Adam Oates HHOF?

[tjcurrie]

Agreed. I don't really see how Ciccarelli is a tough one for some people to accept. You usually have to have done more than be a one-trick pony, but if you are exceptionally strong at that one thing, it can be awfully persuasive.

Now personally, I think that everyone in the 600+ goals club gets in. Everyone in the 1,000+ assist club also gets in. In both cases, those are tremendously exclusive production lists.

Frankly, when you look at either the career assist or career points lists, Oates should be in.

He's 16th all time in points. Now, points aren't everything, but it's one very important facet. He trails only Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier, Gordie Howe, Ron Francis, Marcel Dionne, Steve Yzerman, Mario Lemieux, Joe Sakic, Jaromir Jagr, Phil Esposito, Ray Bourque, Mark Recchi, Paul Coffey, Stan Mikita, and Bryan Trottier.

Just a matter of time for him. He'll get in. Of course, I am a believer in the merits of the compiler. It's not ONLY about the peak. Excellence combined with endurance is also worthy of HOF recognition.

It only seems easy to steadily compile points for 18-22 years until you see how many players wear out in their early 30s.

I agree completely. Finishing that high in goals, assists, or points on the NHL's all-time list is a helluvan accomplishment. Compiler schmiler.

Atleast Oates have the excellence of playmaking to lean on. Ciccarellis is beyond me though. I rank players like Bernie Nicholls and Theo Fleury higher.

Ciccarelli has the excellence of goal scoring. A combination of excellence and consistency anyways. Whether or you rank guys ahead of him or behind him, that's all debatable. The one thing that's not debatable is the final numbers.

 

[tjcurrie]

Makes sense. But I have heard Bob Clarke publicly claim Lindros should be in the HHOF. This is a guy who still seems to have a grudge against Lindros (I saw Clarke on Off the Record a couple of weeks ago and he still talks about Lindros' parents ina negative light). So even if you have a grudge against a player, shouldn't you be able to look past that especially after 15 years? What did Oates do, sleep with Sinden's daughter? If that's the case, doesn't it fall under the same way you would select jury duty? Should a person be on the jury if they have had run ins with the suspect in the past? Nope. This is what bothers me about the HHOF, they have no one to answer to.



No he wasn't a "great" goal scorer per se. He once cracked 45 goals though. And his career of 341 goals is 17 shy of Bobby Clarke. So it isn't as if he never scored goals, he was just always a pass-first player. Always.



Don't you think that longevity plays a huge part in Nieuwendyk's otherwise sexy numbers? 564 goals is nice but looking at it within the context it is very.........."Andreychuk-like". Put it this way, these are Nieuwendyk's top finishes in goals: 5, 5, 7, 7, 9

He never had a 30 goal season his last 9 years in the NHL. He never had a 40 goal season after his 4th season. He never had more than 50 assists in a season. Everyone seems to remember his 7th game in 2004 against Ottawa when he scored 2 goals that Lalime should have never let in. They look to his "3 Cups on three different teams" label and then assume he was a playoff god. He wasn't at all. He probably was worse than Roenick in the playoffs who is another player that gets overrated in the postseason for some reason. Nieuwendyk never had an assist in the 2004 postseason. Not one. He had 4 assists in 1989 - his first Cup win. He was 9th in scoring on New Jersey in 2003.

Put it this way, can anyone ever build a case for Nieuwendyk without talking about "3 Cups on three different teams?" If you can't then that's a big problem. That statistic is a mere novelty, nothing more. Al Arbour did it too.

I just can't see how you could put Nieuwendyk over Oates.

To me, Nieuwendyk was the better rounded player and played harder. That's why he was included on international rosters ahead of Oates. If you take away all the team hardware than yes there's an easy argument to be made, but the 3 Cups do make a difference, as well as Joe's Conn Smythe trophy. I think goals are sexier than assists too. Not saying that's right, it's just the way it is.

At the end of their careers, Nieuwendyk comes out as a winner and all-round player. Oates comes out as an excellent play maker. Just the way it is right or wrong.

 

[seventieslord]

Now personally, I think that everyone in the 600+ goals club gets in. Everyone in the 1,000+ assist club also gets in. In both cases, those are tremendously exclusive production lists.

Thse kinds of "standards" break down under any scrutiny though.

Suppose Ciccarelli started breaking down in the 1996-97 season and had 12 goals. He's got 563 goals at that point. Say he is finished as a scorer but wants to stick around and teams keep signing him to one year deals for five more years, to make him a veteran presence and occasional 2nd PP unit net guy. Near the end of that fifth year he hits 600 goals, in his 1380th game. He stuck around as a semi-useful player but offensively really just ran on fumes for five years to get to 600. Then is it a guarantee?

 

[Big Phil]

To me, Nieuwendyk was the better rounded player and played harder. That's why he was included on international rosters ahead of Oates. If you take away all the team hardware than yes there's an easy argument to be made, but the 3 Cups do make a difference, as well as Joe's Conn Smythe trophy. I think goals are sexier than assists too. Not saying that's right, it's just the way it is.

At the end of their careers, Nieuwendyk comes out as a winner and all-round player. Oates comes out as an excellent play maker. Just the way it is right or wrong.

And I think its wrong. Another classic myth of the hockey world is that Nieuwendyk was a legendary playoff performer. Overall Oates was better in the postseason. He went to the final in 1998 and was his team's best forward. In 2003 he wasn't the best forward on the team (Kariya) but he outpointed him.

I think Scott Hartnell "plays hard" too. However would you pass Claude Giroux up over him? Different analogy, but you get the point I think. It wasn't Oates' style, he had his own style.

If you had Niewendyk as your #1 center you are in poorer shape than if you had Oates as your #1 center. You are guaranteed to have one of your wingers transformed into something more than they are with Oates. With Nieuwendyk you have a player who doesn't fit into that role very well

 

[tjcurrie]

Thse kinds of "standards" break down under any scrutiny though.

Suppose Ciccarelli started breaking down in the 1996-97 season and had 12 goals. He's got 563 goals at that point. Say he is finished as a scorer but wants to stick around and teams keep signing him to one year deals for five more years, to make him a veteran presence and occasional 2nd PP unit net guy. Near the end of that fifth year he hits 600 goals, in his 1380th game. He stuck around as a semi-useful player but offensively really just ran on fumes for five years to get to 600. Then is it a guarantee?

Interesting scenario. I dont want to say it's a guarantee, but if you look at the players that have 600 or are even close to it who could possibly fall under that scenario, they should all be HOFers with the exception of maybe a couple who are just below the 600 mark. Very hard to say though so maybe it isn't a guarantee. Luckily for Dino though, that isnt the case with him.

And I think its wrong. Another classic myth of the hockey world is that Nieuwendyk was a legendary playoff performer. Overall Oates was better in the postseason. He went to the final in 1998 and was his team's best forward. In 2003 he wasn't the best forward on the team (Kariya) but he outpointed him.

I think Scott Hartnell "plays hard" too. However would you pass Claude Giroux up over him? Different analogy, but you get the point I think. It wasn't Oates' style, he had his own style.

If you had Niewendyk as your #1 center you are in poorer shape than if you had Oates as your #1 center. You are guaranteed to have one of your wingers transformed into something more than they are with Oates. With Nieuwendyk you have a player who doesn't fit into that role very well

Part of Nieuwendyk's aura though is his leadership and ability to make his team better, not necessarily his wingers in the manner that Oates could by setting them up. I see your point comparing Giroux and Hartnell, but I think Nieuwy was a star in the league and closer comparison to Oates than what Hartnell would be to Giroux, even though I know Hartnell can put up decent numbers. If you take off Oates's two real big seasons, he and Joe's numbers are pretty comparable. Even if you count Oates's two big seasons, he's still not much more than a ppg player over his career, not that there's anythign wrong with that at all especially over 1300 + games.

I think Oates is seen as just a soft, points guy like a Pierre Turgeon. Never bringing anything else, never winning anything, never leading his team to greatness. Nieuwendyk on the other hand is a guy who did help make his teams better and they won. Like I said if you take away all of that, then there's an easy argument for Oates, but Nieuwendyk just has all of that going for him plus as I said a Conn Smythe to top it off.

Guys like Sakic, Modano, Yzerman, and Forsberg kinda ruled the league as far as two-way scoring centers in their and Nieuwendyk is seen as that type of player, just a #2 for the most part. They like that type of guy. Oates maybe was a #1 center for the most part but just wasn't that type of player. If you know what I mean.

I'm in no way saying Oates doesnt belong though. I'm only partially stating what I believe, but also playing Devil's advocate.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Oates is overrated by the interesting way that people count stats around here.

He had 341 goals, 1079 assists for 1420 points.

What if 100 of those assists were goals?

He'd have 441 goals, 979 assists for 1420 points.

I'd take the hypothetical 2nd player over Adam Oates, all other things equal, and I'm sure the HHOF committee would too. But that hypothetical 2nd player hasn't reached the magical "1000 assist" mark talked about here.

The HHOF committee and the hockey establishment at large care about points and goals. They don't care about assists.

 

[Drake1588]

I'd suggest that both players get in for being 1420-point players, which has historically been accomplished only by 15 other truly exceptional players.

For Oates, you don't have to make the distinction between the percentage of goals to assists, because the total points are so high anyway. Yes, he's an exceptional playmaker, but the fact that his overall points totals are so high make the assist argument unnecessary.

Thse kinds of "standards" break down under any scrutiny though.

Suppose Ciccarelli started breaking down in the 1996-97 season and had 12 goals. He's got 563 goals at that point. Say he is finished as a scorer but wants to stick around and teams keep signing him to one year deals for five more years, to make him a veteran presence and occasional 2nd PP unit net guy. Near the end of that fifth year he hits 600 goals, in his 1380th game. He stuck around as a semi-useful player but offensively really just ran on fumes for five years to get to 600. Then is it a guarantee?

Sure. It's only inconsistent if I have a problem with when the points were compiled. I have no problem with your scenario whatsoever. He's a 600-goal player, and that hasn't been accomplished often. So he gets credit for that, whether it took five years to get the last 50 or he evenly compiled those goal totals across his entire career. I don't care when he tallied those goals. Of course, there are those who have a problem with the 700-goal Gartner as well. I believe both notched high enough goal totals for that to be an automatic trigger. Same with Oates and his points (no need to bring the assists into the equation, really).

I'm not discounting the merits of the short but white-hot peak, but I just don't think it is the ONLY career path that ought to get credit. Excellence paired with endurance is also a Hall-worthy attribute.

The numbers are not always all that matter, but a given number can be high enough for a player, relative to historical competition, where it is enough regardless of other factors.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Oates would have my vote to get in eventually, but all things considered, I don't mind him waiting.

I would vote for either Lindros or Bure over Oates. Oates wasn't better (or more deserving) than either of those two just because he played longer. Just my opinion though.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sure. It's only inconsistent if I have a problem with when the points were compiled. I have no problem with your scenario whatsoever. He's a 600-goal player, and that hasn't been accomplished often. So he gets credit for that, whether it took five years to get the last 50 or he evenly compiled those goal totals across his entire career. I don't care when he tallied those goals. Of course, there are those who have a problem with the 700-goal Gartner as well. I believe both notched high enough goal totals for that to be an automatic trigger. Same with Oates and his points (no need to bring the assists into the equation, really).

I'm not discounting the merits of the short but white-hot peak, but I just don't think it is the ONLY career path that ought to get credit. Excellence paired with endurance is also a Hall-worthy attribute.

The numbers are not always all that matter, but a given number can be high enough for a player, relative to historical competition, where it is enough regardless of other factors.

The problem with this reasoning (and it's one the actual HHOF committee shares with you) and that you are saying that players who were lucky enough to play through the 1980s and early 90s are more worthy of enshrinement simply because of when they played the game.

 

[Drake1588]

I'm not sure it particularly matters when a player gets in, so I'm fine with him getting in whenever, provided it occurs. Ten years on, no one is going to care how long it took, whether it was five years or ten years after a player's retirement.

 

[Drake1588]

The problem with this reasoning (and it's one the actual HHOF committee shares with you) and that you are saying that players who were lucky enough to play through the 1980s and early 90s are more worthy of enshrinement simply because of when they played the game.

Yes and No.

Yes, in the sense that their numbers will be greater than those of players from the 20s, or the 40, 50s, or 60s, perhaps significantly so. Yet plenty of players shared that era with these guys. Sure, they benefit from the comparisons with historical greats, in pure numbers terms, but they also must pass the smell test when weighed against their contemporaries. If it was so easy to accumulate these totals, for ordinary mortals in the 80s and early 90s, then why weren't more players doing it in that era?

Yes, the relative inflation of points totals from that era is a genuine phenomenon, when weighed against the past. Yet dismissing some of these guys as overrated is belied by the fact that so few of the NHL players who shared the ice in that era didn't come close to these totals. Those that did and are in the same points ballpark are generally acknowledged to be greats.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes and No.

Yes, in the sense that their numbers will be greater than those of players from the 20s, or the 40, 50s, or 60s, perhaps significantly so. Yet plenty of players shared that era with these guys. Sure, they benefit from the comparisons with historical greats, in pure numbers terms, but they also must pass the smell test when weighed against their contemporaries. If it was so easy to accumulate these totals, for ordinary mortals in the 80s and early 90s, then why weren't more players doing it in that era?

Many would say that Ciccarelli does not pass the smell test when weighted against his contemporaries. I've seen some people in this thread say that Dave Andreychuk should be inducted. That's one guy who definitely doesn't pass the smell test.

As for your final question, it wasn't "easy" to accumlate those totals for 80s players, but it was far easier than for player who played at any other time in history.

Ciccarelli got in and guys like Peter Bondra and Keith Tkachuk probably won't. Hell, Pierre Turgeon (a pass-first player) has almost as many "adjusted goals" as Dino.

Yes, the relative inflation of points totals from that era is a genuine phenomenon, when weighed against the past. Yet dismissing some of these guys as overrated is belied by the fact that so few of the NHL players who shared the ice in that era didn't come close to these totals. Those that did and are in the same points ballpark are generally acknowledged to be greats.

Not just when weighed against the past. Also when weighed against the present. At some point, the HHOF is going to have to realize that 80s numbers aren't translable into post-1995 numbers, if they want to adequately represent the current era.

 

[Drake1588]

An Oates may be difficult to measure against centers like Beliveau or Mikita or Lach or an Abel or a Delvecchio in terms of points totals, for example.

Yet when you compare him to contemporary Hall of Fame (or pending Hall of Fame) centers like Gilmour, Hawerchuk, Modano, Sundin, Stastny, all of whom Oates outproduced, his record against contemporary greats is still very impressive. The historical anomaly argument is a wash when he is compared to his contemporaries.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

An Oates may be difficult to measure against centers like Beliveau or Mikita or Lach or an Abel or a Delvecchio in terms of points totals, for example.

Yet when you compare him to contemporary Hall of Fame (or pending Hall of Fame) centers like Gilmour, Hawerchuk, Modano, Sundin, Stastny, all of whom Oates outproduced, his record against contemporary greats is still very impressive.

Comparing Oates against guys like Modano and Sundin doesn't really take into account how the game has changed. Both rank a bit higher than Oates in "adjusted points." Adjusted points probably underrate Oates somewhat compared to them, but it's certainly a closer measure of their offensive value than pretending that it didn't become any harder to score in the mid 90s.

 

[Drake1588]

I think you're starting to split hairs a bit, tossing out era gaps as small as five years, but we can pass that one if you prefer. What of the other HOF-era players he outproduced? Stastny, Gilmour, Hawerchuk are widely acclaimed, and their selections provoke minimal controversy.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Yes and No.

Yes, in the sense that their numbers will be greater than those of players from the 20s, or the 40, 50s, or 60s, perhaps significantly so. Yet plenty of players shared that era with these guys. Sure, they benefit from the comparisons with historical greats, in pure numbers terms, but they also must pass the smell test when weighed against their contemporaries. If it was so easy to accumulate these totals, for ordinary mortals in the 80s and early 90s, then why weren't more players doing it in that era?

Yes, the relative inflation of points totals from that era is a genuine phenomenon, when weighed against the past. Yet dismissing some of these guys as overrated is belied by the fact that so few of the NHL players who shared the ice in that era didn't come close to these totals. Those that did and are in the same points ballpark are generally acknowledged to be greats.

I think you are mistaken here. Let's look at Ciccarelli vs. his contemporaries. He is ranked 17th all time, the only players ahead of him not to have several seasons of overlap are Phil Esposito and Bobby Hull, so that bumps him up to 15th.

Now let's look at another generation of players...post WWII to Expansion (1947-48 to 1966-67). The 15th best goal scorer of this time period is Camille Henry a non-HHOFer with a similar stat line to Ciccarelli (slightly more goals than assists) and had the bonus of being a media-friendly personality. Henry compares to his contemporaries in a similar way that Dino did, yet the Hall is not calling his name.

Ranked 12th on the same list is Dean Prentice, another non-HHOFer.

Ranked 17th is Don McKenney, who had the added bonus of a very good defensive game, also not in the HHOF

 

[Drake1588]

Maybe we need a separate Ciccarelli thread, because it's becoming unclear what we're arguing here. I'd argue that Ciccarelli benefited far more from the inflation era than did Oates, who stands the test far better.

Oates:

* No Cup. Undoubtedly a big one.
* Six-time All Star (91, 92, 93, 94, 97)
* Second All-Star Team (91)

Oates was the oldest player to lead the NHL in assists in a single season (64, 01-02, at age 39). So he was excellent very late in his career. No gradual diminution for him.

* 16th all time in points.
* 6th all time in assists
* 1st in career playoff points without winning the Cup. So while not ultimately a winner of the biggest prize, he played in the playoffs a lot, he played deep, and he delivered.

Ciccarelli is a different discussion, probably best suited for a different thread, and I probably would be a lot less effusive in praise and defense of his selection than I would Oates. Both are compilers, but Oates was a much better player, in my opinion. I'd have Oates in before Ciccarelli, that's for sure.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think you're starting to split hairs a bit, tossing out era gaps as small as five years, but we can pass that one if you prefer. What of the other HOF-era players he outproduced? Stastny, Gilmour, Hawerchuk are widely acclaimed, and their selections provoke minimal controversy.

It really isn't splitting hairs when Modano and Sundin peaked in the dead puck era and Oates peaked in the high-scoring early 90s.

The answer to your other question is what I said before - Oates was a first line player for longer than those guys, but I don't think that makes him a better player (Hawerchuk is debatable though).

 

[Drake1588]

I think you can certainly make the argument that one or the other of those four, let's say (Stastny, Gilmour, Hawerchuk Oates), are better than the others, but they're close. They had similar points totals (though Oates was highest of the four). At any rate, it certainly isn't possible to use the points inflation argument to knock Oates on that score, since all four benefited from that era. Three are in the Hall.

 

[canucks4ever]

Oates still managed to finish 3rd in scoring on 3 different occasions, regardless of era. He was offensively more dominant than either modano or sundin and i'm not going to buy the bs that the dallas stars system prevented modano from being a consistent top five scorer. He may have scored a few more points here and there, but he wouldnt have been challenging jagr for his trophies anytime soon.

 

[jkrx]

Oates still managed to finish 3rd in scoring on 3 different occasions, regardless of era. He was offensively more dominant than either modano or sundin and i'm not going to buy the bs that the dallas stars system prevented modano from being a consistent top five scorer. He may have scored a few more points here and there, but he wouldnt have been challenging jagr for his trophies anytime soon.

There were a pretty big hype about the Stars forcing Modano to change his game drastically. The difference between Modano vs. Oates is willingness to win. Oates was accused more than once of being a selfish player (which is pretty telling when speaking about a playmaker) who doesnt care about the team.

Sundin is in the same place as Oates after refusing to waive his no-trade clause and still leaving the team only to play poker until he knew what team would be contenders and sign with them but atleast he has an international resumé.

I can see Oates getting in but it's not something I would support.

 

[canucks4ever]

There were a pretty big hype about the Stars forcing Modano to change his game drastically. The difference between Modano vs. Oates is willingness to win. Oates was accused more than once of being a selfish player (which is pretty telling when speaking about a playmaker) who doesnt care about the team.

Sundin is in the same place as Oates after refusing to waive his no-trade clause and still leaving the team only to play poker until he knew what team would be contenders and sign with them but atleast he has an international resumé.

I can see Oates getting in but it's not something I would support.

Has oates ever played on a team like 98-2001 stars, its easier to question thier hearts when they dont play for contenders. I see sundin and modano as a clear step below the 1990-95 adam oates.

 

[Big Phil]

Part of Nieuwendyk's aura though is his leadership and ability to make his team better, not necessarily his wingers in the manner that Oates could by setting them up. I see your point comparing Giroux and Hartnell, but I think Nieuwy was a star in the league and closer comparison to Oates than what Hartnell would be to Giroux, even though I know Hartnell can put up decent numbers. If you take off Oates's two real big seasons, he and Joe's numbers are pretty comparable. Even if you count Oates's two big seasons, he's still not much more than a ppg player over his career, not that there's anythign wrong with that at all especially over 1300 + games.

Can you name a season where Nieuwendyk was a star in the NHL? I mean a top 10 player? I can name a year where Oates was. What would those teams that he won Cups for be like minus their #1 center? Take Gilmour off the Flames and insert Nieuwy as that guy. Do the Flames win? Take Modano off the 1999 Stars, do the Stars win? The 2003 Devils didn't really have a #1 guy so to speak, but Madden and Gomez were centers slotted ahead of him.

I mean, was he really that integral to a team winning like the legend goes? My eyes have always told me no, so do the stats.

I think Oates is seen as just a soft, points guy like a Pierre Turgeon. Never bringing anything else, never winning anything, never leading his team to greatness. Nieuwendyk on the other hand is a guy who did help make his teams better and they won. Like I said if you take away all of that, then there's an easy argument for Oates, but Nieuwendyk just has all of that going for him plus as I said a Conn Smythe to top it off.

Yes that's the problem, I am not sure time is a friend to Oates. Those of us that watched him play would attest that he had a better career than Turgeon. He was better in the playoffs, he led his teams to the final twice, Turgeon never did this and let's face it he had a team that could have. He was more than a compiler, he elevated the play of his teammates.

Guys like Sakic, Modano, Yzerman, and Forsberg kinda ruled the league as far as two-way scoring centers in their and Nieuwendyk is seen as that type of player, just a #2 for the most part. They like that type of guy. Oates maybe was a #1 center for the most part but just wasn't that type of player. If you know what I mean.

I'm sure you would agree Nieuwy was not at the level of those players. However, I "get" what you are saying, or what you are saying the committee is probably thinking, they like two-way guys. Nieuwendyk was fine defensively, but if you want to compare Selke voting between him and Oates, it isn't even close - in Oates' favour.

Oates is overrated by the interesting way that people count stats around here.

He had 341 goals, 1079 assists for 1420 points.

What if 100 of those assists were goals?

He'd have 441 goals, 979 assists for 1420 points.

I'd take the hypothetical 2nd player over Adam Oates, all other things equal, and I'm sure the HHOF committee would too. But that hypothetical 2nd player hasn't reached the magical "1000 assist" mark talked about here.

The HHOF committee and the hockey establishment at large care about points and goals. They don't care about assists.

Believe it or not I think he would have a better shot at the HHOF if he had the latter numbers. 979 assists is still pretty darn good. 441 goals and all of the sudden you are a well known playmaker that flirted with 500 goals. Either way, the guy should be in already.

 

[tjcurrie]

Can you name a season where Nieuwendyk was a star in the NHL? I mean a top 10 player? I can name a year where Oates was. What would those teams that he won Cups for be like minus their #1 center? Take Gilmour off the Flames and insert Nieuwy as that guy. Do the Flames win? Take Modano off the 1999 Stars, do the Stars win? The 2003 Devils didn't really have a #1 guy so to speak, but Madden and Gomez were centers slotted ahead of him.

I mean, was he really that integral to a team winning like the legend goes? My eyes have always told me no, so do the stats.



Yes that's the problem, I am not sure time is a friend to Oates. Those of us that watched him play would attest that he had a better career than Turgeon. He was better in the playoffs, he led his teams to the final twice, Turgeon never did this and let's face it he had a team that could have. He was more than a compiler, he elevated the play of his teammates.



I'm sure you would agree Nieuwy was not at the level of those players. However, I "get" what you are saying, or what you are saying the committee is probably thinking, they like two-way guys. Nieuwendyk was fine defensively, but if you want to compare Selke voting between him and Oates, it isn't even close - in Oates' favour.



Believe it or not I think he would have a better shot at the HHOF if he had the latter numbers. 979 assists is still pretty darn good. 441 goals and all of the sudden you are a well known playmaker that flirted with 500 goals. Either way, the guy should be in already.

Nieuwendyk wasn't really a top 10 player ever, but as I said if you take away Oates's best two seasons which kind of look more like anomalies than anything, they're very close.

Of course if you took Gilmour off the Flames, or Modano off the Stars, those are big blows and I doubt they're as successful. At the same time though, if you take off Nieuwendyk what do you have ? Both teams may have still won, hard to say but I can tell you that Nieuwendyk was huge for us in 1999. He was a huge piece and deserved the Conn Smythe. Though I would say that either Modano or Belfour could have won it too, but Nieuwendyk was easily good enough to win it and did. So that's pretty big for the ol resume.

I wasn't putting Nieuwendyk on those guys' level, I was just saying he was that type of player, just a bit below as in a #2. Everybody, whether it be a coach,GM,or teammate, says Nieuwendyk made them better. Of course by saying "everybody", I didnt speak with EVERYBODY, but I've heard it plenty from different sources.

Let's break it down like this:

Between Oates and Nieuwendyk, they're points are pretty similar season by season so consider that a wash.

-Oates has the couple stand out high scoring seasons that separates him and his career points total.
-Nieuwendyk has 3 Cups, played internationally and won Olympic gold, and also has a Conn Smythe that separates him.

As for Ciccarelli, he began his career the same season as Jari Kurri. Obviously Kurri had the higher single season numbers in the 80s, but at the end of their careers Dino had finished with more goals in less games. Not getting in to a who's better argument, just saying that one guy had a few high seasons that were anomalies and can be thanks to who he played with, while the other had a couple fairly high seaons but remained consistent for his entire career. He scored 35 goals as a 37 year old with the Lightning in his last final season ( 1996-97 )too so I dont know if we can necessarily chalk his totals up to simply having the benefit pf playing in the 1980s and early 90s.

As was stated above, excellence combined with longevity/endurance is worthy as well, not just having those couple standout seasons that could be considered anomalies. Having that one or two stand out seasons could be chalked up to luck, circumstances, or just good fortune and doesnt necessarily make you a better player. Tough to have luck or just good fortune every year over 15-20 seasons. Being consistently really good says something. Mike Gartner is a good example and I think people dumping on his induction is ridiculous.

 

[Big Phil]

Nieuwendyk wasn't really a top 10 player ever, but as I said if you take away Oates's best two seasons which kind of look more like anomalies than anything, they're very close.

Which seasons are you picking from? So let's take 1993 and 1991 away from Oates. I guess those would be his best seasons. Considering his and Nieuwendyk's careers went head to head that still leaves Oates with a 112, 102 and 99 point season. Not to mention two other seasons where he led the NHL in assists. Nieuwendyk topped out at 95 and 92 points and I didn't remove his two best years.

Between Oates and Nieuwendyk, they're points are pretty similar season by season so consider that a wash.

Strongly disagree. There were only 4 times when Nieuwendyk outpointed Oates. Nieuwendyk's first two years he did it, also in 1998-'99 when Oates played only 59 games and lastly in 2003-'04 which was Oates final season. 4 times, that's it. Oates outscored him every other season head to head, and by some monstrous amounts too. So that above statement is incorrect.

-Oates has the couple stand out high scoring seasons that separates him and his career points total.

Well.................

Oates - 1420 points in 1337 games
Nieuwendyk - 1126 points in 1257 games

Playoffs:
Oates - 156 points in 163 games
Nieuwendyk - 116 points in 158 games

Cup finals:
Oates - 6 points in 11 games
Nieuwendyk - 6 points in 12 games

The first two paragraphs are superb separation for Oates, it isn't even close and the less talked about the better for Nieuwendyk's case. But another interesting stat is this, for a supposed playoff legend who constantly gets credited with being on "three Cups with three different teams" he sure didn't produce very well. He didn't even play in the 2003 Cup final by the way. Oates reached the final both times when he was an old man, past his prime and he still competed with Nieuwendyk.

Not to mention, Oates was a far better passer than Nieuwendyk was a goal scorer. He was at least as good defensively and was similar at the faceoff circle. Who do you think had the better career? It takes me a heartbeat to answer that one.