tjcurrie
Registered User
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.
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.
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.
If you take off Oates's top 2 seasons, his numbers look like this.
1192 games
1163 pts
80 pts per 82 game season
Nieuwendyk's numbers look like this.
1257 games
1126 pts
74 pts per 82 games
Not much of s difference. I know Oates still beats him and that's taking his top two seasons away so it may or may not be fair, but it does mean that for 90% of their careers they were pretty dang close offensively.
There's more to winning than just points too. As I said, everybody says Joe made their teams better. He was a leader. Oates was not. As much as I can guarantee without actually knowing 100%, I guarantee, minus Oate's top 2 seasons when his numbers were astronomical cause that may change things, that over half of the coaches and GMs in the league back in their day would take Joe over Adam. Joe did it all and was a leader, Adam did not and was not. Reasons why Joe was taken for international tourneys and Adam was not.
And again, Joe = Conn Smythe, and deserving. Can't take that away from him.
Hey obviously I prefer Joe and you prefer Adam and I doubt either one of us changes our mind. I don't think there's much of s difference at the end of the day. Different type of players. As I said, I think Oates should be in and I wouldnt have had a problem with Joe waiting this round and Adam being nominated instead.
Last edited: