Do your research.
One last time:
In four different seasons Neely was named one of the top two Right Wingers in the league.
Every Right Wing, (and Center), in NHL history that has reached that milestone is, (rightfully) in the Hall.
Dude, YOU brought this point up. I'm not researching it for you. You want to make the argument... then list the players.
Again, how many of those players had 4 or less? How many had no 1st team selections? I personally don't care.
It doesn't matter to me that he got 4 2nd team all-star selections, that shouldn't get him in. And I don't care if they let in every other guy with 4 2nd team all-stars. We've already seen that the HOF let's in guys that they shouldn't. Neely's just another in a long line of guys who are undeserving that somehow made it in.
I'm sorry but thats just not how it works, whether it should or shouldn't is another debate.
This whole conversation is on how it should or shouldn't be... otherwise why are we here? That's the whole point of this thread.
Of course it is what it is. The HOF is lax and that's why it's not well respected even by it's own inductees. There's no compelling reason to induct a certain amount of right or left wingers. If those wingers are mediocre or not up to the proper standards then leave them out. The HOF doesn't do this though. They let in mediocre players and are inconsistent and political about it.
Hakan Loob had a phenomenal 50 goal, 106 point season. The both of them beat out guys like Larmer, Ciccarelli, Gartner, Verbeek, Kurri, Anderson, Mullen... Its no insult to be behind Loob during that season.
Except that it's just another bullet against the guy. It's not just that he has less than 400 goals or less than 700 points. It's that he wasn't that dominant to begin with. If you haven't got the totals and you aren't a top ten player, why are you in there?
I'm not saying that he shouldn't get in because he missed out on beating Hakan Loob (and I think you know that and you aren't implying otherwise.) I'm saying that he wasn't that dominant to begin with, there were always others who were better and when you look at his totals and know that there were always at least 10 or more better players in the league, then it really is a mystery as to why he got in.
Brett Hull did when he had his three 1st team All Star selections... Kurri had Gretzky passing him the puck for all but one of his. Joe Mullen had Gilmour the year of his selection. Gillies had Trottier, Anderson had Messier. The Hall has never been about punishing people for playing with great players.
No? Bernie Nichols has over 1200 points but he won't make it because he was an 80 point player before Gretz showed up. Then he got a 150 point season and scored at almost 2 points per game over the next couple of years. People know he wasn't that good.
Again though, he won't make it and guys like Anderson and Gillies do. There's zero consistency here.
It's a similar situation with Neely. The main argument that most people point to when justifying his inclusion is his gpg and 50 in 50. We saw that Neely was a very good player without Oates and capable of scoring 50 on his own. With Oates though the guy's gpg goes through the roof. All of a sudden he's got something like 120 goals in his next 150 games and (as many of his supporters mentioned) that's with him being mangled. Those 150 games were crucial to him even managing the low totals that he has to begin with.
So he's got a short career, low totals, never the best at his own position, no major awards, not a top ten player, no cup and his gpg pace is dramatically helped by Oates. That's a lot of strikes against him. I don't see how he can seriously be inducted.
And as mentioned, Gillies and Anderson shouldn't be there either.
What possible justification is there for putting Glenn Anderson ahead of Cam Neely?
As I said, I don't think he belongs there either.
But thats not the Hall's criteria, its yours. The case you are making would eliminate at least 1/3rd of the guys in there, and its an entirely separate debate that does not belong here.
My whole point is that the Hall's criteria is inconsistent, political and they've lowered the bar to such an extent that it's lost credibilty. Neely is exhibit A on this.
And of course my point belongs here. The whole purpose of the thread is to question the HOF's credibility.
By the standards that the Hall of Fame has set, Neely's in, and he's not even at the lower end of the guys who they've let in at his position over the last 10 years.
What standards are those? They've been so inconsistently applied that we have no idea who gets in and who doesn't.
The standards are so low and inconsistent that it can't even really be debated at that level. Gillies is in but Howe isn't? Neely's a 'mortal lock' but Kerr isn't within Siberia's distance of making it? Federko's in but Oates sits and waits? Where does Nichols fit in? How come he isn't inducted if we're letting these other guys in?
See where I'm going with this? The bar is set way too low and it's applied inconsistently.
Meanwhile we sit and wonder if Lindros (an infinitely better player) will make it in, not because of his play on the ice but because we don't know if the politics will punish him because he was unpopular. All the while deserving guys like Gilmour, Howe and Oates are on the outside looking in.
That's a pathetic way to run a HOF don't you think?
Whether you personally think that the HoF is too inclusive is not what we're talking about. The real argument here is how Neely compares to the guys who are already in.
First of all, it's not just a comparison of how he compares to the guys already in, it's also a comparison of who they haven't let in.
You've sat there and said "they'll eventually let guys like Gilmour in"... okay, even if you're right (and I agree you probably are) why the hell is he waiting to get in and Neely is in there already? Why aren't Howe and Oates in? That makes no sense whatsoever. And it's also telling that the guy made it in so quickly after retirement whereas other guys with much better resumes have to sit and wait for no reason. How does that happen? Answer: Politics.
You want to say Neely compares favourably to the worst inductees, that's fine. I don't think it's a debate worth having in the first place. Who cares if he's better than say Clark Gillies? I don't.
Secondly, this debate IS over the Hall's standards itself. The OP got the retirement date on Lindros wrong but he could've just as easily named the thread about Gilmour or Oates instead... He's calling into question the HOF's credibility and I think it's a valid question to ask.
When you have your own legendary players questioning your standards and feeling that it's cheapened (Esposito's words, not mine) the experience of getting in, you've killed any meaning that the HOF has for the guys that actually deserve to be there.
), who would not have been traded in a heartbeat for Neely. 
