If you need a closer example I would give the 14-15 season as one, where Steven Stamkos and Rick Nash finished with 43 and 42 goals respectively (2nd and 3rd overall that year). Obviously Stamkos has a laser of a shot, but Nash that year scored his goals off the cycle and around the net since he just never had a very good shot. I'm sure it's not too hard to find other examples like this.
Highlighting again that skills don't exist in a vacuum, this is a good exercise. Sustainability also becomes a factor. Stamkos: five straight years (and likely would have been six straight had he not broken his leg) of being 1st or 2nd in goals...Nash, much more spotty, just a few times in the top 5 and never close to consecutively and never even in the same situation...once pre-lockout in a Cy Young season, once well on the other side of the rule changes and then several years later on a different team...not consistent, nor did his goal scoring prowess prove sustainable...
Nash scored his goals a different way...Stamkos, a winger trapped in a center's body, has that laser shot, he can one-time pucks for days. Nash, a less threatening shooter, but with a huge wing span, a world-class puck protector and great hands near the net, he did his work in a way that suited his skill set best.
So here's where the rubber meets the road...they can produce an equal amount of goals in a season, we got that, that's not interesting...it's when you look at the surrounding factors and who they each worked with and what situations made them successful and how did they adapt to different systems and different linemates...that's where you start to figure some things out...
What would work well with Nash and the different iterations of Nash...notice how much better Stamkos did with a playmaking winger in Martin St. Louis...but when he wasn't afforded that luxury with Nikita Kucherov (who played mostly with Ondrej Palat and Tyler Johnson) notice how irrelevant (relatively speaking) Stamkos became...? Nash was a one-man show in early Columbus (thus, the Cy Young season)...adapted his game over time...late in his career becoming a really strong two-way way forward and really improved his NZ distribution abilities...Nash compensated for the Rangers lack of puck carrying centers and puck carrying defensemen (well, they wasted the perfect player for them in Keith Yandle by playing in 10 minutes a night, when he's a "rhythm" player) and became the primary breakout man...Chris Kreider owes Rick Nash a Coke too for helping with his development...Kreider, as a streak and score winger found little success because attention-getting centers didn't exist in New York and thus, he made a lot of blue to blue solo rushes that amount in little...when he got Rick Nash, Nash opened up the NZ for him, commanding attention and allowing Kreider to cruise up the weak side, generate speed and get higher quality chances using his best asset - his skating.
How these things all interwork with each other is all on the foundation of proper talent evaluation...to ignore it or dismiss it, is ignoring the game itself...