Not making a judgment call on who is more HHOF worthy, but I'd say that close to 100% of people who watched them would take neely's prime over any equal lengthed stretch of gartner or Dino.
Neely's prime is so short and sporadic though... that was always his problem. Wendel Clark had HOF talent too, he was a great player but could never stay healthy enough to prove it.
Its not relevant when you're comparing him to his peers and not players from different eras. Ciccarelli, Gartner, Anderson, Kurri, they came out of the same era.
Sure, but the person making that point put names like Richard, Espo and Bobby Hull in that comparison.
And again, his contemporaries played much longer. That's going to affect the goal per game number too. You want apples to apples Neely vs Kurri (as per your example?) Go back and look at what Kurri did up until he was 30 (when Neely retired) the numbers are going to look different. As for Ciccarelli, his gpg isn't actually that far off and points per game are much better. He also has much better totals.
That's why you should look at a player's career as a whole and it's why a guy with less than 400 goals or 1000 points should never make it in if he was a forward playing in the 1980s.
Its a good point, guys that hung around way too long are going to reduce their per game stats but Neely was pretty cooked himself in his last 2 seasons. And you're right, I don't want to look at totals, I'm not interested in totals because the player I'm looking at had a career shortened by one cheapshot. Not his fault. That said, we need to be comparing his prime vs the prime's of the others if we're going to do that, his career averages vs those of others aren't as relevant for the reasons you stated.
You're right, not his fault. HOF talent? Sure. And believe me, I feel bad for the guy. I don't like seeing anyone's career end that way.
But it's unfair to let him in under those circumstances and deny guys like Tim Kerr. If we're only looking at how good they were over a couple of years then Kerr belongs there too no doubt in my mind.
But neither of them have near the totals that they should for inclusion. And if it's just HOF talent that you need for induction then that opens the door to guys like Wendel Clark. That's why you need to factor in totals. The whole point of the HOF is to look at the totality of somebody's career. Longevity has to play some role or else Pelle Lindbergh gets in.
I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand and nobody here has done this. We've said many times that he had HOF talent.
That's really where you and I differ. I suspect though that your love of Neely (and this is not a personal attack by any stretch) has something to do with this. If you reversed Kerr and Neely's teams though, you'd probably argue the other way.
At the end of the day, I'm for consistency. Neely's career really isn't in line with what a HOF player should be. The HOF has made mistakes before (Shutt, Gillies) but I think those were based on them being key part of dynasty teams. With Neely, it's pretty blatant that this was a political move. Esp when you look at who they passed over to let him in.
I think there are two ways to get in if you're not Gretzky or Lemieux. Have a great career even if you weren't always an elite player, playing at a pretty high level for a long time is notable. But I think being a dominant player for a shorter period of time is enough. I do think Lindros should be in based on what he did before the concussions. Without even speculating on what could've been, the both of them played at a high enough level before injury and accomplished enough in that time to prove they were among the best of their era.
Can you name another player who's in who was dominant for as short a period of time as Neely was vs his contemporaries? And remember, Neely wasn't an MVP type player either. Lindros is the only guy coming up who kind of fits into that mode and he was far more dominant and played longer. You're really stretching it when you include Neely.
The only guys I can think of (without looking it up) are Dryden and Orr. And those guys won everything under the sun. You have to be really special to do this and Neely just isn't there.
Totals just aren't that important for people with short careers. Even with a few more mediocre seasons, Neely hits 500 goals. He didn't retire because he was ineffective (due to injury or not, even though the injury dramatically reduced what he could do), he had to retire because his hip muscle turned into bone.
Totals are important no matter what. If you're career was that short you shouldn't get in. It doesn't happen in baseball and it shouldn't happen in hockey.
Hasn't literally every argument in this thread been argued now about 5 times?
We're still finding new ones.
The reality of the situation is Cam Neely is in the Hall and I highly doubt Howe and Espo (especially not Espo) meant Neely when they talked about undeserving HOF players. They were almost certainly talking about some of the guys they played against who they feel weren't all that good but who rode the coattails of some dynasties.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Howe esp knows the value of a long career. I'm sure there are a lot of guys who are wondering why Neely is in there. Nobody is going to say it publicly though.
... And, to address one other thing: the four second team All-Stars that Neely has at RW. The impact of this gets diminished in my mind, simply because the same yahoos who put Neely into the Hall of Fame were the people who were making him second team All-Star so often.
Actually I agree with you on this. There were years where he was voted 2nd team AS where I really couldn't understand it. I know folks will say 'he was more than just stats' but even still, there are some really tenuous selections there. I'm not going to argue about that though, he got the selections so he can claim them.
Interesting to see how he stacks up against Dino though. He's really not THAT much better in his prime and Dino's career lasts a lot longer. And keep in mind that even Ciccarelli is a lower tier HOFer who's questionable himself. Somebody said Neely's prime starts in '86-87 (it has to if you want to seriously consider him for the HOF with such a short career)
86-87
Neely: (75 games) 36,36 - 72
Ciccarelli: 52,51 -103
87-88
Neely: (69 games) 42, 27 - 69
Ciccarelli: (67 games) 41,45 -86
88-89
Neely (74 games) 37, 38 - 75
Ciccarelli: (76 games) 44,30 -74
89-90
Neely (76 games) 55,37 -92
Ciccarelli (76 games) 41, 38 -79
90-91
Neely (69 games) 51, 40 -91
Ciccarelli (54 games) 21, 18 - 39
That's pretty much all we can compare until
'93-94
Neely (49 games) 50, 24 -74
Ciccarelli 66(games) 28,29 -57
Cicarelli is hands down better in 86-87.
Very close from 87-89.
Neely is better in 90, 91 and 94.
Cicarelli though also has another 100 point/50 goal year as well
as 3 or 4 years that aren't far off from Neely's prime.
Then both guys drop off due to age, injuries
Neely's got three 50 goal seasons
Dino has two
Neely's got 1 additional season of 40+
Dino has 5.
Neely has 0 100 point seasons
Dino has 2.
Neely has more all-star team births 4 (all 2nd team.)
Dino has 0.
I think most would agree that Neely at his best is better than Dino at his best. But at the end of the day, it's not the massive difference that folks imagine it to be. And Dino has over 600 goals and almost double Neely's assists.
I know folks would say that Neely would've scored more if he was healthy and that's true. But Dino could say the same thing as his career (and goal per game season) was derailed with an injury as well. The difference is that he managed to stay a good player for a long time.