One other point, something that never ceases to amaze (and frustrate) me when assessments of any player comes up here on HF.
An argument against Bossy (in this case) is that he played with great players and on a winning team.
That, to me, is a plus in his favor rather than a black mark. For Bossy's individual success LED TO TEAM SUCCESS. He was a major (core) player on a dynasty team.
And, ultimately, that is what sports is about. When assessing AN INDIVIDUAL's accomplishment, it is extremely short-sighted, IMO, to disregard the big picture. To ignore the CONTEXT in which individual success was achieved.
Bossy produced...and produced...and produced...from Day One in the NHL (scoring in his first game, in Buffalo) until he was forced to hang them up prematurely. Every season on a playoff team, every season on a bonafide Cup contender, and as previously cited, for fully half his career on a Cup Finalist. Read: producing in a constant high-pressure, high-expectation environment. There is a difference between netting 50+ on a Cup team and netting 50 for a non-competitive bottom feeder. (Not implying that the Blues were the latter.) The stats geeks overlook this point, because the numbers do not offer that insight. But ask most anyone in the game.
I recognize that this basic point runs counter to the common HF wisdom that the better his team, the better his teammates, the lesser the player is (the "Marty Brodeur Syndrome"). Ridiculous, IMO.