Why did Cam Neely make it and Lindros not?

[BamBamCam*]

Only ten players in NHL history scored a better goals per game average over their career than Neely.

Bossy
Lemieux
Bure
Gretzky
Bret Hull
Bobby Hull
Kerr
Martin
Esposito
Rocket Richard
Neely

Not bad for a 13 year career of which 9 of those years were without a certain someone.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Only ten players in NHL history scored a better goals per game average over their career than Neely.

Bossy
Lemieux
Bure
Gretzky
Bret Hull
Bobby Hull
Kerr
Martin
Esposito
Rocket Richard
Neely

Not bad for a 13 year career of which 9 of those years were without a certain someone.

...and only one player has scored 50 goals in a shorter time, some guy that wore #99 or some such

 

[dafoomie]

Only ten players in NHL history scored a better goals per game average over their career than Neely.

Bossy
Lemieux
Bure
Gretzky
Bret Hull
Bobby Hull
Kerr
Martin
Esposito
Rocket Richard
Neely

Not bad for a 13 year career of which 9 of those years were without a certain someone.

And thats with those 3 years in Vancouver where he didn't play that much, pretty impressive.

 

[BamBamCam*]

And thats with those 3 years in Vancouver where he didn't play that much, pretty impressive.

It does and it makes me think about Martin more. That Sabres team was deadly. I think the Hall needs to rethink Martin and the French Connection line.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Can you guys cherrypick a stat more than coming up with 'goals per game?' Neely wasn't a good playmaker, he was injured ofte, and he played mostly in the highest scoring era ever.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Can you guys cherrypick a stat more than coming up with 'goals per game?' Neely wasn't a good playmaker, he was injured ofte, and he played mostly in the highest scoring era ever.

So, I guess we need to put Wayne's and Mario's stats into question also since they played in that era too.

Did you watch Neely play or just reading a stat sheet?

 

[revolverjgw]

So, I guess we need to put Wayne's and Mario's stats into question also since they played in that era too.

Did you watch Neely play or just reading a stat sheet?

Except Mario and Wayne lapped the competition in that era and carried over elite play into the dead-puck era, nobody doubts their statistical dominance.

TheDevilMadeMe makes a good point... since we're looking at things like "goals-per-game", why not look at points-per-game, or assists? Neely doesn't fare too well there for a HOFer. He had one freakish spike playing with Oates where he had an awesome PPG, but other than that was never close to being one of the elite ALL-AROUND scorers (factoring in things like playmaking) of his era. Had no impact on the scoring races and had a top 10 PPG twice, very weak for a HOFer.

Of course there's other things to consider, like physicality, defense, etc, but if you're going to be cherry-picking stats like goals-per-game to prove a point, expect other people that don't agree with you to present their own statistical counter-points.

 

[Prophecy35]

I'm not sure if this is correct, but I found a formula for pnep's HHOF monitor, and calculated it for some players. Here are the results:

Neely - 823.5
Gartner - 741
Ciccarelli - 719.5
Oates - 1343
Anderson - 1077.5
Kerr - 582
Martin - 852

If this is right, it is not "concrete" by any means, but it does show some evidence that Neely is above Gartner and Ciccarelli, far above Kerr, fairly equal with Martin, and far behind both Anderson and Oates.

Neely seems to trump his RW peers, except for Anderson. However, cup wins are valued highly in the formula, and that explains most of Anderson's lead. Once cup wins are removed, he is below Neely. I'm not here to pick and choose what numbers to use, so it's only fair that Anderson get credit for those wins.

As shown, Oates is in a league of his own compared to the others, and that is not surprising to me. He should be in the hall.

As for Martin, he played as a LW, if I am not mistaken. LW, historically, is the weakest forward position, and Martin's totals are "inflated" due to his 2 First, and 2 Second team all-star berths. He had competition, but not as much as he would if he were a RW. However, once again, I have to stick to the formula, so Martin is ahead of Neely, but it is quite close.

In conclusion, this shows some interesting numbers for anyone interested in the statistical element of grading a player's career. This is by no means concrete proof, so don't twist it to make it seem like I am treating this like they are indisputable facts.

Neely doesn't look out of place after seeing these numbers. I will not say he is a "strong" induction into the hall, however, I believe he falls in the middle, maybe lower-middle of the pack. That is not a slight against him as a player, because he deserved to have a better fate, due to his great talent, but injuries derailed that.

 

[lextune]

And thats with those 3 years in Vancouver where he didn't play that much, pretty impressive.

''I got more ice time in that game than I did my third year in the N.H.L.''

-Cam Neely after playing nearly 60 minutes in the triple overtime game one of the 1990 Stanley Cup Final

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/17/s...ber-at-boston-garden.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

 

[seventieslord]

I'm not sure if this is correct, but I found a formula for pnep's HHOF monitor, and calculated it for some players. Here are the results:

Neely - 823.5
Gartner - 741
Ciccarelli - 719.5
Oates - 1343
Anderson - 1077.5
Kerr - 582
Martin - 852

If this is right, it is not "concrete" by any means, but it does show some evidence that Neely is above Gartner and Ciccarelli, far above Kerr, fairly equal with Martin, and far behind both Anderson and Oates.

Neely seems to trump his RW peers, except for Anderson. However, cup wins are valued highly in the formula, and that explains most of Anderson's lead. Once cup wins are removed, he is below Neely. I'm not here to pick and choose what numbers to use, so it's only fair that Anderson get credit for those wins.

As shown, Oates is in a league of his own compared to the others, and that is not surprising to me. He should be in the hall.

As for Martin, he played as a LW, if I am not mistaken. LW, historically, is the weakest forward position, and Martin's totals are "inflated" due to his 2 First, and 2 Second team all-star berths. He had competition, but not as much as he would if he were a RW. However, once again, I have to stick to the formula, so Martin is ahead of Neely, but it is quite close.

In conclusion, this shows some interesting numbers for anyone interested in the statistical element of grading a player's career. This is by no means concrete proof, so don't twist it to make it seem like I am treating this like they are indisputable facts.

Neely doesn't look out of place after seeing these numbers. I will not say he is a "strong" induction into the hall, however, I believe he falls in the middle, maybe lower-middle of the pack. That is not a slight against him as a player, because he deserved to have a better fate, due to his great talent, but injuries derailed that.

based on what I have seen of pnep's HHOF monitor, the HHOF benchmark is roughly 1000. Players over 1000 who aren't in, probably should be, and players under 1000 who are in, probably shouldn't be.

Generally speaking. And with some overlap involved, obsiously.

 

[Andrew Knoll]

I'd vote for either of them, Neely was a prototype with explosive production at his best/healthiest and Lindros was dominant for a good stretch. Neither guy is close to first-ballot but the exclusion of either seems unreasonable.

 

[dafoomie]

Can you guys cherrypick a stat more than coming up with 'goals per game?' Neely wasn't a good playmaker, he was injured ofte, and he played mostly in the highest scoring era ever.

He missed about 10-12 games a year because of the way he played the game, but all that time he missed after 1991 was because of one single cheapshot that altered and shortened his career.

Neely was a pretty good playmaker, not elite, but not bad. He had a fairly well rounded offensive game before the injury, he was good defensively, and he was one of the most physical skilled players of all time. Tell me, who is the goal scorer that Neely was going to pass to and get his assists from? Thomas Gradin? Steve Kasper? Keith Crowder? Craig Janney? Bob Joyce? The best goal scorer he ever played with was Adam Oates.

What does it matter what era he played in when he was one of the elite players at his position?

People keep bringing up goals per game and 50 in 44 because all his detractors want to talk about are stats. Then when the stat doesn't suit them they dismiss it out of hand.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Can you guys cherrypick a stat more than coming up with 'goals per game?' Neely wasn't a good playmaker, he was injured ofte, and he played mostly in the highest scoring era ever.

Exactly, this is what happens when people don't put stats in context or do not look at the whole picture and cherry pick.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

For a player of Neely's type goals per game is a perfectly legitimate stat, we all know he was primarily a goalscorer and well that kind of is the whole point of playing hockey as well. I don't know why you'd try to downplay it.

I think a "per game" stat is more valuable than a totals stat as long as we are dealing with a reasonable sample size.

 

[Hardyvan123]

He missed about 10-12 games a year because of the way he played the game, but all that time he missed after 1991 was because of one single cheapshot that altered and shortened his career.

Neely was a pretty good playmaker, not elite, but not bad. He had a fairly well rounded offensive game before the injury, he was good defensively, and he was one of the most physical skilled players of all time. Tell me, who is the goal scorer that Neely was going to pass to and get his assists from? Thomas Gradin? Steve Kasper? Keith Crowder? Craig Janney? Bob Joyce? The best goal scorer he ever played with was Adam Oates.

What does it matter what era he played in when he was one of the elite players at his position?

People keep bringing up goals per game and 50 in 44 because all his detractors want to talk about are stats. Then when the stat doesn't suit them they dismiss it out of hand.

Neely was a great goal scorer and the 50 in 94 was his best season but everything needs to be put into context. Oates elevated the goal scoring of two of the best in his era, Neely and Hull, to overlook that is what is really criminal here (and at the hall).

Neely was a power sniper but hardly had the best rounded game in the world and had a short career and wasn't a top 10 player for long enough to be in my Hall.

If he had been one of the top 3 in the world for a while it would be one thing but it's arguable that he was in the lower part of the top 10 even as much as 2 times.

there is no doubt that had he stayed healthy this would not even be a debate but we need to judge him in his context and what he did and exactly what kind of player he was.

Since he got in, many other players have a huge grievance that they are not in as well IMO.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Neely was a great goal scorer and the 50 in 94 was his best season but everything needs to be put into context. Oates elevated the goal scoring of two of the best in his era, Neely and Hull, to overlook that is what is really criminal here (and at the hall).

Neely was a power sniper but hardly had the best rounded game in the world and had a short career and wasn't a top 10 player for long enough to be in my Hall.

If he had been one of the top 3 in the world for a while it would be one thing but it's arguable that he was in the lower part of the top 10 even as much as 2 times.

there is no doubt that had he stayed healthy this would not even be a debate but we need to judge him in his context and what he did and exactly what kind of player he was.

Since he got in, many other players have a huge grievance that they are not in as well IMO.

If you think 1994 was his best year, you didn't see him play. In 1994 he was a shell of his former self playing on one leg and was a healthy scratch every other game to keep him ready for the playoff. Neely's best years and where he made a name for himself was 1986 to 1991 all years before Oates got there.

 

[lextune]

Neely was a great goal scorer and the 50 in 94 was his best season

More of this nonsense, lol.

Cam was a shadow of himself that year.

No opinion you have about Neely can be taken seriously after such a statement. And it is 100% proof that you didn't see Cam play in his prime, ('87 - '91).

 

[Hardyvan123]

Okay, statistically speaking it was his best goal scoring season.

Both his goal rate and point rate were around .25 higher than at anytime in his career (taking out the 9 and 13 game seasons)

Obviously missing 30 plus games does not make his most complete season but the point still stands that his GPG rate was drastically higher with the premier passer in Oates rather than the pretty good passer in Janney.

Even in Neely's best season of 92 he wasn't one of the best 5 players in the world and was only in the argument for being somewhere in the 6-10ish range.

That wouldn't matter as much if his peak and or career were longer but it wasn't.

 

[Epsilon]

My problem with Neely in the HOF is that so much of the argument for him is based on PPG stats, trivia (50 in 44), and sentimentality/anecdotes ("played the game the right way!" "powerforward!" "scouts look for the next Neely!"). His HOF case in terms of peak/prime/career accomplishments just doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny on its own when all the window-dressing is removed. Joe Nieuwendyk, who (as much as many of us don't want to believe it) will unfortunately be inducted soon, is a similar case but more from the compiler end of things than the peak end - his HOF case is also built around trivia answers ("3 cups with 3 different teams!") and fluff ("played the game the right way!").

That being said, Neely isn't the worst inductee among modern (say post-war) players, and might not even be in the worst 10. He wouldn't be in my HOF but with the standards of the current one he certainly doesn't stick out like a sore thumb or anything.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

He missed about 10-12 games a year because of the way he played the game, but all that time he missed after 1991 was because of one single cheapshot that altered and shortened his career.

Neely was a pretty good playmaker, not elite, but not bad. He had a fairly well rounded offensive game before the injury, he was good defensively, and he was one of the most physical skilled players of all time. Tell me, who is the goal scorer that Neely was going to pass to and get his assists from? Thomas Gradin? Steve Kasper? Keith Crowder? Craig Janney? Bob Joyce? The best goal scorer he ever played with was Adam Oates.

What does it matter what era he played in when he was one of the elite players at his position?

When you throw around goals per game and don't factor in the era he played in the numbers are going to be out of whack... Of course the era is relevant.

You're also ignoring the fact that many snipers (like Ciccarelli) play until they're 40 or close to it. Neely's gpg stats are going to look a lot better than some of those guys because their ratio stats fall as they get older. So their gpg stats aren't quite as good, but their totals blow Neely's out of the water. Again though, his supporters don't want to look at totals... at all.

People keep bringing up goals per game and 50 in 44 because all his detractors want to talk about are stats. Then when the stat doesn't suit them they dismiss it out of hand.

I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand and nobody here has done this. We've said many times that he had HOF talent.

The problem is that he didn't accomplish enough in his career to seriously be inducted. There's just not enough there. Yes, he was great when he played, so was Tim Kerr (please let's not get into a Kerr vs. Neely discussion again) but he didn't play enough either.

Heck, I don't think Lindros should be in and he's much better than Neely was.

For a player of Neely's type goals per game is a perfectly legitimate stat, we all know he was primarily a goalscorer and well that kind of is the whole point of playing hockey as well. I don't know why you'd try to downplay it.

I think a "per game" stat is more valuable than a totals stat as long as we are dealing with a reasonable sample size.

Sure it should be considered. But it has to be put in context. You can't say that the eras between say Bobby Hull and a player in the 80s is going to be the same.

And at the end of the day, even if you do have great goal per game stats you need to have totals to go along with it. Neely's point per game and goal per game average isn't enough to offset this, esp when you consider that he has no major awards behind him of any kind.

Neely was a great goal scorer and the 50 in 94 was his best season but everything needs to be put into context. Oates elevated the goal scoring of two of the best in his era, Neely and Hull, to overlook that is what is really criminal here (and at the hall).

Neely was a power sniper but hardly had the best rounded game in the world and had a short career and wasn't a top 10 player for long enough to be in my Hall.

If he had been one of the top 3 in the world for a while it would be one thing but it's arguable that he was in the lower part of the top 10 even as much as 2 times.

there is no doubt that had he stayed healthy this would not even be a debate but we need to judge him in his context and what he did and exactly what kind of player he was.

Since he got in, many other players have a huge grievance that they are not in as well IMO.

His supporters say to 'look at the big picture' but they don't seem to want to do that themselves.

Yes, he did more than score. Yes he hit and had heart. Yes he would fight...

At the end of the day though, his career is so short and his totals so low that he really shouldn't be considered a HOFer. So his supporters ignore this completely and talk about goals per game and his 50 in 50. We're not supposed to talk about Oates' impact on that season though...

If you look at the big picture, you see a guy with talent who could've been a perpetual 40-50 goal scorer or better. You also see a player who was hurt so often that he was never really able to accomplish much. He was loved though and his career ends with unfortunate circumstances so the HOF lets him in for political reasons. He doesn't make it on merit.

My problem with Neely in the HOF is that so much of the argument for him is based on PPG stats, trivia (50 in 44), and sentimentality/anecdotes ("played the game the right way!" "powerforward!" "scouts look for the next Neely!"). His HOF case in terms of peak/prime/career accomplishments just doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny on its own when all the window-dressing is removed. Joe Nieuwendyk, who (as much as many of us don't want to believe it) will unfortunately be inducted soon, is a similar case but more from the compiler end of things than the peak end - his HOF case is also built around trivia answers ("3 cups with 3 different teams!") and fluff ("played the game the right way!").

Don't forget "He was the first power forward ever..."

That being said, Neely isn't the worst inductee among modern (say post-war) players, and might not even be in the worst 10. He wouldn't be in my HOF but with the standards of the current one he certainly doesn't stick out like a sore thumb or anything.

I think he does. Certainly when you compare him with his totals vs. those of his contemporaries its a terrible selection. And again, he's not a Lindros type guy who can claim he was the best in the league... Even removing 99 and 66, Neely is never close.

Okay, statistically speaking it was his best goal scoring season.

Both his goal rate and point rate were around .25 higher than at anytime in his career (taking out the 9 and 13 game seasons)

Obviously missing 30 plus games does not make his most complete season but the point still stands that his GPG rate was drastically higher with the premier passer in Oates rather than the pretty good passer in Janney.

Even in Neely's best season of 92 he wasn't one of the best 5 players in the world and was only in the argument for being somewhere in the 6-10ish range.

That wouldn't matter as much if his peak and or career were longer but it wasn't.

Exactly.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

If you look at the big picture, you see a guy with talent who could've been a perpetual 40-50 goal scorer or better. You also see a player who was hurt so often that he was never really able to accomplish much. He was loved though and his career ends with unfortunate circumstances so the HOF lets him in for political reasons. He doesn't make it on merit.

if cam neely didn't accomplish "much," then gartner and ciccarelli never accomplished anything at all.

but i really shouldn't belabor the point. i've said it multiple times, you've said yours multiple times. and this will be my last one: i think legendary playoff runs and being one of the most dominant and unique players in the league at your peak are major accomplishments. you think being ninth or tenth in goals a few times, and finishing in the top 30 a million years in a row are major accomplishments.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

if cam neely didn't accomplish "much," then gartner and ciccarelli never accomplished anything at all.

but i really shouldn't belabor the point. i've said it multiple times, you've said yours multiple times. and this will be my last one: i think legendary playoff runs and being one of the most dominant and unique players in the league at your peak are major accomplishments. you think being ninth or tenth in goals a few times, and finishing in the top 30 a million years in a row are major accomplishments.

Really? In his prime Gartner was almost as good a goalscorer as Neely before Oates, he even accomplished more in his prime let alone his entire career, but he was a better playmaker as well. He had 30+ goals for 17 years. Only Jagr has done that. Different era's I know, the same can be said for Cam but the fact is Gartner in his prime was better than given credit for and his longevity is unmatched by 97% of players NHL history. Most players don't perform at a consistent level for more than 7 or 8 years.

Just checked and he's scored 45+ 5 times, 40+ 8 times, with the amount of stock people put into 50 goal seasons and long productive healthy careers how can anyone not see he's basically a lock? He also has a 100 point season, none for Neely. His playoff record doesn't appear to be terrible either. Some good runs some bad ones.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

if cam neely didn't accomplish "much," then gartner and ciccarelli never accomplished anything at all.

but i really shouldn't belabor the point. i've said it multiple times, you've said yours multiple times. and this will be my last one: i think legendary playoff runs and being one of the most dominant and unique players in the league at your peak are major accomplishments. you think being ninth or tenth in goals a few times, and finishing in the top 30 a million years in a row are major accomplishments.

If your peak consists of playing every other season or every other game because your knee is shot it has to factor into things here.

Please don't misunderstand me here. I think that Neely was a cut above Ciccarelli for sure. But he wasn't so much better that his less than 400 goals should count for Dino's more than 600. Dino was no bum and he was pretty physical himself. You want to keep Dino out? Okay, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that Neely should get in. Neely wasn't unique either. He wasn't even the best power forward of his day, that would go to Messier.

And there's no way Neely's a better candidate than Gartner who has more goals than Neely has points.

Totals matter too and Neely just plain wasn't healthy enough to get them.

 

[lextune]

Really? In his prime Gartner was almost as good a goalscorer as Neely before Oates, he even accomplished more in his prime let alone his entire career, but he was a better playmaker as well. He had 30+ goals for 17 years. Only Jagr has done that. Different era's I know, the same can be said for Cam but the fact is Gartner in his prime was better than given credit for and his longevity is unmatched by 97% of players NHL history. Most players don't perform at a consistent level for more than 7 or 8 years.

Just checked and he's scored 45+ 5 times, 40+ 8 times, with the amount of stock people put into 50 goal seasons and long productive healthy careers how can anyone not see he's basically a lock? He also has a 100 point season, none for Neely. His playoff record doesn't appear to be terrible either. Some good runs some bad ones.

....which brings us full circle back to why it is the Hall of Fame and not the Hall of Stats.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not making a judgment call on who is more HHOF worthy, but I'd say that close to 100% of people who watched them would take neely's prime over any equal lengthed stretch of gartner or Dino.