Except that's not even close to what was said. Go back and look at Bill's first post. What you're saying is what everyone arguing against Bill is saying
I didn't make it that far, and I wasn't responding directly to Bill but more of a general statement on what frequently comes up when discussing Gretzky. I saw "lolzorz dumb argument" (creative license taken as to how it was heard in my head) and posted. Saying something is dumb and not contributing to the discussion as to *why* it's dumb is a pet peeve of mine.
I don't understand why both points aren't valid, and one or the other gets s*** on. They're both valid points. Was Gretzky far and away the most talented hockey player in the history of the universe? Yep. But I still think it's valid to point out that he played in a very different era. Would he still be the best hockey player if he were playing now as Prime Gretzky ? Yep. But he would have fewer points. Still more than everyone else? Yep. But it's not necessarily a "dumb argument" (compelling discussion tactic, btw) to point out that the game is *vastly different* now than it was then, or that this would have impacted Gretzky's production.
But congrats to Jagr, he got on that list for grinding it out over the years. The guy loves the game, here's to playing until he's 50. Maybe he'll be the first player to wear EVERY SWEATER