Wayne Gretzky and Mike Bossy - Time on ice

[Overrated]

How did prime 88/89 Mario Lemieux do?

 

[overpass]

As a hobby I like to track icetimes from old games (do I have an exciting life?), and for the last couple of years I've been trying to track every game I can find on YT from the 83-84 season. I've done about 20 or so games so far from that season. (I'm up to mid-Jan). Now these are only regular season games, so I would expect playoff games to have higher numbers for top-line players, but here's what I have for the two of them in admittedly small samples:

Bossy:
Oct 06 vs Mtl: 18:08 (PP- 0:00)
Nov 26 vs Chi: 15:22 (PP- 1:03)
Dec 04 vs Edm: 18:25 (PP- 2:40)
Dec 13 vs Edm: 19:13 (PP- 1:05)
Dec 15 vs Edm: 15:47 (PP- 2:17)

Gretzky:
Oct 13 vs Clg: 26:42 (PP- 4:07)
Nov 13 vs Chi: 32:33 (PP- 4:22)
Nov 19 vs Njd: 26:07 (PP- 3:51)
Dec 04 vs NYI: 26:25 (PP- 6:50)
Dec 13 vs NYI: 27:22 (PP- 5:21)
Jan 04 vs Min: 26:27 (PP- 6:49)

Thanks for posting these! More support for the idea that Bossy was around 17-18 minutes per game and Gretzky was around 27 minutes per game.

Bossy's numbers are startlingly low, but it could be explained by two factors: it was mentioned by announcers in a couple of games that Bossy was not 100%, so Arbour likely didn't want him aggravating any nagging injuries. I suspect his TOI was higher in his earlier healthier seasons. As well, in most of those games the Islanders had it clinched by the end of the second period, so there was no need to overplay their stars.

It's fair to point out reasons why Bossy's individual game TOI's might have been low. I would just say that, in general, Al Arbour seemed to find reasons and take opportunities to keep Bossy's ice time down, and as far as I've seen, Glen Sather didn't do the same for Gretzky.

My read on the Islanders is that Arbour really committed to spreading out the ice time starting in the 79-80 season, after the playoff upsets of 78 and 79. I think Bossy's ice time was relatively low through the dynasty years. It may have risen somewhat late in his career when the Islanders' forward depth was no longer as effective. And he may have played more in his top goal scoring season of 78-79 than in the dynasty years.

The Oilers were a three-line team for most of those games: Gretzky and Kurri with either Pouzar or Lindstrom on the first line, Mess-Linseman-Anderson on the second line, then a checking line with Hunter, Hughes and either Conacher or McClelland. They would always have a fourth line cobbled together from whoever else was available ( Semenko, Lumley, Habscheid, Roulston), but their time would be in the single digits.

That's what I saw as well in the three games I tracked, although some of the names varied depending on the season. The fourth line would get a couple of shifts in the first period and then Sather would shorten the bench at some point and stop playing them. Of the third liners, I noticed that Sather really trusted Mike Krushelnyski, who joined the Oilers the season after you're watching. He started on the third line with no special teams role, but he was the choice to fill in the top six if needed, at any position, and on special teams as well. And he also took defensive zone faceoffs for Gretzky.

The last point I want to make is that I don't think the higher TOI should be held against Gretzky. Most players can't handle that heavy a workload without becoming a liability late in games. But Gretzky never looks tired, even at the end of a two minute shift. Not many players can do that, and I consider the high TOI as a positive for Gretzky.

I agree with you, in that I think Gretzky could handle the usage and was always able to go hard when needed. And it may well have been the best way to use Gretzky. I intend no criticism of Gretzky or Sather.

I think the TOI is relevant knowledge for the vast majority of hockey fans today, including me, who aren't old enough to have watched the Islanders or Oilers dynasties. If all we have to look at is the statistics, the ice time helps us contextualize the statistics. On the other hand, if you've watched these players and evaluated them without referencing the stats, the TOI may not add anything to your evaluation.

To me, I think the concept of opportunity cost is the best way to look at Gretzky's high minutes played. Those "extra" minutes that Gretzky played, and used to score goals and points, are minutes that another player could be playing and using to score goals and points. Not as efficiently as Gretzky, no, but if you're just looking at total points, you have to consider that opportunity cost where Gretzky is taking opportunity from other players.

Edmonton's bottom six centres Kevin McClelland and Craig MacTavish scored very little in the playoffs, because Gretzky and Messier played most of the minutes at centre. And the Islanders got substantial playoff contributions from right wingers all the way down the lineup. Duane Sutter, Bobby Nystrom, and Anders Kallur (who played both wings), and even 9 points in 9 games from the obscure Hector Marini. Because Bossy just played a regular shift and gave the other lines opportunity to score as well.

The net result was that the four Islanders Cup-winning teams and the four Oilers Cup-winning teams were almost identical as offensive teams. The Islanders scored 364 goals in 78 playoff games. The Oilers scored 366 goals in 76.6 playoff games. So all Gretzky's additional ice time and points scored didn't make a big difference on a team level.

Overall, I agree with the consensus that Gretzky was the better offensive player. But I'd like to put a stake in the heart of this argument that Bossy can't have been an all-time goal scorer because Gretzky scored more regular season goals in his peak seasons.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Said another way, if you're gonna succumb to stat usage instead of proper talent evaluation, then we're gonna do this the hard way and give you more stats haha

 

[MadLuke]

To me, I think the concept of opportunity cost is the best way to look at Gretzky's high minutes played. Those "extra" minutes that Gretzky played, and used to score goals and points, are minutes that another player could be playing and using to score goals and points. Not as efficiently as Gretzky, no, but if you're just looking at total points, you have to consider that opportunity cost where Gretzky is taking opportunity from other players.

Yes the team without a doubt would have scored more goals if Gretzky does it in half the time, so it is relevant for the conversation, my point was more in regard for the overall team success, if the GF% is higher with Gretzky on the ice than when he is not, the more he play the better.

Specially if the question is, I need a goal who is better to score it, looking at season totals tell us who is better at scoring more goals during a season, which correlated but a bit different and because of stamina-drive-will, Gretzky gain edge over everyone in total game-total season-career type of comparison.

 

[jigglysquishy]

My read on the Islanders is that Arbour really committed to spreading out the ice time starting in the 79-80 season, after the playoff upsets of 78 and 79. I think Bossy's ice time was relatively low through the dynasty years. It may have risen somewhat late in his career when the Islanders' forward depth was no longer as effective. And he may have played more in his top goal scoring season of 78-79 than in the dynasty years.

Trottier talks about this in his book.

In 1978-79 he wins the Art Ross and Hart. Islanders lead the league in points. Potvin wins the Norris. Bossy scored 69. Resch has a strong season. Gillies sets a career high in points. The Islanders (and Trottier) felt it was their year and that they would be the ones to knock off the Canadiens en route to a Cup.

And then they didn't.

In 1979-80 Arbour began his rolling four-lines approach. Trottier feels it is what enabled them to not only win the Cup, but to win Cups 2,3,4 and almost 5.

Trottier talks a lot about the physical and mental toll 5 Cup runs (and two Canada Cups) has on the team. They needed to rely to everyone since they just didn't have enough gas.

I do find it impressive though that Gretzky just goes at it though. 5 Cup runs in 6 years. 3 Canada Cups. Record after record. And he's still out there playing 25 minutes and dominating.

 

[overpass]

Said another way, if you're gonna succumb to stat usage instead of proper talent evaluation, then we're gonna do this the hard way and give you more stats haha

Well said lol.

I respect that people want to look at the stats, there's a reason the league tracks them...but then don't half-ass it.

 

[overpass]

Trottier talks about this in his book.

In 1978-79 he wins the Art Ross and Hart. Islanders lead the league in points. Potvin wins the Norris. Bossy scored 69. Resch has a strong season. Gillies sets a career high in points. The Islanders (and Trottier) felt it was their year and that they would be the ones to knock off the Canadiens en route to a Cup.

And then they didn't.

In 1979-80 Arbour began his rolling four-lines approach. Trottier feels it is what enabled them to not only win the Cup, but to win Cups 2,3,4 and almost 5.

Trottier talks a lot about the physical and mental toll 5 Cup runs (and two Canada Cups) has on the team. They needed to rely to everyone since they just didn't have enough gas.

Fred Shero's game plan in 1979 was targeted directly at Potvin, Bossy, and Trottier. Going after them physically and wearing them down. So I can understand why Arbour made that change.

It wasn't just the forward lines. They started playing three defence pairs regularly, which lightened the load on Potvin. Which is probably why he never scored 90 points or won a Norris trophy after 1979.

I do find it impressive though that Gretzky just goes at it though. 5 Cup runs in 6 years. 3 Canada Cups. Record after record. And he's still out there playing 25 minutes and dominating.

Agreed. I can't think of another athlete who could play so much, so hard, so consistently, without getting injured, and without his play suffering.