Why did Cam Neely make it and Lindros not?

[Lafleurs Guy]

While I agree with your general point (that players actually can care about the quality of the Hall of Fame choices), Esposito is probably not the best person to use as an example. All the guys he thinks don't belong are Soviet players he personally dislikes, and he can't (or at least one) evaluate them objectively.

Keep in mind though, his quote states that he felt that way when he got in. I don't know when he made that quote though so you could be right.

I hadn't heard that he was upset about the Russians being in though.

 

[Epsilon]

Keep in mind though, his quote states that he felt that way when he got in. I don't know when he made that quote though so you could be right.

I hadn't heard that he was upset about the Russians being in though.

Ask him who doesn't belong and the first names out of his mouth will be Tretiak and Kharlamov.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The guy lost out to freakin' Hakan Loob and we're debating him as a HOF'er?

you know that gartner and ciccarelli also lost to loob that year, right?

Robitaille, Hull and Kurri are all sure fire HOF players. Ciccarelli and Gartner are borderline. Anderson probably shouldn't be in.

Duff, Gillies and Neely definitely shouldn't be in.

of that list, i would have it: 1. hull 2. kurri 3. robitaille 4. neely 5. anderson 6. gartner 7. the rest

i'll elabourate below.

Gartner and Ciccarelli were both very good for a long time. Both have 7-9 seasons of 40+ goals and some with 50+. I don't think they're first ballot guys but they probably belong. Other than the blue chippers though I don't know why they put in guys like Joe Mullen. Joe Mullen was also very good but he's not HOF material either.

mullen retired as the highest scoring american of all time, which helped his case tremendously. of course, he was also a very good player who was an important part of two cup winning teams, but yeah he's a weaker hall of famer. doesn't scream "sham" to me any more than gartner or ciccarelli though.

but gartner and ciccarelli are HHOFers because they each had one or two 50 goal seasons? are you kidding me? if that's your metric, then neely did as much in his shortened career as both of them put together.

gartner, i mean he was still a productive goal scorer when he was traded from new york. but new york wanted glenn anderson, near the end of his career, because anderson is a winner and gartner loses. i mean, that's it right there: you can't say "if gartner trades places with anderson, he would win cups too" because there is no trading places with anderson. gartner is the kind of guy you trade for guys like anderson when you're that close.

Historically speaking it is a far easier proposition to make the team as a LW than as a Center or RW.

Although interestingly (at least to historians like myself, lol), we have been living in the "Age of the Left Wing" for the past 10 years or so and it has become much more difficult.

Ovechkin
Heatley
Zetterberg
Parise
St. Louis
Kovalchuk

st. louis has been a RW since he broke out. did play some LW earlier in his career though. i would add this year's first team all-star LW (last year's 2nd teamer) to that list in his place, though.

you're right though, it has been a golden age for LWs since the lockout. but the odd thomas vanek still sneaks in here or there.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

mullen retired as the highest scoring american of all time, which helped his case tremendously. of course, he was also a very good player who was an important part of two cup winning teams, but yeah he's a weaker hall of famer. doesn't scream "sham" to me any more than gartner or ciccarelli though.

I think the highest scoring American is probably why he got in too.

but gartner and ciccarelli are HHOFers because they each had one or two 50 goal seasons? are you kidding me? if that's your metric, then neely did as much in his shortened career as both of them put together.

A couple of 50 goal seasons is not why they're in there nor is it the metric I used. 7-9 seasons of 40+ goals AND a few 50 goal seasons to boot. Both of these guys have over 600 goals, Gartner has over 700.

gartner, i mean he was still a productive goal scorer when he was traded from new york. but new york wanted glenn anderson, near the end of his career, because anderson is a winner and gartner loses. i mean, that's it right there: you can't say "if gartner trades places with anderson, he would win cups too" because there is no trading places with anderson. gartner is the kind of guy you trade for guys like anderson when you're that close.

Once you score as many goals as those guys have, the conversation shifts from "why not" to "why shouldn't he be in there?"

Definitely you could argue that neither guy was best at his own position or extremely dominant. But both guys had a lot of very good seasons to go along with two or three 50 goal seasons to boot. With 700 goals I don't see how Gartner can be kept out. Ciccarelli was also physical and (if you want to play the potential card as folks do with Neely) he was seriously injured right when he was at a goal per game pace back in the late 80s. Who knows how good he could've been too? If you want to keep him out, that's fine. I think he's what SHOULD be a bubble player for the HOF. But if you're going to let in Neely, there's no way that Ciccarelli shouldn't be in there and Tim Kerr should be there too.

Like I said earlier though, if you're a forward and don't have at least 500 goals or 1000 points as a player in the 1980s, you shouldn't get in unless you're a multi Selke winner or have MVPs to your name. With a career that short, you should have to be spectacular on a Ken Dryden level and Neely never was.

Lindros at least can lay claim to being the best in the world at one point and does have an MVP on his shelf. He'll get in too but I think the HOFs standards are way out of whack and too low.

 

[PB37]

Weird how this semi cripple's goals per game pace skyrocketed when he was paired with Adam Oates.

Different eras and Neely retires before the age of 30. And again, his gpg numbers spike dramatically when Oates shows up.

Before Oates had Neely: .84 assists per game

Oates with Neely: 1.02 assists per game


I see a dramatic increase in assists per game for Oates when Neely was on his wing to rip shots home. Does that mean Neely made Oates and the reason why Oates' assists per game shot up? Should we try to delude Oates' passing skills because of this?

Or maybe...just maybe... it's fair to say that both were great at what each did ( one: passing. the other: scoring ) and BOTH helped the other achieve greater heights.

In the modern era of hockey, no other player who had over 1000 penalty minutes in his career had a better goal scoring per game average. And that list is littered with the power forwards of the 80's. During his playing days, Cam Neely was the best goal scoring power forward, and arguably the best at what grants one the moniker of power forward. IMO, that's why you see Cam Neely in the hall of fame.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I think the highest scoring American is probably why he got in too.

A couple of 50 goal seasons is not why they're in there nor is it the metric I used. 7-9 seasons of 40+ goals AND a few 50 goal seasons to boot. Both of these guys have over 600 goals, Gartner has over 700.

Once you score as many goals as those guys have, the conversation shifts from "why not" to "why shouldn't he be in there?"

Definitely you could argue that neither guy was best at his own position or extremely dominant. But both guys had a lot of very good seasons to go along with two or three 50 goal seasons to boot. With 700 goals I don't see how Gartner can be kept out. Ciccarelli was also physical and (if you want to play the potential card as folks do with Neely) he was seriously injured right when he was at a goal per game pace back in the late 80s. Who knows how good he could've been too? If you want to keep him out, that's fine. I think he's what SHOULD be a bubble player for the HOF. But if you're going to let in Neely, there's no way that Ciccarelli shouldn't be in there and Tim Kerr should be there too.

Like I said earlier though, if you're a forward and don't have at least 500 goals or 1000 points as a player in the 1980s, you shouldn't get in unless you're a multi Selke winner or have MVPs to your name. With a career that short, you should have to be spectacular on a Ken Dryden level and Neely never was.

Lindros at least can lay claim to being the best in the world at one point and does have an MVP on his shelf. He'll get in too but I think the HOFs standards are way out of whack and too low.

we certainly don't disagree that the HHOF's standards are way too low. but i also think abstract statistical thresholds aren't the best metric for candidacy. if neely is automatically preempted from HHOF discussion because he didn't score 500 goals and 1,000 points but keith tkachuk isn't, then there is something seriously wrong with the methodology.

i don't play the potential card with neely. i play the two runs to the finals and a near smythe-level run to the third round where the team's loss was no fault of his own card. i play the this guy owned patrick roy in the playoffs card. i also play the when i saw him play i saw a guy who played the game in a way that needs to be memorialized card. ciccarelli was a chippy guy who took tonnes of abuse in front of the net. i respect that, but he wasn't a hall of famer. you can't seriously compare his physicality to neely's, can you? neely was dominant. some of that shows in his stats, some of that can't begin to be measured by them. gartner was not as good as his numbers look, neither was ciccarelli. that's the difference in my book.

hey, i value longevity as much as the next guy. i think mark recchi is a hall of famer, maybe even more deserving than neely is. both are pretty close to the bottom of where i would put the cut off. but gartner and ciccarelli are well below that threshold. they were so good for such a long time that their numbers look great. conversely, neely was great for such a short time that his numbers only look good. but i value great more than lots of good.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Before Oates had Neely: .84 assists per game

Oates with Neely: 1.02 assists per game


I see a dramatic increase in assists per game for Oates when Neely was on his wing to rip shots home. Does that mean Neely made Oates and the reason why Oates' assists per game shot up? Should we try to delude Oates' passing skills because of this?

Or maybe...just maybe... it's fair to say that both were great at what each did ( one: passing. the other: scoring ) and BOTH helped the other achieve greater heights.

In the modern era of hockey, no other player who had over 1000 penalty minutes in his career had a better goal scoring per game average. And that list is littered with the power forwards of the 80's. During his playing days, Cam Neely was the best goal scoring power forward, and arguably the best at what grants one the moniker of power forward. IMO, that's why you see Cam Neely in the hall of fame.

Oates had several seasons where he put up points at the same pace without Neely or Hull, both players who evidently had more offensive benefit playing with him than the other way around. Basically the years these guys weren't with Oates, they were 50 goal scorers in a higher scoring era who provided far below average playmaking, especially Neely. However Neely was more of a dominant offensive force than Hull in terms of creating his own offense, was much better defensively and was a physical beast.

When you look at things completely objectively Neely really shouldn't be in the Hall of fame... even though for a period of 7 years he certainly was a Hall of fame caliber player based on his overall impact, he really just didn't accomplish enough even in his short prime. I'm a prime over longevity guy and a Neely fan, and I still think Gartner's place in the Hall of fame is slightly more deserving.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I don't know, Gartner, Neely, Gartner, Neely..I know which name says superstar to me and which doesn't.

 

[lextune]

hey, i value longevity as much as the next guy. i think mark recchi is a hall of famer, maybe even more deserving than neely is. both are pretty close to the bottom of where i would put the cut off. but gartner and ciccarelli are well below that threshold. they were so good for such a long time that their numbers look great. conversely, neely was great for such a short time that his numbers only look good. but i value great more than lots of good.

I agree that the value of 'some great' far exceeds 'lots of good'.

It speaks directly to the very purpose for the Hall of Fame.

It should be reserved for players that were "Famously" great, (if you will).

In other words, Cam Neely was a lock.

The induction of players who were demonstrably never "famous" and just steadily accumulated massive numbers with good year after good year is what taints the Hall.

Another reason why the 'accidental standard' of at least 4 All-Star years (as far as Centers and Right Wingers go), is so fitting.

 

[lextune]

I don't know, Gartner, Neely, Gartner, Neely..I know which name says superstar to me and which doesn't.

Indeed....not to mention the eyeball test.

 

[PB37]

Maybe I've read some of the posts wrong, but are some people questioning why Mike Gartner is in the HOF? He's got the NHL record for most consecutive 30-goal seasons (15 ) and the NHL record for most 30-goal seasons ( 17 ). He may not have been the best in any particular season or won major hardware, but the man was very good for a very long time. You can put his prime goal scoring years ( 80-93 ) right there with the very best goal scorers of all time and Gartner's pace during that period would not look out of place.

 

[lextune]

I'm not "up-in-arms" about Gartner being in the Hall or anything, I have just pointed out that he was a far weaker selection than Neely.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Maybe I've read some of the posts wrong, but are some people questioning why Mike Gartner is in the HOF? He's got the NHL record for most consecutive 30-goal seasons (15 ) and the NHL record for most 30-goal seasons ( 17 ). He may not have been the best in any particular season or won major hardware, but the man was very good for a very long time. You can put his prime goal scoring years ( 80-93 ) right there with the very best goal scorers of all time and Gartner's pace during that period would not look out of place.

Didn't you receive the memo?
It clearly states that anything done or anyone that played before the Lockout should be looked upon with as much scorn and contempt as possible

 

[BamBamCam*]

Didn't you receive the memo?
It clearly states that anything done or anyone that played before the Lockout should be looked upon with as much scorn and contempt as possible

Actually, it seems people look upon the past players with stats in mind only like a video game. The anti-Neely crowd are only looking at his stats and if you refute or show that might be a misleading way to look at Neely like that, they revert to King Adam Oates like Neely was a nobody prior to 1992. If that doesn't work, it's "he wasn't the best player on the team" argument but if that's the case, then anyone who played with Wayne is suspect ie: Messier, Kurri, Anderson, Coffey, Hull and Robitaille. Might as well start looking at who is in the HOF from the teams Lemieux, Trottier, Howe, Yzerman were on and of course any defenseman that had Roy, Hasek, Plante, and Brodeur stopping the puck in net.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Before Oates had Neely: .84 assists per game

Oates with Neely: 1.02 assists per game


I see a dramatic increase in assists per game for Oates when Neely was on his wing to rip shots home. Does that mean Neely made Oates and the reason why Oates' assists per game shot up? Should we try to delude Oates' passing skills because of this?

Oates was already the premier passer in the game not named Gretzky by the time he got to Boston. He didn't need Neely for anything as he already was turning guys into goal per game players. The difference between him in St. Louis vs. him in Boston is negligible. Nice try.

He also ended the 1990s as the highest scoring player not named Gretzky.

Or maybe...just maybe... it's fair to say that both were great at what each did ( one: passing. the other: scoring ) and BOTH helped the other achieve greater heights.

Oates had his best season with Neely on the bench. He could do it with anyone and he was far more important to Hull and Neely than they were to him.

In the modern era of hockey, no other player who had over 1000 penalty minutes in his career had a better goal scoring per game average. And that list is littered with the power forwards of the 80's. During his playing days, Cam Neely was the best goal scoring power forward, and arguably the best at what grants one the moniker of power forward. IMO, that's why you see Cam Neely in the hall of fame.

Again, the goal scoring per game average is nice and all but he doesn't have the totals. Moreover, that average is helped dramatically by Oates (not the other way around as you're trying to suggest) and who the heck cares about 1000 penalty minutes? Him fighting Stu Grimson is a testament to his heart and fighting ability but it doesn't really help me win games. I'd much rather have a guy like Iginla who fights when it makes sense to. That way I don't lose my best right winger for half the game due to him being in the box all the time.

Neely would fight anyone, that's good and bad. But he'd also take stupid penalties and could be goaded into this by agitators. The 1000 penalty minutes doesn't mean a whole lot man.

He had character, was fearless and a great hitter. I'm not saying he didn't have HOF talent, I'm saying he didn't have a HOF career.

we certainly don't disagree that the HHOF's standards are way too low. but i also think abstract statistical thresholds aren't the best metric for candidacy. if neely is automatically preempted from HHOF discussion because he didn't score 500 goals and 1,000 points but keith tkachuk isn't, then there is something seriously wrong with the methodology.

There has to be some kind of standard of fairness and consistency here. Otherwise your decisions are called into question. Take some things into consideration here.

1. Eras are different. The 80s were high flying, today's game isn't.
2. 500 goals or 1000 assists may apply for one era and not another.
3. Even if you hit the minimums, that doesn't mean you automatically make it. It means that you should at least be considered.
4. If you don't have those minimums, you had better have been ridiculously dominant (best player in the league) for a few seasons.

I certainly don't think 1000 points alone should get you in (see Bernie Federko and Bernie Nichols) but I think that if you haven't hit this threshold then you probably shouldn't be there as a forward of the 80s unless you have 500 goals or more awards behind you. To get in with less than 400 goals and 700 points just shouldn't happen.

i don't play the potential card with neely. i play the two runs to the finals and a near smythe-level run to the third round where the team's loss was no fault of his own card. i play the this guy owned patrick roy in the playoffs card. i also play the when i saw him play i saw a guy who played the game in a way that needs to be memorialized card. ciccarelli was a chippy guy who took tonnes of abuse in front of the net. i respect that, but he wasn't a hall of famer. you can't seriously compare his physicality to neely's, can you? neely was dominant. some of that shows in his stats, some of that can't begin to be measured by them. gartner was not as good as his numbers look, neither was ciccarelli. that's the difference in my book.

How much better is Neely than Ciccarelli? Stat wise, both have pretty similar numbers until Adam Oates shows up.

Neely was tougher and a better hitter, but Ciccarelli wasn't a shrinking violet. He's really not that far off Neely at all. You're romanticizing Neely if you're saying otherwise. And Ciccarelli did it for years and racked up almost double the points and goals that Neely did.

Yes, he's a better choice for sure.

hey, i value longevity as much as the next guy. i think mark recchi is a hall of famer, maybe even more deserving than neely is. both are pretty close to the bottom of where i would put the cut off. but gartner and ciccarelli are well below that threshold. they were so good for such a long time that their numbers look great. conversely, neely was great for such a short time that his numbers only look good. but i value great more than lots of good.

Gartner's got 5 48 goal+ seasons and 6 45 goal plus seasons. He's got over 700 goals and never scored less than 30 for something crazy like 15 years. No he wasn't physical nor was he super dominant but there's no way he doesn't make it in, he was just too good for too long. I don't think too many people question him. And he has more goals than Neely has points... there's shouldn't be any debate on that one.

As for Cicarelli vs. Neely:

Neely's got 3 50 goal seasons. He's got one forty goal season. He's got less than 400 goals. Ciccarelli has two 50 goal seasons (and two 100 point seasons). He's got five seasons of 40 or more and again, has almost as many goals as Neely has points.

Was he as good a hitter or fighter as Neely? No. But he wasn't so far off that Neely towers over him. The goals aren't that far apart and Ciccarelli is a better playmaker. Neely's a lot closer to Ciccarelli than he is to a guy like Lindros. You're talking like Neely was the best player in the game and he was never close. If Cicarelli didn't make it I don't think anyone would've lost any sleep over it but at least he's got some totals behind him that make him worth considering.

Oates had several seasons where he put up points at the same pace without Neely or Hull, both players who evidently had more offensive benefit playing with him than the other way around. Basically the years these guys weren't with Oates, they were 50 goal scorers in a higher scoring era who provided far below average playmaking, especially Neely. However Neely was more of a dominant offensive force than Hull in terms of creating his own offense, was much better defensively and was a physical beast.

When you look at things completely objectively Neely really shouldn't be in the Hall of fame... even though for a period of 7 years he certainly was a Hall of fame caliber player based on his overall impact, he really just didn't accomplish enough even in his short prime. I'm a prime over longevity guy and a Neely fan, and I still think Gartner's place in the Hall of fame is slightly more deserving.

One guy has over 700 goals, the doesn't manage 700 points. It's not close.

I don't know, Gartner, Neely, Gartner, Neely..I know which name says superstar to me and which doesn't.

Neither one screams superstar but Gartner has double Neely's numbers.

Neely might have gone onto great heights but he just wasn't healthy enough.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Oates was already the premier passer in the game not named Gretzky by the time he got to Boston. He didn't need Neely for anything as he already was turning guys into goal per game players. The difference between him in St. Louis vs. him in Boston is negligible.

He also ended the 1990s as the highest scoring player not named Gretzky.

Oates had his best season with Neely on the bench.

Again, the goal scoring per game average is nice and all but he doesn't have the totals. Moreover, that average is helped dramatically by Oates (not the other way around as you're trying to suggest) and who the heck cares about 1000 penalty minutes?

Neely would fight anyone, that's good and bad. But he'd also take stupid penalties and could be goaded into this by agitators. The 1000 penalty minutes doesn't mean a whole lot man.

He had character, was fearless and a great hitter. I'm not saying he didn't have HOF talent, I'm saying he didn't have a HOF career.


There has to be some kind of standard of fairness and consistency here. Otherwise your decisions are called into question. Take some things into consideration here.

1. Eras are different. The 80s were high flying, today's game isn't.
2. 500 goals or 1000 assists may apply for one era and not another.
3. Even if you hit the minimums, that doesn't mean you automatically make it. It means that you should at least be considered.
4. If you don't have those minimums, you had better have been ridiculously dominant (best player in the league) for a few seasons.




How much better is Neely than Ciccarelli? Stat wise, both have pretty similar numbers until Adam Oates shows up.

Neely was tougher and a better hitter, but Ciccarelli wasn't a shrinking violet. He's really not that far off Neely at all. You're romanticizing Neely if you're saying otherwise. And Ciccarelli did it for years and racked up almost double the points and goals that Neely did.

Yes, he's a better choice for sure.




Gartner's got 5 48 goal+ seasons and 6 45 goal plus seasons. He's got over 700 goals and never scored less than 30 for something crazy like 15 years. No he wasn't physical nor was he super dominant but there's no way he doesn't make it in, he was just too good for too long. I don't think too many people question him. And he has more goals than Neely has points... there's shouldn't be any debate on that one.

As for Cicarelli vs. Neely:

Neely's got 3 50 goal seasons. He's got one forty goal season. He's got less than 400 goals. Ciccarelli has two 50 goal seasons (and two 100 point seasons). He's got five seasons of 40 or more and again, has almost as many goals as Neely has points.

Was he as good a hitter or fighter as Neely? No. But he wasn't so far off that Neely towers over him. The goals aren't that far apart and Ciccarelli is a better playmaker. Neely's a lot closer to Ciccarelli than he is to a guy like Lindros. You're talking like Neely was the best player in the game and he was never close. If Cicarelli didn't make it I don't think anyone would've lost any sleep over it but at least he's got some totals behind him that make him worth considering.

One guy has over 700 goals, the doesn't manage 700 points. It's not close.

Neither one screams superstar but Gartner has double Neely's numbers.

Neely might have gone onto great heights but he just wasn't healthy enough.

And I rest my case, you are all about stats and Sir King Adam Oates. You do not see the big picture at all. Not sure why you are trying to convince anyone anymore, you are basically saying the same thing over and over...[some words] stats....[some words] Adam Oates.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

And I rest my case, you are all about stats and Sir King Adam Oates. You do not see the big picture at all. Not sure why you are trying to convince anyone anymore, you are basically saying the same thing over and over...[some words] stats....[some words] Adam Oates.

With all due respect, I don't think you can look at this objectively. It's obvious that you're a passionate fan of the guy. You're upset with me for posting this stuff and I wish you wouldn't take it so personally. I ignored your last post because I know you're upset.

I am taking a look at the bigger picture and I've been more than fair. I don't hate Neely. Even with him being a power forward and factoring in all of your arguments, I don't think he should be there.

The fact that he's in there though is not an indictment on Neely himself, it's on the HOF and how they make their decisions.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

on neely vs. ciccarelli, and i say this knowing that ciccarelli had that one fantastic playoff run with minnesota, neely was incredible in the '90 and '91 playoffs. in '91, i think he scored more goals in the first three rounds than anyone else ever. of course, he didn't get to the finals that year because samuelsson took out his knee. but the bruins won the first two games, and neely scored three goals in them. then ulf hits him low and the pens win four straight to take the series.

in those playoff runs -- on boston teams that didn't have a whole lot of depth and whose top end talent was just him and bourque -- neely was absolutely a superstar, he absolutely towered over anything gartner or ciccarelli ever did, and he was absolutely one of the best players in the world.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Oates was already the premier passer in the game not named Gretzky by the time he got to Boston. He didn't need Neely for anything as he already was turning guys into goal per game players. The difference between him in St. Louis vs. him in Boston is negligible. Nice try.

He also ended the 1990s as the highest scoring player not named Gretzky.

Oates had his best season with Neely on the bench. He could do it with anyone and he was far more important to Hull and Neely than they were to him. [/quote]

King Sir Adam Oates

Again, the goal scoring per game average is nice and all but he doesn't have the totals. Moreover, that average is helped dramatically by Oates (not the other way around as you're trying to suggest) and who the heck cares about 1000 penalty minutes? Him fighting Stu Grimson is a testament to his heart and fighting ability but it doesn't really help me win games. I'd much rather have a guy like Iginla who fights when it makes sense to. That way I don't lose my best right winger for half the game due to him being in the box all the time.

Neely would fight anyone, that's good and bad. But he'd also take stupid penalties and could be goaded into this by agitators. The 1000 penalty minutes doesn't mean a whole lot man.

Now I know you didn't watch him play. Maybe highlights and the B's Habs games.

He had character, was fearless and a great hitter. I'm not saying he didn't have HOF talent, I'm saying he didn't have a HOF career.

Many disagree with this point than agree with you.

There has to be some kind of standard of fairness and consistency here. Otherwise your decisions are called into question. Take some things into consideration here.

1. Eras are different. The 80s were high flying, today's game isn't.
2. 500 goals or 1000 assists may apply for one era and not another.
3. Even if you hit the minimums, that doesn't mean you automatically make it. It means that you should at least be considered.
4. If you don't have those minimums, you had better have been ridiculously dominant (best player in the league) for a few seasons.

I certainly don't think 1000 points alone should get you in (see Bernie Federko and Bernie Nichols) but I think that if you haven't hit this threshold then you probably shouldn't be there as a forward of the 80s unless you have 500 goals or more awards behind you. To get in with less than 400 goals and 700 points just shouldn't happen.

Stats Stats Stats, the NHL is not a PS3 game.

How much better is Neely than Ciccarelli? Stat wise, both have pretty similar numbers until Adam Oates shows up.

And again, this proves you didn't watch Neely. You keep ignoring Cam's best years were already behind him by the time OT showed up in Boston. I guess Neely just had his stick on the ice and we should be crediting OT for Cam's goals.

Neely was tougher and a better hitter, but Ciccarelli wasn't a shrinking violet. He's really not that far off Neely at all. You're romanticizing Neely if you're saying otherwise. And Ciccarelli did it for years and racked up almost double the points and goals that Neely did.

Yes, he's a better choice for sure.

You really didn't watch Neely play if you think this to be true.

Gartner's got 5 48 goal+ seasons and 6 45 goal plus seasons. He's got over 700 goals and never scored less than 30 for something crazy like 15 years. No he wasn't physical nor was he super dominant but there's no way he doesn't make it in, he was just too good for too long. I don't think too many people question him. And he has more goals than Neely has points... there's shouldn't be any debate on that one.

As for Cicarelli vs. Neely:

Neely's got 3 50 goal seasons. He's got one forty goal season. He's got less than 400 goals. Ciccarelli has two 50 goal seasons (and two 100 point seasons). He's got five seasons of 40 or more and again, has almost as many goals as Neely has points.

Was he as good a hitter or fighter as Neely? No. But he wasn't so far off that Neely towers over him. The goals aren't that far apart and Ciccarelli is a better playmaker. Neely's a lot closer to Ciccarelli than he is to a guy like Lindros. You're talking like Neely was the best player in the game and he was never close. If Cicarelli didn't make it I don't think anyone would've lost any sleep over it but at least he's got some totals behind him that make him worth considering.

One guy has over 700 goals, the doesn't manage 700 points. It's not close.

Neither one screams superstar but Gartner has double Neely's numbers.

Neely might have gone onto great heights but he just wasn't healthy enough.

Stats Stats Stats instead of the big picture.

 

[BamBamCam*]

With all due respect, I don't think you can look at this objectively. It's obvious that you're a passionate fan of the guy. You're upset with me for posting this stuff and I wish you wouldn't take it so personally. I ignored your last post because I know you're upset.

I am taking a look at the bigger picture and I've been more than fair. I don't hate Neely. Even with him being a power forward and factoring in all of your arguments, I don't think he should be there.

The fact that he's in there though is not an indictment on Neely himself, it's on the HOF and how they make their decisions.

Sorry my friend I don't take internet banter to heart nor get upset about it, you have a two trick pony going in your arguments; stats and Adam Oates. You have tried 1000 times to say the same thing over and over in different ways but I am not buying it.

Sorry for pointing out in simplistic terms you entire argument in two words: Oates - Stats.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Sorry my friend I don't take internet banter to heart nor get upset about it, you have a two trick pony going in your arguments; stats and Adam Oates. You have tried 1000 times to say the same thing over and over in different ways but I am not buying it.

I got to see a lot of Neely. He was a great player. As I said, I don't dispute the guy had HOF talent.

Sorry for pointing out in simplistic terms you entire argument in two words: Oates - Stats.

So we should just ignore stats altogether then? Sorry man, but if you do this then the HOF has no meaning.

Yes, he hit and he fought. He was multidimensional but his career was so short that he wasn't really able to get any kind of reasonable totals. He's so far behind the average HOFer that he sticks out like a sore thumb. I'm sorry that you're upset and angry (I'm just going to ignore your XBox remarks) but Neely is one of the weakest inductions ever and I'm not alone in believing this. His name always comes up whenever questionable guys are left out. The HOF would've been better off just leaving him out and saved themselves some credibility.

Neely was a great player with tons of heart and Bruins fans love him passionately. That's what jersey retirements are for.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Wait what?
Why is Oates getting all this credit for Neely exactly???
They only played together for Neely's last 4 years.
Neely had two 50 goal seasons, one 40 goal season and two 30 goal seasons before Oates even came to Boston.

Neely only averaged 38 games a season during the 4 years they played together.

Scoring with Boston 4 seasons before Oates, 152 goals in 228 games .67 GpG
Scoring with Boston 4 seasons after Oates, 114 goals in 153 games .75 GpG

Not exactly a huge markup there. Clearly Neely was already a damned good goal scorer before Oates arrived.
Far too much credit going to Oates here me thinks.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Wait what?
Why is Oates getting all this credit for Neely exactly???
They only played together for Neely's last 4 years.
Neely had two 50 goal seasons, one 40 goal season and two 30 goal seasons before Oates even came to Boston.

Neely only averaged 38 games a season during the 4 years they played together.

Scoring with Boston 4 seasons before Oates, 152 goals in 228 games .67 GpG
Scoring with Boston 4 seasons after Oates, 114 goals in 153 games .75 GpG

Not exactly a huge markup there. Clearly Neely was already a damned good goal scorer before Oates arrived.

Was all down to Hall of Fame shoo-in Craig Janney before Oates got there.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Was all down to Hall of Fame shoo-in Craig Janney before Oates got there.

You forgot the

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Wait what?
Why is Oates getting all this credit for Neely exactly???

Thanks for asking.

The reason why Oates comes up so often in this thread is because people keep pointing to Neely's goal per game pace when comparing him to other players. Neely doesn't have the totals to match up so his defenders go this route.

He's a good goalscorer before Oates shows up. But Oates turns him into almost a goal per game player. He scores something like 125 goals in the next 150 games with Oates as his center. Obviously, that has a lot to do with the goal per game pace that folks keep referring to.