but draw some distinctions based on the circumstances attached to the injuries. For instance, if a "give-no-quarter/take-none" player gets injured, a lot of us would say it's part of the package-- the player plays in a style that makes him susceptible to time-loss. Likewise, a freak injury is something we view as malign happenstance- and we tend to cut more slack. Finally, there are players who get targeted by willful attempts to injure. We'll tend to have even more sympathy in those instances.

All these items have one thing in common- those injured are physically unable to be on the job. I believe such absences should be taken into account when assessing them. Unfair? Cue relevant Coach Mike Ditka "In Life..." quote here.

I dream of the World to Come. A world where deliberate attempts to injure occur in The Other Place. Where Orr has two sound knees and maybe ascends to ichiban status by acclamation. Where Lemieux doesn't come down with a Neoplasm in his prime, and has a back that is as sound as mine was before I cracked four bones in my own spine. But until that world comes, I'll opt to make my assessments based on what came to pass in This World.

 

[bobholly39]

Explain how players like Howe, Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, Dickie Moore, managed to win the ArtRoss while playing excellent defensive hockey.

Well they scored about 100 less points than Gretzky - for starters. Patrice Bergeron plays pretty good defense today but odds are he scores a lot less than McDavid. With Gretzky vs some of those guys - the gap is even wider.

The goal of hockey isn't to win hockey games by a score of 1-0 or 2-1 - it's to outscore the opponent by whatever score. Whether you do so by outscoring them, by preventing them scoring, or a bit of both - so long as the result is there that's what counts.


Finally - please explain and give specific examples to show that players like Howe, Hull, Mikita and Moore (or the first 2 since they're relevant in this round) played excellent defensive hockey. All i've seen so far is actual statements - do you have any stats to back this up?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Limited stats for defensive play. Need to evaluate actual games first and foremost.

 

[daver]

Explain how players like Howe, Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, Dickie Moore, managed to win the ArtRoss while playing excellent defensive hockey.

Explain how Howe, Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, Dickie Moore did not win said Art Rosses in the same dominant fashion as Wayne save for one season that Howe had that was in the ballpark?

Apologies for any perceived misrepresentations.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Well they scored about 100 less points than Gretzky - for starters. Patrice Bergeron plays pretty good defense today but odds are he scores a lot less than McDavid. With Gretzky vs some of those guys - the gap is even wider.

The goal of hockey isn't to win hockey games by a score of 1-0 or 2-1 - it's to outscore the opponent by whatever score. Whether you do so by outscoring them, by preventing them scoring, or a bit of both - so long as the result is there that's what counts.


Finally - please explain and give specific examples to show that players like Howe, Hull, Mikita and Moore (or the first 2 since they're relevant in this round) played excellent defensive hockey. All i've seen so far is actual statements - do you have any stats to back this up?

Provide stats to support this claim. Classic oxymoron if you take the time to read it.

First example where a win was not awarded due to insufficient scoring should be your starting point.

Examples. Participating comes with the responsibility of having done background research.

Howe and Hull were often assigned to check each other in games. Pappyline and others can attest to this.

Moore and Howe would face each other regularly in games thru the mid fifties into the sixties. Likewise Beliveau and Mikita, early sixties into the seventies.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Whether or not Orr (or any player) could do anything about his (their) lack of longevity [on account of physical inability to play] is something I'm not sure is decisively relevant. If you are physically unable to perform, whether it is your fault or not, you are (at that time) a non-asset to your team. It's reasonable to draw a contrast between such a player and players who ARE physically able to perform.

Doubtless, we can't help but draw some distinctions based on the circumstances attached to the injuries. For instance, if a "give-no-quarter/take-none" player gets injured, a lot of us would say it's part of the package-- the player plays in a style that makes him susceptible to time-loss. Likewise, a freak injury is something we view as malign happenstance- and we tend to cut more slack. Finally, there are players who get targeted by willful attempts to injure. We'll tend to have even more sympathy in those instances.

All these items have one thing in common- those injured are physically unable to be on the job. I believe such absences should be taken into account when assessing them. Unfair? Cue relevant Coach Mike Ditka "In Life..." quote here.

I dream of the World to Come. A world where deliberate attempts to injure occur in The Other Place. Where Orr has two sound knees and maybe ascends to ichiban status by acclamation. Where Lemieux doesn't come down with a Neoplasm in his prime, and has a back that is as sound as mine was before I cracked four bones in my own spine. But until that world comes, I'll opt to make my assessments based on what came to pass in This World.

Talking about This World.

Do you realize what an inconvenience the constant colour changes are to those who are elderly, with visual impairments, etc?

 

[bobholly39]

Provide stats to support this claim. Classic oxymoron if you take the time to read it.

First example where a win was not awarded due to insufficient scoring should be your starting point.

Examples. Participating comes with the responsibility of having done background research.

Howe and Hull were often assigned to check each other in games. Pappyline and others can attest to this.

Moore and Howe would face each other regularly in games thru the mid fifties into the sixties. Likewise Beliveau and Mikita, early sixties into the seventies.

So facing each other is proof of significant defensive contribution? Seriously - that's it?

Did Wayne Gretzky only face off against 4th liners than in all of his beast seasons and playoffs - is that what you think? I'd expect he was faced off against the best opposition available - and clearly he outscored people greatly still.

 

[Canadiens1958]

So facing each other is proof of significant defensive contribution? Seriously - that's it?

Did Wayne Gretzky only face off against 4th liners than in all of his beast seasons and playoffs - is that what you think? I'd expect he was faced off against the best opposition available - and clearly he outscored people greatly still.

Obviously you will not research. The results of the games are available online.

Gretzky bolded comment is another oxymoron. With only 4 career SCs, obviously outscoring did not work well enough most of the time.

 

[bobholly39]

Obviously you will not research. The results of the games are available online.

Gretzky bolded comment is another oxymoron. With only 4 career SCs, obviously outscoring did not work well enough most of the time.

The bolded is an oxymoron.

Since you obviously won't show research of defensive play for Hull and Howe that accounts for lack of offense vs Gretzky above a 'Pappyline saw them - ask him' - I think i'll stick to my beliefs that enough offense trumps defense.

 

[bobholly39]

I wanted to compare the very best seasons/playoffs of each of the big 4. Initially I was going to do this just for myself - but I figure I did all of the research and I may as well post it to see if it's helpful for anyone else.

So I did a breakdown of individual seasons and playoffs for each of the big 4 players, and awarded points for each season. This was based on personal preference/subjective – and I heavily reward offense usually, but tried to be as objective as possible nonetheless.

What really sets the big 4 (and really – it’s Orr/Lemieux/Gretzky as I maintain Howe is mostly longevity) apart is their absolutely ridiculous peak – heights that no other players touched. That’s why to me they’re in the big 4 , and so it was important for me to reward what I consider super human performances (or video game stats). So I took apart each player’s regular season, and then each player’s playoffs, and awarded it a grade on the following scale:

Superhuman - 10
Great - 5
Good - 2
OK - 1
Zero - 0

Superhuman is the special stuff. 215 points, 199, ross for Orr, 1953 for Howe or 1955 playoffs. The types of seasons/records that no one else approached outside of these 4 (and mostly 3) players.

Great – This is for great seasons where you won a ross, or a Norris, or a hart, or a smythe – or where you maybe finished 2nd in one of those but your stats were worthy of being in this category. The “human” stuff – so for Gretzky his first “great” season is 1988 (after his rookie year) where he only scored 149 points.

Good – Good seasons worthy of adding to a player’s resume, but a step below “great”. Because I want to really reward peak for the big 4 (and even more – video game worthy stats) – I’m only awarding 2 points here. For Gretzky 1992 (121 point in 74 games) is his first “good” season.

Ok – Seasons worthy of adding longevity to a player, but without necessarily being at the very top of the league. Sticking to Gretzky – 1994-1995 with 48 points in 48 games is “ok”.

Zero – Not enough games played (ie Orr after 1975) or simply a really bad year not really worth of adding much (ie Howe’s rookie year in 1947 – 22 points in 58 games).

Here are the results:

Player	Total Score - Regular season	Total Score - Playoffs	Total Combined Score
Wayne Gretzky	121	83	204
Mario Lemieux	76	41	117
Gordie Howe	71	45	116
Bobby Orr	67	29	96

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Player	Average per ranked season	Average per ranked playoffs	Total average
Wayne Gretzky	6.05	5.19	5.67
Mario Lemieux	6.33	5.13	5.85
Gordie Howe	2.96	2.81	2.90
Bobby Orr	7.44	3.63	5.65

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Player	Number of ranked seasons	Number of ranked playoffs	Total Ranked
Wayne Gretzky	20	16	36
Mario Lemieux	12	8	20
Gordie Howe	24	16	40
Bobby Orr	9	8	17

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Regular seasons	Zero	OK	Good	Great	Superhuman
Wayne Gretzky	0	3	4	4	9
Mario Lemieux	5	0	3	4	5
Gordie Howe	1	6	10	7	1
Bobby Orr	3	0	1	3	5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Playoffs	Zero	OK	Good	Great	Superhuman
Wayne Gretzky	0	1	6	4	5
Mario Lemieux	0	0	3	3	2
Gordie Howe	3	4	8	3	1
Bobby Orr	0	2	2	2	2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Also here’s the specific breakdown per season/playoff per player - i'm sure some will disagree with rankings of specific seasons/playoffs:

Gretzky Regular Season:
Superhuman: 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86. 87, 89, 91
Great: 80, 88, 90, 94
Good: 92, 96, 97, 98
Ok: 93, 95, 99
Zero:

Gretzky Playoffs:
Superhuman: 83, 84, 85, 87, 88
Great: 81, 86, 89, 83
Good: 82, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97
Ok: 80
Zero:

Lemieux Regular Season:
Superhuman: 88, 89, 92, 93, 96
Great: 86, 90, 97, 01
Good: 85, 87 2003
Ok:
Zero: 91, 94, 2002, 2004, 2006

Lemieux Playoff:
Superhuman: 91, 92
Great: 89, 93, 96
Good: 94, 97, 2001
Ok:
Zero:

Howe Regular Season:
Superhuman: 53
Great: 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 60, 63
Good: 56, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65 ,66, 68, 69, 70
Ok: 48, 49, 50, 55, 67, 71
Zero: 47

Howe Playoffs:
Superhuman: 55
Great: 49, 64, 65
Good: 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61
Ok: 58, 65, 66, 70
Zero: 47, 48, 50

Orr Regular Season:
Superhuman: 70, 71, 72, 74, 75
Great: 68, 69, 73
Good: 67
Ok:
Zero: 76, 77, 79

Orr Playoffs:
Superhuman: 70, 72
Great: 71, 74
Good: 69, 75
Ok: 68, 73
Zero:


Conclusions I draw:
1. Gretzky is really in a class of his own. Peak + longevity + playoffs - no one touches him.
2. Averages are interesting – but keep in mind for Gretzky if you only average his best 9 season he scores a perfect 10, so you have to take that into account when the average includes a player's decline, vs not (Orr).
3. Orr really comes up short on longevity, anyway you look at it. He does so vs Howe and Gretzky obviously - but against Lemieux too.
4. A big belief of mine is enough longevity can trump "better" player - and this is where Howe makes a run at both Orr and Lemieux, despite my belief he wasn't "better".

 

[ted2019]

Traveling man ahead of a keeper?

I know Roy was a HAB, but the other player literally carried Buffalo to any success that they had.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I guess I'm in the minority here (and I'm not voting in this project, anyway), but I've got it Gretzky -> Howe -> Orr -> Lemieux.

I think longevity is ultimately why one picks both Gretzky and Howe over Orr (no one beats peak Bobby Orr), with Gretz getting the nod over Howe due to length and sheer dominance of his peak years (while having plenty of longevity, tho still less than Gordie). I also think that people underestimate how important Howe's physical presence was to his entire team in an era when the NHL was a blood sport. Howe ruled the league through fear in a way that no one else ever has. He was both the best and the toughest player in the league for a long time, and while this might also have been briefly true of Orr (whose ability as a fighter fell off due to injury even faster than his ability as a hockey player), he was never the bully that Howe was.

I assume that both Francis and Gartner made your list as well?

 

[DannyGallivan]

This makes me want to put Gordie at #1.

For all his gazillion points, there's still the cold fact that Gretzky completely avoided (and lacked) one of the major aspect of the sport in his game.It might not have slowed down his efficiency, but there's a certain higher respect when looking at Howe's game because of this (but no disrespect to Wayne neither).Is this sort of respect relevent in ranking players? I don't know, but it might break a tie.

There's also the transferability of one's style and set of skills from one era to the next.You know Gordie would have been allright in all eras.Could Gretzky thrive as much in a more punishing environment? Probably he would still burn the league, but maybe he'd be forced to play more defense and be a little tougher.

I guess what I'm aiming at is that Howe was more autonomous than Gretzky.Wayne needs protection to some extent.Howe needs no one.If the careers are close, I'm tempted to vote for the more autonomous player.

I'm starting to think of putting Howe at number two in front of Gretzky and behind Orr.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Explain how players like Howe, Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, Dickie Moore, managed to win the Art Ross while playing excellent defensive hockey.

Winning it many times over btw.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Orr started in the original 06 era.

Gretzky started in that tripled size league plus added WHA teams.

And I don't recall Orr (or anyone else) stating that a team was a "Mickey Mouse organization" as Gretzky did about the Devils in 1983. That after a 13-4 game where Gretzky put up 8 points and Kurri had five goals. (Devils still manage to score 4 times)

The Winnipeg Jets of the early '80's was one of the worst defensive teams in the history of the game. And there were several other dogs in the 80's as well. When the league added teams during Orr's era, the level was still pretty good because the NHL was decades behind in expansion anyways, and the minors were bursting at the seams with legitimate NHL talent that had no room in the artificially-low six team league.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'm starting to think of putting Howe at number two in front of Gretzky and behind Orr.

This is where I'm at already to be quite frank.

Orr is the greatest all around player who ever lived. Howe is the most consistent and did it for an insanely long period of time. Gretzky the best offensively. Lemeiux lags a bit behind 99.

Gretzky gets #1 because most people stop at the numbers and don't go beyond them. IMO the wrong approach becaue it's the path of least resistance.

 

[DannyGallivan]

All I can tell you is I saw them both play, as rookies and later (actually saw one of Orr's last Bruins games playing with Brad Park). Orr was the most dominant player I ever saw live. On TV, with replays available, even more so. That's all I've got. The numbers for Orr seem to indicate his dominance also. Gretzky offensive numbers are truly staggering. But when you can lead the league in scoring with 130 points and still put up a -25 (worst on his team), it really makes you wonder. I don't think a crippled Bobby Orr could ever be the worst +/- on his team.

It doesn't matter the arguement, if you don't agree that Orr's peak was better than Gretzky's, and if you don't value peak over longevity, you're not going to convince people.

It would be highly redundant for me to re-post all the arguments favouring Orr as the best ever. To say that an inferior job was done trying to convince people is the same as me saying that all the pro-Gretzky arguments sucked because he's still number two for me. I saw Gretzky play his entire career. I saw the 70's and beyond. Orr was the better player. Previous posts have all the minutia and details. Either you subscribe to what Orr - the fastest, most skilled player of his era - did from the defense position, or Gretzky - a medium speed, non-physical and non-defensive hockey savant with Dr. Strange-like vision and otherwordly passing skills - did with the numbers he achieved.

You're not convincing a steak eater to turn vegan and you're not convincing a vegan to turn steak eater.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Well, he probably would have been alright, but in an era where elbows to heads and stuff aren’t as appreciated (todays league) he wouldn’t be able to play that type of game and intimidate/bully players as freely.

That greatly simplifies Howe's game. To say that physical play by a skilled player is highly valuable in any era is just plain incorrect.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Gretzky gets #1 because most people stop at the numbers and don't go beyond them. IMO the wrong approach becaue it's the path of least resistance.

In their defense, his numbers are so incredibly staggering that it almost makes it impossible to notice anything else (an analogy... can a woman be so incredibly beautiful that you can overlook a bad personality or substandard intelligence?). I still take Orr at number one. Gretzky has always been safely at number 2 because of his numbers. Now, I'm really trying to decide between him and Howe.

 

[The Macho King]

This is where I'm at already to be quite frank.

Orr is the greatest all around player who ever lived. Howe is the most consistent and did it for an insanely long period of time. Gretzky the best offensively. Lemeiux lags a bit behind 99.

Gretzky gets #1 because most people stop at the numbers and don't go beyond them. IMO the wrong approach becaue it's the path of least resistance.

This is overly reductive and not helpful to the debate.

 

[ImporterExporter]

This is overly reductive and not helpful to the debate.

I respect your feeling that way, but it's where I'm at. And I particularly don't think it's all that reductive.

If some people want to just post offensive numbers and not focus on (even acknowledge) other aspects of hockey, I could say looking at the evaluation process with that lens is more reductive then anything I'm doing or have done. Again, just an opinion like anyone else.

I don't see metrics or any reasons in terms of peer accounts to say that Orr wasn't the greatest offensive threat from the back end by miles (even over a one way Coffey), while stacking up against 99.9% of F's all time offensively, wasn't the greatest even strength or special teams player of all time.

 

[quoipourquoi]

First of all, @bobholly39 I love the scorecard concept, and I’ll dive deep into your assessments in a bit.

Second, I’m totally bitter because I was working on golf scorecards, and you totally beat me to the punch!

 

[The Macho King]

I wanted to compare the very best seasons/playoffs of each of the big 4. Initially I was going to do this just for myself - but I figure I did all of the research and I may as well post it to see if it's helpful for anyone else.

So I did a breakdown of individual seasons and playoffs for each of the big 4 players, and awarded points for each season. This was based on personal preference/subjective – and I heavily reward offense usually, but tried to be as objective as possible nonetheless.

What really sets the big 4 (and really – it’s Orr/Lemieux/Gretzky as I maintain Howe is mostly longevity) apart is their absolutely ridiculous peak – heights that no other players touched. That’s why to me they’re in the big 4 , and so it was important for me to reward what I consider super human performances (or video game stats). So I took apart each player’s regular season, and then each player’s playoffs, and awarded it a grade on the following scale:

Superhuman - 10
Great - 5
Good - 2
OK - 1
Zero - 0

Superhuman is the special stuff. 215 points, 199, ross for Orr, 1953 for Howe or 1955 playoffs. The types of seasons/records that no one else approached outside of these 4 (and mostly 3) players.

Great – This is for great seasons where you won a ross, or a Norris, or a hart, or a smythe – or where you maybe finished 2nd in one of those but your stats were worthy of being in this category. The “human” stuff – so for Gretzky his first “great” season is 1988 (after his rookie year) where he only scored 149 points.

Good – Good seasons worthy of adding to a player’s resume, but a step below “great”. Because I want to really reward peak for the big 4 (and even more – video game worthy stats) – I’m only awarding 2 points here. For Gretzky 1992 (121 point in 74 games) is his first “good” season.

Ok – Seasons worthy of adding longevity to a player, but without necessarily being at the very top of the league. Sticking to Gretzky – 1994-1995 with 48 points in 48 games is “ok”.

Zero – Not enough games played (ie Orr after 1975) or simply a really bad year not really worth of adding much (ie Howe’s rookie year in 1947 – 22 points in 58 games).

Here are the results:

Player	Total Score - Regular season	Total Score - Playoffs	Total Combined Score
Wayne Gretzky	121	83	204
Mario Lemieux	76	41	117
Gordie Howe	71	45	116
Bobby Orr	67	29	96

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Player	Average per ranked season	Average per ranked playoffs	Total average
Wayne Gretzky	6.05	5.19	5.67
Mario Lemieux	6.33	5.13	5.85
Gordie Howe	2.96	2.81	2.90
Bobby Orr	7.44	3.63	5.65

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Player	Number of ranked seasons	Number of ranked playoffs	Total Ranked
Wayne Gretzky	20	16	36
Mario Lemieux	12	8	20
Gordie Howe	24	16	40
Bobby Orr	9	8	17

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Regular seasons	Zero	OK	Good	Great	Superhuman
Wayne Gretzky	0	3	4	4	9
Mario Lemieux	5	0	3	4	5
Gordie Howe	1	6	10	7	1
Bobby Orr	3	0	1	3	5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Playoffs	Zero	OK	Good	Great	Superhuman
Wayne Gretzky	0	1	6	4	5
Mario Lemieux	0	0	3	3	2
Gordie Howe	3	4	8	3	1
Bobby Orr	0	2	2	2	2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Also here’s the specific breakdown per season/playoff per player - i'm sure some will disagree with rankings of specific seasons/playoffs:

Gretzky Regular Season:
Superhuman: 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86. 87, 89, 91
Great: 80, 88, 90, 94
Good: 92, 96, 97, 98
Ok: 93, 95, 99
Zero:

Gretzky Playoffs:
Superhuman: 83, 84, 85, 87, 88
Great: 81, 86, 89, 83
Good: 82, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97
Ok: 80
Zero:

Lemieux Regular Season:
Superhuman: 88, 89, 92, 93, 96
Great: 86, 90, 97, 01
Good: 85, 87 2003
Ok:
Zero: 91, 94, 2002, 2004, 2006

Lemieux Playoff:
Superhuman: 91, 92
Great: 89, 93, 96
Good: 94, 97, 2001
Ok:
Zero:

Howe Regular Season:
Superhuman: 53
Great: 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 60, 63
Good: 56, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65 ,66, 68, 69, 70
Ok: 48, 49, 50, 55, 67, 71
Zero: 47

Howe Playoffs:
Superhuman: 55
Great: 49, 64, 65
Good: 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61
Ok: 58, 65, 66, 70
Zero: 47, 48, 50

Orr Regular Season:
Superhuman: 70, 71, 72, 74, 75
Great: 68, 69, 73
Good: 67
Ok:
Zero: 76, 77, 79

Orr Playoffs:
Superhuman: 70, 72
Great: 71, 74
Good: 69, 75
Ok: 68, 73
Zero:


Conclusions I draw:
1. Gretzky is really in a class of his own. Peak + longevity + playoffs - no one touches him.
2. Averages are interesting – but keep in mind for Gretzky if you only average his best 9 season he scores a perfect 10, so you have to take that into account when the average includes a player's decline, vs not (Orr).
3. Orr really comes up short on longevity, anyway you look at it. He does so vs Howe and Gretzky obviously - but against Lemieux too.
4. A big belief of mine is enough longevity can trump "better" player - and this is where Howe makes a run at both Orr and Lemieux, despite my belief he wasn't "better".

My one criticism is that I don't think each "superhuman" or even "great" season is created equal. For instance, I'd rank Orr's 70 over pretty much every other superhuman season out there, so ranking them all the same seems to miss some of that nuance.

I like the overall conceit though.

 

[Captain Bowie]

The Winnipeg Jets of the early '80's was one of the worst defensive teams in the history of the game. And there were several other dogs in the 80's as well. When the league added teams during Orr's era, the level was still pretty good because the NHL was decades behind in expansion anyways, and the minors were bursting at the seams with legitimate NHL talent that had no room in the artificially-low six team league.

Someone else had some good reasons earlier that it was in fact that opposite. Maybe 6 to 12 didn't see too much of a weakening of overall talent, but as they kept adding 2 more teams every two years through the 70's, it certainly did. However once the 80's hit, it saw a good number of highly talented players from the WHA as was as finally an influx of European talent. That was the crux of the argument anyways.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I respect your feeling that way, but it's where I'm at. And I particularly don't think it's all that reductive.

If some people want to just post offensive numbers and not focus on (even acknowledge) other aspects of hockey, I could say looking at the evaluation process with that lens is more reductive then anything I'm doing or have done. Again, just an opinion like anyone else.

I don't see metrics or any reasons in terms of peer accounts to say that Orr wasn't the greatest offensive threat from the back end by miles (even over a one way Coffey), while stacking up against 99.9% of F's all time offensively, wasn't the greatest even strength or special teams player of all time.

I was redcutive to assume that someone having Gretzky #1 means they didn't look past the gaudy numbers. Many of us did, and whatever deficiencies there may be, the offensive dominance still make up for it.