Cam Neely

[Noldo]

Sure it could lower but you don't know by how much. Who's to say he doesn't score 40 as a 36 year old like Shanahan?

And there lies problem with Neely. Due the injuries his career contains some "what if"s and somehow they have to be taken into account.

OP has emphasised Neely's goal per game and point per game statistics, numbers that show Neely in very favourable light, especially in comparison to players with much longer career.

Fair comparison to Neely's numbers would be the equal number (9 or 12) best (or first) seasons of other players. That comparison would give some light to how good Neely's prime (statistically) was. After that it once again becomes longevity vs. peak argument, but due the lack of longevity, Neely should never surpass players with equal peak (naturally including also other than purely statistical elements), but good career also after their peak.

 

[Big#D]

Good question, like you said, his record would be in the hall but not him as a player. Neely never was a 4th line scrub, he defined what a power forward was and like other people have said, he is in the top 5 most dominating playoff performers ever, and he deserves to be in the Hall.
If you took 82 games as an average season, Neely averages 44 goals a year for his career for the amount of games he played,(if my math is correct). How many players in the history of the NHL have a goals per game average like that? Not too many I would guess.
He was definitely one of the top 5 goal scorers I have ever seen.

I agree that Neely wasn't a scrub. That's not the point. I was just giving you an explanation why I (and many others) feel that Neely shouldn't have been elected to the HoF. I feel that just because he did well in the time he was in the NHL doesn't mean we should project his career forward and say it deserves to be in the Hall.

I don't begrudge him his election now that he is a member. That doesn't mean though that if I had the choice, I would would consider him Hall worthy. We have differing views on what it would take to make it. Apparantly so do the election committee.

 

[Big#D]

And there lies problem with Neely. Due the injuries his career contains some "what if"s and somehow they have to be taken into account.

This is where most of those of us who don't think Neely was Hall-worthy disagree. I don't think you have to take "what if's" into account at all. Either the guy's career was good enough to make the Hall or it wasn't.

If Crosby were to suffer a career-threatening injury right now, he wouldn't make it, in my opinion. If he keeps this pace up for another ten to fifteen years and wins a Cup and adds to his trophy collection (Art Ross, Conn Smythe, Hart, etc), then he probably will deserve to get in. But he still has to earn it. It wouldn't make him any less of a player for not getting in.

 

[thefifthsedin*]

Outside of Messier, there hasn't been a better combination of goal scoring ability and physical play the last 30 years than Cam Neely.

messier? goal scoring ability? ... messier wasn't a particularly great goalscorer if you put things into coherence. he had a somewhat great wrist shot and was a great gamebreaker who always showed up in the playoffs, and he was good at bullying, physically intimidate and cheap shot opponents with elbows and stuff like that, but you're aware of the fact that he only scored one [1] blank 50 goal season in the nhl?

that is despite the fact that he played on the probably most dominate team [1980's edmonton oilers] in nhl history when it comes to offensive numbers [goals scored] and played on the same team, not necessarily on the same line, as the greatest passer of all time [gretzky]

if you're looking for players with great goal scoring ability look up players like bobby hull, mike bossy, brett hull, mario lemieux, maurice richard, phil esposito, pavel bure, alex ovechkin ...

 

[Ogopogo*]

Dionne didn't have the physical dimension that Fleury brought. .

I'll take the extra 30-50 points a year over the physical play any time.

 

[sidewayzLEAFS]

i didn't know neeliy scored 50 in 44
thats amazing and second best to only gretzky if im right

 

[lextune]

i didn't know neeliy scored 50 in 44
thats amazing and second best to only gretzky if im right

You are.

It is tied with Mario Lemieux for second fastest.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Shutt and Barber were 1st team all-stars because they were left wingers, the weekest position by far. Shutt, 47th in goals per game, Barber, 42nd, Neely 14th.
Playoffs Barber 48th, Shutt 16th, Neely 5th. Neely was better than those 2 guys, no doubt in my mind.

50 goals in 44 games isn't a big season?

Neely's per game averages get a bit inflated as do all players whose careers end prematurely. He never had a "downside" to his career.

Career totals are smaller, but per game averages are higher.

 

[JudgeKnoll]

At least Neely got his revenge on Ulf before he retired.

 

[Bruwinz37]

Neely's per game averages get a bit inflated as do all players whose careers end prematurely. He never had a "downside" to his career.

Career totals are smaller, but per game averages are higher.

One could also argue that a lot of his truly prime years were lost due to injury. I would say that your argument that he didnt have a downside is really offset that he missed many years/games of his true prime to either sitting out or battling some seriously debilitating injuries. Not sure if you are going to win many points with that argument.

 

[Jumptheshark]

I don't think the question was whether Neely was good enough to get into the HoF. I think the issue is whether he did enough (i.e. played long enough) to get into the Hall.

I think most people, myself included, feel that he had the talent to be HoF-worthy had he played at his peak level for a few more years. The Hall is supposed to be for those players who had an elite career, not who played at an elite level for a few years.

I believe that Neely in the hall has forever lowered the bar and gives a prime example of why Hockey should fallow baseball lead and rejigg how they decide who gets into the hall


hall of famer names are never fallowed by "only ifs"

bottom line is Neely scored under 400 goals and under 700 points

 

[lextune]

No.

The "bottom line", as you put it, is that Neely was a four time all-star at Right Wing.

Every single Right Winger that has managed that is in the Hall of Fame.

In fact other than Rick Martin (LW), and Carl Brewer (D), every player that has been a four time all-star is in the Hall.

 

[Jumptheshark]

No.

The "bottom line", as you put it, is that Neely was a four time all-star at Right Wing.

Every single Right Winger that has managed that is in the Hall of Fame.

In fact other than Rick Martin (LW), and Carl Brewer (D), every player that has been a four time all-star is in the Hall.

Sorry

but who decided who is an all star?


Year end all star selection is something I pay little attention to

Neely was under a point a game man overall his for his career and this was during the red light era of the nhl..

We have this discussion about three times a year, a few discussions ago one poster went into a great stat annalysised and gave a very good arguement against Neely being in the hall and he was more or less ingnored and insulted.

here is a question--of the players that have been forwards--in the last 25 years of play--how many have scored less then 400 goals? Never won a stanley cup? Never won a major award?(mastertain is not a major award) Scored under 700 points? and got into the hall of fame?

Besides Neely--who else of the forward hall of famers who played in the red light era are in the hall?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sorry

but who decided who is an all star?

The same writers who select the Hart and Norris trophies, I would imagine. Or is it a different pool?

I do think Neely is one of the weaker recent selections, but have come around to not mind the fact that he's in. Of course, then there is the Cam Neely argument, if Cam's in, then X has to be in. If he's in with his shortened career, Bure and Lindros should be locks.

 

[lextune]

Year end all star selection is something I pay little attention to

If every other right wing that managed to be named one of the top two right wings in the league four times set the 'minimum' criteria for peak, what would you say it is about Neely that differentiates him from them?

....Or is your argument that peak alone is not worth the Hall without a certain longevity?

 

[Dark Shadows]

I believe that Neely in the hall has forever lowered the bar and gives a prime example of why Hockey should fallow baseball lead and rejigg how they decide who gets into the hall


hall of famer names are never fallowed by "only ifs"

bottom line is Neely scored under 400 goals and under 700 points

He is in because of his peak skills and playoff record, not his longevity/Career numbers on that defense first Bruins team. His stats will also not tell you how dominating he was on the ice physically. Defensemen were plain and simply afraid of Cam Neely. When the Bruins dumped the puck and Neely was in on the forecheck, most defensemen in the league would go to retrieve the puck the first time, get smeared by a Neely hit, and then remember it for the rest of the game. The next time they went to retrieve the puck they would cough the puck up and out so quickly that they usually passed it right to a Bruins player because they were trying so hard to avoid the human battering ram bearing down on them. By virtue of his play, Neely, who was good defensively, almost never needed to be because the play stayed in the opposing zone.

Physical defensemen would try to stop Neely only to be thrown out of the way like ragdolls and then they would take stupid penalties out of embarrassment. I am still trying to find the video of the time Scott Stevens went into a head on collision with Neely and bounced off.

His play was only better in the playoffs, where he has one of the highest goals per game ratios of any player ever.

Gartner has 700+ goals, and I still think Cam Neely is a better selection based on his peak and playoff record.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If every other right wing that managed to be named one of the top two right wings in the league four times set the 'minimum' criteria for peak, what would you say it is about Neely that differentiates him from them?

....Or is your argument that peak alone is not worth the Hall without a certain longevity?

I liked your pre-edited post better.

 

[lextune]

He is in because of his peak skills and playoff record, not his longevity/Career numbers on that defense first Bruins team. His stats will also not tell you how dominating he was on the ice physically. Defensemen were plain and simply afraid of Cam Neely. When the Bruins dumped the puck and Neely was in on the forecheck, most defensemen in the league would go to retrieve the puck the first time, get smeared by a Neely hit, and then remember it for the rest of the game. The next time they went to retrieve the puck they would cough the puck up and out so quickly that they usually passed it right to a Bruins player because they were trying so hard to avoid the human battering ram bearing down on them. By virtue of his play, Neely, who was good defensively, almost never needed to be because the play stayed in the opposing zone.

Physical defensemen would try to stop Neely only to be thrown out of the way like ragdolls and then they would take stupid penalties out of embarrassment. I am still trying to find the video of the time Scott Stevens went into a head on collision with Neely and bounced off.

His play was only better in the playoffs, where he has one of the highest goals per game ratios of any player ever.

Gartner has 700+ goals, and I still think Cam Neely is a better selection based on his peak and playoff record.

^This.

I liked your pre-edited post better.

lol

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Out of curiousity, would everyone in favor of Neely in the Hall of Fame vote Lindros in? If not, why?

The same writers who select the Hart and Norris trophies, I would imagine. Or is it a different pool?

Same voters.

 

[lextune]

Sorry

but who decided who is an all star?


Year end all star selection is something I pay little attention to

http://google.com

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Out of curiousity, would everyone in favor of Neely in the Hall of Fame vote Lindros in? If not, why?


Same voters.

Only possible argument I can see is that Lindros wasn't nearly as good in the playoffs on average.

Actually, I can see another one based on character, but that one is often overstated.

(Note that I do think Lindros was a better player than Neely).

 

[Jumptheshark]

two quick things

1) Playoff performances? How many cups did he win? close does not count

2) Neely http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=3930

versus Lindros http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=3158

based upon most of the arguement put up by the pro-neely faction--Lindros is in the hall of fame

and there will be no debate when Forsberg goes in

http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=1742

 

[lextune]

Out of curiousity, would everyone in favor of Neely in the Hall of Fame vote Lindros in? If not, why?

I would. Absolutely.

Incidentally; only a two time all-star, albeit at the admittedly more difficult position to earn berths.

 

[lextune]

Only possible argument I can see is that Lindros wasn't nearly as good in the playoffs on average.

Maybe, but his level of superiority in the regular season makes up for it.

(Note that I do think Lindros was a better player than Neely).

Demonstrably.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Only possible argument I can see is that Lindros wasn't nearly as good in the playoffs on average.

Actually, I can see another one based on character, but that one is often overstated.

(Note that I do think Lindros was a better player than Neely).

Lindros has 57 points in 53 playoff games topping out at 26 points in 19 games one season.
Neely has 89 points in 93 playoff games topping out with 28 points in 21 games.

Lindros also did it in much lower scoring years.

I just hope Neely is an exception to the rule (based on all those intangibles), and that he has not indeed lowered the bar.