Mike Bossy was a better goal scorer than Wayne Gretzky

[Primary Assist]

The Great One is the best goalscorer ever. Instead of taking low-percentage or medium-percentage shots he would set up a high-percentage play. If he wanted to score 110 regular season goals he probably could have, but it would have been at the detriment of his overall point totals and the Oilers' success.

I just don't see the same with Bossy, who basically lived up to his (incredible) goalscoring potential

 

[overpass]

Here’s what I mean when I say Bossy was the better goal scorer.

If you want the player who is more likely to burn Dave Babych for a shorthanded goal, take Gretzky. But he’s not going to score that shorthanded goal against Denis Potvin or Ray Bourque in the Cup final, or against Fetisov or Kasatonov in the Canada Cup.

If the score is 7-3 halfway through the third period and the other team is pushing to score, Gretzky is more likely to score the eighth goal than Bossy…not that it matters to anyone except the lucky SOB who has Gretzky in his hockey pool.

If the game is tied late in the first period and you have a face off in the offensive zone with your first line up next, Bossy is more likely than Gretzky to score that goal to get the lead for you. Whether he’s playing New Jersey or Montreal.

If you’re down by one halfway through the third period and you get a power play, Bossy is more likely to score the tying goal than Gretzky.

 

[Stephen]

Does the argument that Mike Bossy outscored Gretzky in X, Y, Z clutch situations, periods, special teams, phases of the moon, etc. consider the fact that scoring the goal was not always even Gretzky's preferred method of offensive production? He's already outscoring everyone else via raw production and still has time to pass off to teammates. Maybe those extra goals Gretzky could have scored just turned into multiple Messier, Anderson, Kurri 50 goal seasons over the years...

In terms of the clutch argument, maybe the goals per period and situation might imply Bossy is your best bet to tie a game late, but chances are Gretzky would have tied that game via turning Kurri into a 70 goal scorer.

 

[buffalowing88]

Shooting percentages for when their careers overlapped are pretty much a wash. Gretzky pretty clearly has the better season-by-season goals-per-game stats. Gretzky obviously has more season-by-season victories for goals scored. I'd say that Bossy should get some credit for being the better PP goal scorer as that's something that I associate with being an elite goal scorer in general.

Idk, I get the argument by Overpass and supporters but this feels a bit like an Occam's Razor of an argument. The obvious stats would suggest that Gretzky was the greatest goal scorer of all-time. It's hard to wrap one's head around given everything else he's the best at, but it sure seems to be supported by the most basic facts here.

 

[LightningStorm]

As someone who wasn't alive in the 80's, here's my simplified take: Bossy clearly had the better shot, but Gretzky was able to consistently reach high % scoring areas more consistently, whether for himself or setting up teammates. Both are important elements when scoring goals. IMO Lemieux is the player who had the best balance of those 2 things.

Basically, Bossy is more likely to score goals in high % situations, and relies on those scenarios less to score, as his shot made him a better goal scorer against set situations since he could still score outside of his high % situations. But the sheer number of high % chances Gretzky was able to generate enabled him to score more goals than Bossy, and retire as the all time leading goal scorer despite not even being a top 5 shooter IMO.

 

[tabness]

Kurri's peak "important" (tying/go ahead) goal scoring is like Bossy's, high twenties/low thirties.

Brett Hull has a pretty amazing 1990-1991 season (otherwise in high twenties/low thirties): 39 go ahead goals alone seems to be more than other players go ahead and tying combined! He then adds 14 tying goals to those 39. A real 50 goal scorer lol

Ovechkin is pretty consistently ranging from in the low twenties to low thirties for his 50 goal years throughout his career (tops out at 32 twice in 2006 and 2008). Honestly thought he'd do better in an era where the scores are closer.

Bobby Hull tops out in the low to mid twenties. Also thought he'd do better given the era.

Lemieux tops out in the low thirties.

Bure is so interesting. Tops out in the low thirties, but look at 1999-2000. 28 go ahead goals! Sadly only 1 tying lol!

Esposito tops out in the low thirties.

Mogilny 36 in 1993 is impressive.

Selanne tops out in the low thirties.

Stamkos tops out in the high twenties.

Yzerman tops out in the high twenties.

Jagr tops out in the high twenties.

Nicholls tops out in the mid twenties.

Lafleur tops out in the low/mid twenties.

Dionne tops out in the high twenties.

Bondra tops out in the low thirties.

Leclair tops out at thirty.

Sakic tops out in the low thirties.

Gordie Howe tops at low twenties, Maurice Richard low to mid twenties, Jean Beliveau high teens, honestly surprising to see the original six players not do a little better here, even accounting for the shorter seasons.

The data is from the NHL JSON stats APIs, and some games are missing (every season has missing games except the early ones before 1942-1943). So things might be slightly different, a preemptive disclaimer that I was not trying to nickel and dime your favorite player.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Question for those who think the regular season goal totals make for a completely open-and-shut case in this particular player comparison: Don't you think, at the very least, it is extremely weird that every time you raise the level of competition (against good teams/playoffs/international/etc.), the apparent goal scoring gap between Gretzky and Bossy always disappears?

I can't stress enough how this is not some artifact of fancy statistical tricks designed to boost Bossy. We can stack the deck more or less as much as possible in Gretzky's favour and still end up with a similar result. To that end, let's choose the 1981-82 to 1984-85 seasons, easily Gretzky's 4 best goal scoring seasons, and we'll compare him to Bossy in those same seasons only. Let's see how both of them did against the very best teams in the league (I'll go with 0.50 SRS or better, a cutoff I'm choosing before running the numbers).

This is absolute peak Gretzky, the years he is "outscoring Bossy by 27 goals LOL" or whatever people like to say. It's one of the greatest goal scoring peaks ever and certainly the greatest offensive peak of all-time, going head-to-head against Bossy's 4th, 5th, 7th, and 8th-best career seasons by adjusted goals per game. How did each of them do against the best teams?

Best teams (0.50 SRS or better):

Player	GP	G	A	P
Gretzky	67	48	107	155
Bossy	86	57	51	108

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Rest of the league:

Player	GP	G	A	P
Gretzky	247	275	391	666
Bossy	216	176	216	392

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Putting it all together and converting to per-80 game rates for easy reading and comparison:

	Best	Best	Best	Best	Rest	Rest	Rest	Rest
Player	GP	G	A	P	GP	G	A	P
Gretzky	80	57	128	185	80	89	127	216
Bossy	80	53	47	100	80	65	80	145

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Like absolute clockwork, every single time. The better the team, the more Bossy uses his elite shooting ability to break them down defensively, and conversely the more Gretzky turns into a playmaker to accomplish the same goal, and the gap in terms of goals between them goes away. Even, as in this case, absolutely peak sniper Gretzky against a very ordinary Bossy. And just to be clear, I'm not excluding shorthanded, empty net, anything here, this includes all offence, full stop.

When we're observing a clear pattern that persists over something like 1000+ regular season, 276 playoff, and 49 high-level international games, at what point does that sample start to mean something? I really don't understand why people seem almost obligated to defer to the goal totals at all times. Like, if I score nothing but 3rd period hat-tricks in 10-1 blowouts, I'm still the greatest goal scorer of all-time because nobody can possibly dispute those sacred statistics?

 

[seventieslord]

I guess it really comes down to the semantics of best pure goal scorer in a vacuum or best goal scorer in general.

Gretzky was putting up 1.5 assists/game while outgoaling Bossy. If the challenge was for Gretzky to ignore assists, does anyone doubt he could hit 100 or 110 in the early 80s?

There was no better offensive threat than Gretzky and we sometimes miss the forest for the trees.

Exactly this. On one hand, if they seem relatively close as goal scorers on the surface, then digging deeper (as has been done in this thread) is really worthwhile. But if one player was getting 112% more assists than the other one was along the way, it's more than reasonable to conclude that he was "better" in an absolute sense, at scoring goals, even if not in an actual statistical sense.

being better at scoring goals does not always mean actually scoring more goals.

 

[The Panther]

The OP's premise is a bit silly, because the Islanders' PP strategy was "get the puck to Bossy for a shot", whereas the Oilers' PP strategy was "get the puck to Gretzky who will pass to someone for a shot". It's not like Edmonton's offensive strategy was based on Gretzky being the trigger-man.

I think it is correct to point out (as I think someone did) that generally (though not always) when the Oilers' competition became defensively stricter, Gretzky scored fewer goals and more assists. That makes sense, because as a playmaking center, Gretzky's natural offensive instinct was to create opportunities for wingers and others.

Gretzky was clearly the superior offensive threat, in any situation, regardless of whether he or Bossy was the "better" goal scorer.

Also, it's not like the Islanders were offensively challenged. Here's how they ranked, offensively, in Bossy's 9 complete seasons:
2, 1, 6, 1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 8

They also had arguably the best power-play of all time in the early 80s, which Bossy was obviously a huge part of.

(That said, I do think Bossy is getting under-rated recently, and it's nice to see him getting some love.)

 

[Minar]

Here’s what I mean when I say Bossy was the better goal scorer.

If you want the player who is more likely to burn Dave Babych for a shorthanded goal, take Gretzky. But he’s not going to score that shorthanded goal against Denis Potvin or Ray Bourque in the Cup final, or against Fetisov or Kasatonov in the Canada Cup.

If the score is 7-3 halfway through the third period and the other team is pushing to score, Gretzky is more likely to score the eighth goal than Bossy…not that it matters to anyone except the lucky SOB who has Gretzky in his hockey pool.

If the game is tied late in the first period and you have a face off in the offensive zone with your first line up next, Bossy is more likely than Gretzky to score that goal to get the lead for you. Whether he’s playing New Jersey or Montreal.

If you’re down by one halfway through the third period and you get a power play, Bossy is more likely to score the tying goal than Gretzky.

Clutch shorthanded. Stakes and competition couldn't have been higher.

 

[The Panther]

Since the OP made a big deal of "even strength" goals, how about regular season?

1979-80 to 1986-87:
377 - Gretzky
315 - Bossy

Shot percentage
21.0% Gretzky
20.6% Bossy

 

[Stephen]

Question for those who think the regular season goal totals make for a completely open-and-shut case in this particular player comparison: Don't you think, at the very least, it is extremely weird that every time you raise the level of competition (against good teams/playoffs/international/etc.), the apparent goal scoring gap between Gretzky and Bossy always disappears?

I can't stress enough how this is not some artifact of fancy statistical tricks designed to boost Bossy. We can stack the deck more or less as much as possible in Gretzky's favour and still end up with a similar result. To that end, let's choose the 1981-82 to 1984-85 seasons, easily Gretzky's 4 best goal scoring seasons, and we'll compare him to Bossy in those same seasons only. Let's see how both of them did against the very best teams in the league (I'll go with 0.50 SRS or better, a cutoff I'm choosing before running the numbers).

This is absolute peak Gretzky, the years he is "outscoring Bossy by 27 goals LOL" or whatever people like to say. It's one of the greatest goal scoring peaks ever and certainly the greatest offensive peak of all-time, going head-to-head against Bossy's 4th, 5th, 7th, and 8th-best career seasons by adjusted goals per game. How did each of them do against the best teams?

Best teams (0.50 SRS or better):

Player	GP	G	A	P
Gretzky	67	48	107	155
Bossy	86	57	51	108

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Rest of the league:

Player	GP	G	A	P
Gretzky	247	275	391	666
Bossy	216	176	216	392

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Putting it all together and converting to per-80 game rates for easy reading and comparison:

	Best	Best	Best	Best	Rest	Rest	Rest	Rest
Player	GP	G	A	P	GP	G	A	P
Gretzky	80	57	128	185	80	89	127	216
Bossy	80	53	47	100	80	65	80	145

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Like absolute clockwork, every single time. The better the team, the more Bossy uses his elite shooting ability to break them down defensively, and conversely the more Gretzky turns into a playmaker to accomplish the same goal, and the gap in terms of goals between them goes away. Even, as in this case, absolutely peak sniper Gretzky against a very ordinary Bossy. And just to be clear, I'm not excluding shorthanded, empty net, anything here, this includes all offence, full stop.

When we're observing a clear pattern that persists over something like 1000+ regular season, 276 playoff, and 49 high-level international games, at what point does that sample start to mean something? I really don't understand why people seem almost obligated to defer to the goal totals at all times. Like, if I score nothing but 3rd period hat-tricks in 10-1 blowouts, I'm still the greatest goal scorer of all-time because nobody can possibly dispute those sacred statistics?

Mike Bossy played with 1 teammate who scored 50 goals, and that was Bryan Trottier in 1981-82. Whether he was sniping in close, finishing a cross crease passing play, streaking off the wing, he was sort of the Johnny on the Spot to score those Islanders goals when they needed it. Also, considering Bossy finished with more goals than assists, it's also pretty clear that scoring the goal for him was often the best option as opposed to facilitating someone else.

Wayne Gretzky played alongside 11 teammates who scored 50 goals in a season. Including Mark Messier once, Glenn Anderson, Jari Kurri on multiple occasions overlapping Mike Bossy's era. Once he got to LA, he also played with Luc Robitaille, who scored 50 or more twice, as well as Bernie Nicholls, who scored 50 plus once.

This doesn't really reveal anything new other than Gretzky had options that didn't include scoring himself in the biggest moments. Anecdotally, he could put up a hat trick in a game seven vs Toronto after burying the OT winner in game six a la Bossy in front of the net, or set up Mario Lemieux to win the 87 Canada Cup. But I don't think the fact that his playmaking eclipses his goal scoring or the fact that he could turn his linemates into Bossy level scorers should count against his ability to snipe himself.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Imagine holding shorthanded goal scoring against somebody lol

Some weird-ass arguments in this thread

EDIT: "Scoring against set defense" is a statement that means less than nothing

 

[ConnorMcBackcheck]

A guy that never scored 70 goals in a season during the highest offensive period in league history is not the best goal scorer of all time.

Guys like Lemieux, Yzerman, Hull, Mogilny and Selanne were not only out scoring Bossy but also racking up way more assists in their big goal scoring seasons while not playing on a dynasty team (Gretzky excluded).

 

[BenchBrawl]

I agree with @overpass

Being able to score in tight-defense games is akin to a prospect transferring his skills to a higher level league. It's the essence of your quality as a goalscorer.

Gretzky's playmaking was so good that he would always remain productive against any competition, but maybe his goalscoring suffered in tight-defense games, so he had to rely on his playmaking a bit more. Since he was the greatest ever at passing, it didn't affect his overall production.

 

[Stephen]

I agree with @overpass

Being able to score in tight-defense games is akin to a prospect transferring his skills to a higher level league. It's the essence of your quality as a goalscorer.

Gretzky's playmaking was so good that he would always remain productive against any competition, but maybe his goalscoring suffered in tight-defense games, so he had to rely on his playmaking a bit more. Since he was the greatest ever at passing, it didn't affect his overall production.

If you take a look at the 80s Oilers playoff game logs, I think you'll find that they weren't spending a lot of time playing tight defensive games that needed to be broken open in the third period with one timely goal by Johnny on the Spot. Of note, look at those goal differentials against the Islanders in 1984.

At the end of the day, we're talking about the 80s Oilers, they were the higher level league.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Exactly this. On one hand, if they seem relatively close as goal scorers on the surface, then digging deeper (as has been done in this thread) is really worthwhile. But if one player was getting 112% more assists than the other one was along the way, it's more than reasonable to conclude that he was "better" in an absolute sense, at scoring goals, even if not in an actual statistical sense.

being better at scoring goals does not always mean actually scoring more goals.

Just curious, how far does this logic go? He's clearly the best player, so he's also the best goal scorer, because he could have scored more goals. OK, fine. Is he also the best skater, best stickhandler, best at zone entries, best at protecting the puck, best shot deflector, best stretch passer, everything? And if not, why not? After all, he is the best player, he could have focused more on those things, how do you know he couldn't have become the best at them too?

Of course Gretzky could have shot more and scored more goals. And yet, is there no distinction between his overall offence and his goal scoring, specifically? Like, let's say Gretzky comes in on a 2-on-1, makes a great pass, and Kurri puts it in the empty net. Later in the same game, Gretzky gets another 2-on-1 with Kurri, and this time the D-man and goalie are both cheating towards the pass because of the previous rush, and so the Great One throws it in the open net because you have to keep them honest every now and then. You really think it makes sense to go back to that first play and say Gretzky should get +1 in his hypothetical goal scoring ledger because he could have decided to shoot instead of pass? Why not instead say he should actually get credit for 0 goals in that hypothetical goal scoring ledger since the goal he did score was more or less entirely created by the threat of his GOAT playmaking, not anything that would normally be referred to under the umbrella of "goal scoring"?

Nobody scores 0 goals and 100 assists, or 70 goals and 0 assists, because that's not how hockey works. A playmaker like Gretzky scored many goals as a direct result of his playmaking skills (probably most of his goals in 1985-86, for example, considering he spent much of that season focusing on hitting 2 assists per game), just like Bossy got a bunch of assists because defenders were scared of his shot. Those aren't independent variables, the effects actually work both ways, and I find it honestly strange that many seem to only ever consider one direction.

I don't think Gretzky was the best goal scorer, just like I don't think he was the best skater, because you don't have to be the best at everything to be the best player overall. He was the greatest offensive force in hockey history, and that lead to him creating more offence than any player ever, and plenty of that offence realized itself in goals where he was the last guy to touch the puck. I still think there are good subjective reasons to view Bossy as better at the specific skill of scoring goals, as outlined in this thread, even if Gretzky was significantly better at pretty much every other offensive dimension.

Mike Bossy played with 1 teammate who scored 50 goals, and that was Bryan Trottier in 1981-82. Whether he was sniping in close, finishing a cross crease passing play, streaking off the wing, he was sort of the Johnny on the Spot to score those Islanders goals when they needed it. Also, considering Bossy finished with more goals than assists, it's also pretty clear that scoring the goal for him was often the best option as opposed to facilitating someone else.

Wayne Gretzky played alongside 11 teammates who scored 50 goals in a season. Including Mark Messier once, Glenn Anderson, Jari Kurri on multiple occasions overlapping Mike Bossy's era. Once he got to LA, he also played with Luc Robitaille, who scored 50 or more twice, as well as Bernie Nicholls, who scored 50 plus once.

This doesn't really reveal anything new other than Gretzky had options that didn't include scoring himself in the biggest moments. Anecdotally, he could put up a hat trick in a game seven vs Toronto after burying the OT winner in game six a la Bossy in front of the net, or set up Mario Lemieux to win the 87 Canada Cup. But I don't think the fact that his playmaking eclipses his goal scoring or the fact that he could turn his linemates into Bossy level scorers should count against his ability to snipe himself.

Not really sure what that has to do with my point, exactly. Was Gretzky playing with different 50 goal scorers against the top defensive teams than against the bottom feeders or something? I agree that Bossy's main job was to shoot while Gretzky's main job was to pass, that still doesn't account for why, despite all the hype about Gretzky's goal scoring, it only really surpassed Bossy's against the mediocre or worse competition of the early 1980s NHL.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I guess it really comes down to the semantics of best pure goal scorer in a vacuum or best goal scorer in general.

Gretzky was putting up 1.5 assists/game while outgoaling Bossy. If the challenge was for Gretzky to ignore assists, does anyone doubt he could hit 100 or 110 in the early 80s?

There was no better offensive threat than Gretzky and we sometimes miss the forest for the trees.

Yeah even things like using international play as part of these calculations is silly because you have things like Gretzky is 1987 doing the smart thing and letting Lemieux be the shooter. He had that option.

The only reason Bossy might have been a better goalscorer statistically in some situations.. and notably during 5v5 play (which is where Gretzky is by far the best player ever).. is because Gretzky was such a great playmaker that no doubt it was often a better percentage play for him to pass than shoot. While Bossy got his fair share of assists, I'm sure his mental math has him choosing to take the shot in more situations than Gretzky who has more options available to him -- especially in Edmonton with Kurri and Coffey coming late.

I definitely agree with you that sometimes when you try to slice things like this you miss the forest for the trees. That all being said, Bossy was money.

 

[Stephen]

Just curious, how far does this logic go? He's clearly the best player, so he's also the best goal scorer, because he could have scored more goals. OK, fine. Is he also the best skater, best stickhandler, best at zone entries, best at protecting the puck, best shot deflector, best stretch passer, everything? And if not, why not? After all, he is the best player, he could have focused more on those things, how do you know he couldn't have become the best at them too?

Of course Gretzky could have shot more and scored more goals. And yet, is there no distinction between his overall offence and his goal scoring, specifically? Like, let's say Gretzky comes in on a 2-on-1, makes a great pass, and Kurri puts it in the empty net. Later in the same game, Gretzky gets another 2-on-1 with Kurri, and this time the D-man and goalie are both cheating towards the pass because of the previous rush, and so the Great One throws it in the open net because you have to keep them honest every now and then. You really think it makes sense to go back to that first play and say Gretzky should get +1 in his hypothetical goal scoring ledger because he could have decided to shoot instead of pass? Why not instead say he should actually get credit for 0 goals in that hypothetical goal scoring ledger since the goal he did score was more or less entirely created by the threat of his GOAT playmaking, not anything that would normally be referred to under the umbrella of "goal scoring"?

Nobody scores 0 goals and 100 assists, or 70 goals and 0 assists, because that's not how hockey works. A playmaker like Gretzky scored many goals as a direct result of his playmaking skills (probably most of his goals in 1985-86, for example, considering he spent much of that season focusing on hitting 2 assists per game), just like Bossy got a bunch of assists because defenders were scared of his shot. Those aren't independent variables, the effects actually work both ways, and I find it honestly strange that many seem to only ever consider one direction.

I don't think Gretzky was the best goal scorer, just like I don't think he was the best skater, because you don't have to be the best at everything to be the best player overall. He was the greatest offensive force in hockey history, and that lead to him creating more offence than any player ever, and plenty of that offence realized itself in goals where he was the last guy to touch the puck. I still think there are good subjective reasons to view Bossy as better at the specific skill of scoring goals, as outlined in this thread, even if Gretzky was significantly better at pretty much every other offensive dimension.



Not really sure what that has to do with my point, exactly. Was Gretzky playing with different 50 goal scorers against the top defensive teams than against the bottom feeders or something? I agree that Bossy's main job was to shoot while Gretzky's main job was to pass, that still doesn't account for why, despite all the hype about Gretzky's goal scoring, it only really surpassed Bossy's against the mediocre or worse competition of the early 1980s NHL.

Gretzky’s job was to produce offensively and he did so in high volumes whether it was goal scoring himself or facilitating teammates to do so. Not adding anything new here.

When you can score 70-92 goals in your prime and also facilitate Kurri scoring at above Bossy bests, it’s pretty obvious his offensive style of attack wasn’t limited or reliant on anyone but maybe he simply chose to defer in whatever game breaking moment that required a goal.

Comparatively, Bossy wasn’t the same kind of playmaker Gretzky was. But he was the finisher so it makes sense that he was the one to score a game breaking goal for the Islanders if the play had him as the fulcrum of a scoring chance.

Finally, I have no idea what a set defense or chaotic vs structured actually means. The whole premise seems to allude to clutch scoring or quality of goals, but we also aren’t talking about shot mechanics and tendencies in play. We seem also talk about situational play, downplay the value empty net goals, but what about high volume garbage goal tap ins?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Comparatively, Bossy wasn’t the same kind of playmaker Gretzky was. But he was the finisher so it makes sense that he was the one to score a game breaking goal for the Islanders if the play had him as the fulcrum of a scoring chance.

Basically this.. the fact that Gretzky is keeping up to a goalscorer like Mike Bossy in these situations while at the same time producing wayyyy more total offense makes this a slam dunk for Gretzky imo.

If he wasn't as remarkable a playmaker and didn't have the incredible options he had, no doubt he would have relied upon himself more to score.

 

[overpass]

Finally, I have no idea what a set defense or chaotic vs structured actually means. The whole premise seems to allude to clutch scoring or quality of goals, but we also aren’t talking about shot mechanics and tendencies in play. We seem also talk about situational play, downplay the value empty net goals, but what about high volume garbage goal tap ins?

Maybe the words I used aren't the best or most familiar, but I'm sure you're familiar with the phenomenon. Call it tight-checking or positional play vs wide-open play if you want.

Structured/tight-checking/positional play

• Players have clear responsibilities to defend and take away space, and execute these responsibilities. Especially when it comes to protecting the scoring area in front of the net.
• 5-on-5 is not always like this, but is more likely to be so. Partly because of the simple fact that there are more players on the ice and there is less space to maneuver. Also because defending with 5 players is the most common situation and every team will have a defensive system to defend with 5 players. Either team can decide to turn the game into a tight-checking/structured game at 5-on-5.
• 5-on-4 is often more structured/positional play as well as compared to 4-on-4, because the defending team with 4 players will drop into a defensive shell and protect the slot, rather than attacking and getting caught up ice.
• If the defending teams execute well and prevent odd-man rushes against, goals are more likely to be scored off the cycle or off extended offensive possession breaking down the defence.

Chaotic/wide open/read and react play

• There is more open ice for the attackers. Defenders have to read and react to the situation and may not have close teammate support.
• Examples include 4-on-4, 3-on-3, 3-on-4, 4-on-3 play, where Gretzky scored a lot of goals. Defences weren't as practiced in these situations, had fewer players to support and protect the goal, and Gretzky was better than anyone at out-thinking these scrambling defences and getting the puck into high danger scoring areas.
• Another common situation is attacking against the run of play when the other team is pressing up. Scoring insurance/blowout goals in the third period, scoring shorthanded goals, scoring empty net goals. All leading to chances off the rush and opportunities to get into high danger scoring areas rather than attacking a set defence with 5 men back. Gretzky was the most dangerous scorer in history in these situations, at least in the regular season...but top teams could limit the danger by by avoiding turnovers.
• Goals are more likely to be scored on the rush.

I'll give an example of a more recent player who had very different value in these situations. Erik Karlsson in 2011-12 was an exceptional player in chaotic/wide open play. But he wasn't as good in structured/tight-checking/positional situations. This weakness meant the Rangers were able to neutralize his offence in the playoffs by dropping all 5 players into a defensive shell for much of the series. Karlsson constantly had the puck on the offensive blueline, but he wasn't able to break their defence down when they were set, and he finished with only 1 assist in 7 games.

Young Karlsson was also a much better defender in chaotic/wide-open play than in structured/tight-checking play. He was a very poor defender when the opposition had clear possession inside his end, and was just about the worst defender in the league when it came to sitting back in a 4 or 5 man unit to protect the net. But he was very good at defending the rush, and at defending on his toes and jumping into puck battles when the opposing team didn't have clear possession or hadn't gained the zone yet. So he was actually quite a good second unit penalty killer, because second PK units get a chance to deny the zone entry and prevent the opposing team from gaining clear possession, but he was awful on the first PK unit because if the opponent won the faceoff and gained possession, he was very poor at defending the slot.

Does that make sense? Do you recognize the types of hockey I'm trying to describe?

 

[jigglysquishy]

Game 7, Stanley Cup. Bossy (or a Hull, Ovi, Lemieux, Howe, Richard) and Gretzky are linemates.

I want Gretzky, even 92 goal Gretzky, making the pass.

Even peak goal-scoring Gretzky was a better playmaker than goal scorer.

Take it for what you will.

 

[bobholly39]

I’ve also always sensed, before reading a lot on the HoH, that Bossy being the greatest goal scorer of the era held widespread consensus. Note: no one was saying Bossy was remotely as good a player as Gretzky, but we can keep track of two thoughts at once, can’t we?



He just posted a long OP making the case for Bossy over Gretzky for a goal scorer.

And then you posted a different timespan to compare their playoff goal scoring and Bossy still looked good next to Gretzky.

I’m not sure I’m all convinced, but overpass made some solid points.

For what it's worth - when I first read his post (and I did it twice) - I really thought he was saying "Bossy is a greater goal-scorer than Gretzky". Greater, not just better. After reading again, I think the point is more about being a "better" goal scorer, versus greater.

I can get more behind with the idea Bossy might be "better" - but Gretzky is absolutely Greater for the reasons I posted. Gretzky is superior to Bossy in every way head to head - and then he has the back half of his career as additional "add". In terms of greater goal-scorer - the debate should end there.

"Better?" I don't know, maybe. I think there's a lot more at play here. Gretzky has always been called the "highest IQ player ever". As such - it makes sense that he's better able to take advantage and score more "easy" goals than others. So whether it's in blowouts, or when the opposing team isn't as alert, or maybe against weaker teams, etc - a high IQ player would take more advantage of those situations to rack up a bunch of easy goals.

As for normal situations - against top defensive teams, or in super tight games - if the stats show that Bossy scored more of those types of goals - does that inherently mean he's better? Because I suspect in those similar situations - Gretzky simply chose to playmake more. Best playmaker ever - if it's late in a game and it's tight and it's very tough defense - does he go for the goal that is less of a sure thing based on coverage, or does he go for the killer assist after tricking defense, setting up his linemate for a more surefire goal? I suspect it's often the latter. Doesn't mean he wasn't as good a goal-scorer though.

If Gretzky had the same role as Bossy - primarily goal-scorer - it's very possible he'd have scored a ton more goals than he did.

 

[bobholly39]

Game 7, Stanley Cup. Bossy (or a Hull, Ovi, Lemieux, Howe, Richard) and Gretzky are linemates.

I want Gretzky, even 92 goal Gretzky, making the pass.

Even peak goal-scoring Gretzky was a better playmaker than goal scorer.

Take it for what you will.

I think everyone agrees with that. Have Gretzky playmake first.

But - I think the more pertinent question is - imagine instead of Gretzky - Lemieux is given the role of the playmaker (or Oates, or Howe, or Thornton - pick whoever). Would you rather peak Wayne Gretzky - or peak Mike Bossy - be the one designed as the goal-scorer on that line?

That's probably a closer question. I still say Gretzky myself - 92 goals and super high IQ imo make him simply better too.

 

[seventieslord]

Just curious, how far does this logic go? He's clearly the best player, so he's also the best goal scorer, because he could have scored more goals. OK, fine. Is he also the best skater, best stickhandler, best at zone entries, best at protecting the puck, best shot deflector, best stretch passer, everything? And if not, why not? After all, he is the best player, he could have focused more on those things, how do you know he couldn't have become the best at them too?

I don't think the premise of this question is valid. Goal scoring is more of a "macro skill", an end result of a bunch of other micro skills. You named some - stickhandling, zone entries, etc. No, of course Gretzky isn't the best at every micro skill.

But the macro skill of goalscoring - i.e. put simply, how good a player is at scoring goals, is based on a number of micro skills. How good a player is at scoring goals depends on, among other things:

- the player's shot power
- their shot accuracy
- their ability to vary their shot either as warranted by the situation or just to be unpredictable
- their ability to hide the intentions of their shot
- their ability to stickhandle past defensemen to get into scoring position
- their ability to deke out the goalie if necessary
- their ability to put themselves in scoring position so teammates see them as a good passing option
- their hockey sense to see a play developing and predict where the puck will "end up" and go there
- their ability to deflect pucks on net
- their ability to time their shots so as to make the best use of screens and chaos in front
- yes, even their known ability as a playmaker which psychs out defenders

And so on. There is no one single skill that defines a player as a "good goal scorer" - it's everything combined.

So to answer the question now, is Gretzky better at every single one of those things? no, definitely not, but he was better at enough of them by a large enough degree, that it translated into significantly more goals in his prime.

You could define the better goal scorer of the two as whichever one scores the most when given 100 clear chances in the slot - and maybe Bossy would score more of those - but, like you said, hockey isn't played that way. In the wide variety of situations a hockey player can and does find themselves in, it seems clear that Gretzky was able to be the last one to touch the puck before a goal more than Bossy, while showing the clear ability to have done so even more, if he was selfish.