Why did Cam Neely make it and Lindros not?

[canucks4ever]

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

Yeah but realistically players like Owen Nolan and Rick Tocchet brought grit and pyshicality to thier games too, i don't see them making the hall of fame. Nolan's 2000 and Bertuzzi's 2002-2003 stretch are probably better than any of neely's seasons.

 

[lextune]

Yeah but realistically players like Owen Nolan and Rick Tocchet brought grit and pyshicality to thier games too, i don't see them making the hall of fame. Nolan's 2000 and Bertuzzi's 2002-2003 stretch are probably better than any of neely's seasons.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying you think Nolan and Tocchet were as famous as Neely?

 

[dafoomie]

Yeah but realistically players like Owen Nolan and Rick Tocchet brought grit and pyshicality to thier games too, i don't see them making the hall of fame. Nolan's 2000 and Bertuzzi's 2002-2003 stretch are probably better than any of neely's seasons.

Are you serious?

 

[dafoomie]

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.

Its not relevant when you're comparing him to his peers and not players from different eras. Ciccarelli, Gartner, Anderson, Kurri, they came out of the same era.

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.

Its a good point, guys that hung around way too long are going to reduce their per game stats but Neely was pretty cooked himself in his last 2 seasons. And you're right, I don't want to look at totals, I'm not interested in totals because the player I'm looking at had a career shortened by one cheapshot. Not his fault. That said, we need to be comparing his prime vs the prime's of the others if we're going to do that, his career averages vs those of others aren't as relevant for the reasons you stated.

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.

I think there are two ways to get in if you're not Gretzky or Lemieux. Have a great career even if you weren't always an elite player, playing at a pretty high level for a long time is notable. But I think being a dominant player for a shorter period of time is enough. I do think Lindros should be in based on what he did before the concussions. Without even speculating on what could've been, the both of them played at a high enough level before injury and accomplished enough in that time to prove they were among the best of their era.

Totals just aren't that important for people with short careers. Even with a few more mediocre seasons, Neely hits 500 goals. He didn't retire because he was ineffective (due to injury or not, even though the injury dramatically reduced what he could do), he had to retire because his hip muscle turned into bone.

 

[JT Dutch*]

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.

... To make a case for someone like Cam Neely as a deserving member of the Hall, one HAS to cherrypick stats or use nebulous phrases like "well career stats don't matter, it's the Hall of FAME and Neely was FAMOUS" otherwise their case looks just as ridiculous as it should look.

For instance, how could someone say that Neely is more deserving of the Hall than Theoren Fleury? Fleury scored over a point per game throughout his career, Neely didn't. Fleury won a Cup, Neely didn't. Fleury scored 400 more points than Neely did. Fleury was just as gritty, if not more so. Fleury had more to overcome, with his size and the adversity in his early life. Fleury was just as famous in the Campbell/Western conference as Neely was in the Wales/Eastern conference. Fleury had two 100+ point seasons, Neely had zero. Fleury was more versatile, and was used to kill penalties - which is why he had 35 short-handed goals in his career to Neely's 1.

Now, I wouldn't put Fleury in the Hall, but it just goes to show how Pejorative Slured it was to put Neely in, when Fleury is more qualified.

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

... Quoting this because I pointed it out earlier in the thread and I'm absolutely shocked that people are dim enough to not understand the significance of it. Gartner's career absolutely towers over Neely's; there shouldn't even be a debate there.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Hasn't literally every argument in this thread been argued now about 5 times?

The reality of the situation is Cam Neely is in the Hall and I highly doubt Howe and Espo (especially not Espo) meant Neely when they talked about undeserving HOF players. They were almost certainly talking about some of the guys they played against who they feel weren't all that good but who rode the coattails of some dynasties.

 

[JT Dutch*]

... And, to address one other thing: the four second team All-Stars that Neely has at RW. The impact of this gets diminished in my mind, simply because the same yahoos who put Neely into the Hall of Fame were the people who were making him second team All-Star so often.

There’s no question Neely deserved the second team All-Star in 1993-94, so that’s one. But, let’s look at the other three.

In 1990-91, it looks to me like the award was given to the wrong man:

Theoren Fleury ... 51 goals, 104 points, +48, 35 EV goals, 7 SH goals, 136 PIM, 1.32 PPG, led Flames in scoring
Cam Neely ... 51 goals, 91 points, +26, 32 EV goals, 1 SH goal, 98 PIM, 1.32 PPG, 2nd on Bruins in scoring

In 1989-90, did Neely have a better season than Tocchet or Richer?:

Rick Tocchet ... 37 goals, 96 points, +4, 21 EV goals, 1 SH goal, 196 PIM, 1.28 PPG, led Flyers in scoring by 21 points
Stephane Richer ... 51 goals, 91 points, +35, 42 EV goals, 0 SH goals, 46 PIM, 1.21 PPG, led Habs in scoring by 16 points
Cam Neely ... 55 goals, 92 points, +10, 30 EV goals, 0 SH goals, 117 PIM, 1.21 PPG, led Bruins in scoring by 8 points

In 1987-88, again, it appears that two RWs were as impressive as Neely was, if not more so:

Jari Kurri ... 43 goals, 96 points, +25, 30 EV goals, 3 SH goals, 30 PIM, 1.20 PPG, 3rd on Oilers in scoring
Stephane Richer ... 50 goals, 78 points, +12, 34 EV goals, 0 SH goals, 72 PIM, 1.08 PPG, 3rd on Habs in scoring
Cam Neely ... 42 goals, 69 points, +30, 31 EV goals, 0 SH goals, 175 PIM, 1.00 PPG, 4th on Bruins in scoring

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

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.

Neely's prime is so short and sporadic though... that was always his problem. Wendel Clark had HOF talent too, he was a great player but could never stay healthy enough to prove it.

Its not relevant when you're comparing him to his peers and not players from different eras. Ciccarelli, Gartner, Anderson, Kurri, they came out of the same era.

Sure, but the person making that point put names like Richard, Espo and Bobby Hull in that comparison.

And again, his contemporaries played much longer. That's going to affect the goal per game number too. You want apples to apples Neely vs Kurri (as per your example?) Go back and look at what Kurri did up until he was 30 (when Neely retired) the numbers are going to look different. As for Ciccarelli, his gpg isn't actually that far off and points per game are much better. He also has much better totals.

That's why you should look at a player's career as a whole and it's why a guy with less than 400 goals or 1000 points should never make it in if he was a forward playing in the 1980s.

Its a good point, guys that hung around way too long are going to reduce their per game stats but Neely was pretty cooked himself in his last 2 seasons. And you're right, I don't want to look at totals, I'm not interested in totals because the player I'm looking at had a career shortened by one cheapshot. Not his fault. That said, we need to be comparing his prime vs the prime's of the others if we're going to do that, his career averages vs those of others aren't as relevant for the reasons you stated.

You're right, not his fault. HOF talent? Sure. And believe me, I feel bad for the guy. I don't like seeing anyone's career end that way.

But it's unfair to let him in under those circumstances and deny guys like Tim Kerr. If we're only looking at how good they were over a couple of years then Kerr belongs there too no doubt in my mind.

But neither of them have near the totals that they should for inclusion. And if it's just HOF talent that you need for induction then that opens the door to guys like Wendel Clark. That's why you need to factor in totals. The whole point of the HOF is to look at the totality of somebody's career. Longevity has to play some role or else Pelle Lindbergh gets in.

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.

That's really where you and I differ. I suspect though that your love of Neely (and this is not a personal attack by any stretch) has something to do with this. If you reversed Kerr and Neely's teams though, you'd probably argue the other way.

At the end of the day, I'm for consistency. Neely's career really isn't in line with what a HOF player should be. The HOF has made mistakes before (Shutt, Gillies) but I think those were based on them being key part of dynasty teams. With Neely, it's pretty blatant that this was a political move. Esp when you look at who they passed over to let him in.

I think there are two ways to get in if you're not Gretzky or Lemieux. Have a great career even if you weren't always an elite player, playing at a pretty high level for a long time is notable. But I think being a dominant player for a shorter period of time is enough. I do think Lindros should be in based on what he did before the concussions. Without even speculating on what could've been, the both of them played at a high enough level before injury and accomplished enough in that time to prove they were among the best of their era.

Can you name another player who's in who was dominant for as short a period of time as Neely was vs his contemporaries? And remember, Neely wasn't an MVP type player either. Lindros is the only guy coming up who kind of fits into that mode and he was far more dominant and played longer. You're really stretching it when you include Neely.

The only guys I can think of (without looking it up) are Dryden and Orr. And those guys won everything under the sun. You have to be really special to do this and Neely just isn't there.

Totals just aren't that important for people with short careers. Even with a few more mediocre seasons, Neely hits 500 goals. He didn't retire because he was ineffective (due to injury or not, even though the injury dramatically reduced what he could do), he had to retire because his hip muscle turned into bone.

Totals are important no matter what. If you're career was that short you shouldn't get in. It doesn't happen in baseball and it shouldn't happen in hockey.

Hasn't literally every argument in this thread been argued now about 5 times?

We're still finding new ones.

The reality of the situation is Cam Neely is in the Hall and I highly doubt Howe and Espo (especially not Espo) meant Neely when they talked about undeserving HOF players. They were almost certainly talking about some of the guys they played against who they feel weren't all that good but who rode the coattails of some dynasties.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Howe esp knows the value of a long career. I'm sure there are a lot of guys who are wondering why Neely is in there. Nobody is going to say it publicly though.

... And, to address one other thing: the four second team All-Stars that Neely has at RW. The impact of this gets diminished in my mind, simply because the same yahoos who put Neely into the Hall of Fame were the people who were making him second team All-Star so often.

Actually I agree with you on this. There were years where he was voted 2nd team AS where I really couldn't understand it. I know folks will say 'he was more than just stats' but even still, there are some really tenuous selections there. I'm not going to argue about that though, he got the selections so he can claim them.

Interesting to see how he stacks up against Dino though. He's really not THAT much better in his prime and Dino's career lasts a lot longer. And keep in mind that even Ciccarelli is a lower tier HOFer who's questionable himself. Somebody said Neely's prime starts in '86-87 (it has to if you want to seriously consider him for the HOF with such a short career)

86-87
Neely: (75 games) 36,36 - 72
Ciccarelli: 52,51 -103

87-88
Neely: (69 games) 42, 27 - 69
Ciccarelli: (67 games) 41,45 -86

88-89
Neely (74 games) 37, 38 - 75
Ciccarelli: (76 games) 44,30 -74

89-90
Neely (76 games) 55,37 -92
Ciccarelli (76 games) 41, 38 -79

90-91
Neely (69 games) 51, 40 -91
Ciccarelli (54 games) 21, 18 - 39

That's pretty much all we can compare until
'93-94
Neely (49 games) 50, 24 -74
Ciccarelli 66(games) 28,29 -57

Cicarelli is hands down better in 86-87.
Very close from 87-89.
Neely is better in 90, 91 and 94.

Cicarelli though also has another 100 point/50 goal year as well
as 3 or 4 years that aren't far off from Neely's prime.

Then both guys drop off due to age, injuries

Neely's got three 50 goal seasons
Dino has two

Neely's got 1 additional season of 40+
Dino has 5.

Neely has 0 100 point seasons
Dino has 2.

Neely has more all-star team births 4 (all 2nd team.)
Dino has 0.

I think most would agree that Neely at his best is better than Dino at his best. But at the end of the day, it's not the massive difference that folks imagine it to be. And Dino has over 600 goals and almost double Neely's assists.

I know folks would say that Neely would've scored more if he was healthy and that's true. But Dino could say the same thing as his career (and goal per game season) was derailed with an injury as well. The difference is that he managed to stay a good player for a long time.

 

[Sens Rule]

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.

Neely is in for being a MONSTER in the playoffs more than anything else in my opinion. He might not have won a cup, but he was unbelievable in the playoffs, that is not sentimentality it is fact. Neely WAS THAT GOOD that scouts are looking for the next Neely still. That is also not fluff, it is actually true.

If you really think Neely is in because of fluff, sentimentality and trivia you are missing the point that the voters are hockey players, coaches and GMs for the most part. They competed AGAINST him in some capacity. He is in despite the fact he had a shirt career not because of it. He straight out was one of the toughest guys to play against in the NHL. And he was at his best when it mattered most. That is not trivia it is reality and the reason he is so famous and revered. Not because he is TRIVIA answer.

 

[Sens Rule]

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.

Neely DOMINATED playoff series. Gartner was never even close to that kind of player. He was a consistent scorer. And a good playmaker. Any team with him as their best player was going not where. Neely was far, far, far more of a difference maker than Gartner ever was. Peak for peak Neely is as much better than Gartner is better than Neely if you look at career value.

 

[Sens Rule]

... To make a case for someone like Cam Neely as a deserving member of the Hall, one HAS to cherrypick stats or use nebulous phrases like "well career stats don't matter, it's the Hall of FAME and Neely was FAMOUS" otherwise their case looks just as ridiculous as it should look.

For instance, how could someone say that Neely is more deserving of the Hall than Theoren Fleury? Fleury scored over a point per game throughout his career, Neely didn't. Fleury won a Cup, Neely didn't. Fleury scored 400 more points than Neely did. Fleury was just as gritty, if not more so. Fleury had more to overcome, with his size and the adversity in his early life. Fleury was just as famous in the Campbell/Western conference as Neely was in the Wales/Eastern conference. Fleury had two 100+ point seasons, Neely had zero. Fleury was more versatile, and was used to kill penalties - which is why he had 35 short-handed goals in his career to Neely's 1.

Now, I wouldn't put Fleury in the Hall, but it just goes to show how Pejorative Slured it was to put Neely in, when Fleury is more qualified.



... Quoting this because I pointed it out earlier in the thread and I'm absolutely shocked that people are dim enough to not understand the significance of it. Gartner's career absolutely towers over Neely's; there shouldn't even be a debate there.

Fleury retired after Neely, he has had less years on the ballot. I WOULD put Theo in the HHOF and I think he will eventually make it. He is that caliber of player. Another player IMO that is clearly better than Gartner in peak, more of a diffference maker.

 

[Sens Rule]

... And, to address one other thing: the four second team All-Stars that Neely has at RW. The impact of this gets diminished in my mind, simply because the same yahoos who put Neely into the Hall of Fame were the people who were making him second team All-Star so often.

There’s no question Neely deserved the second team All-Star in 1993-94, so that’s one. But, let’s look at the other three.

In 1990-91, it looks to me like the award was given to the wrong man:

Theoren Fleury ... 51 goals, 104 points, +48, 35 EV goals, 7 SH goals, 136 PIM, 1.32 PPG, led Flames in scoring
Cam Neely ... 51 goals, 91 points, +26, 32 EV goals, 1 SH goal, 98 PIM, 1.32 PPG, 2nd on Bruins in scoring

In 1989-90, did Neely have a better season than Tocchet or Richer?:

Rick Tocchet ... 37 goals, 96 points, +4, 21 EV goals, 1 SH goal, 196 PIM, 1.28 PPG, led Flyers in scoring by 21 points
Stephane Richer ... 51 goals, 91 points, +35, 42 EV goals, 0 SH goals, 46 PIM, 1.21 PPG, led Habs in scoring by 16 points
Cam Neely ... 55 goals, 92 points, +10, 30 EV goals, 0 SH goals, 117 PIM, 1.21 PPG, led Bruins in scoring by 8 points

In 1987-88, again, it appears that two RWs were as impressive as Neely was, if not more so:

Jari Kurri ... 43 goals, 96 points, +25, 30 EV goals, 3 SH goals, 30 PIM, 1.20 PPG, 3rd on Oilers in scoring
Stephane Richer ... 50 goals, 78 points, +12, 34 EV goals, 0 SH goals, 72 PIM, 1.08 PPG, 3rd on Habs in scoring
Cam Neely ... 42 goals, 69 points, +30, 31 EV goals, 0 SH goals, 175 PIM, 1.00 PPG, 4th on Bruins in scoring

You are just looking at stats. You are questioning Neely being selected over Stephane Richer when Neely even has more goals and points? Just because Richer has a better plus/minus? I mean really. A healthy physical 55 goal Neely vs Stephane Richer?

 

[dafoomie]

Once again we're entering the Neely/Kerr territory where we're comparing only goal scoring between a guy who could only score goals and another who could have a major, game changing impact on a game in other ways. I'm not even going to debate Ciccarelli because I think its that laughable.

Neely's prime is so short and sporadic though... that was always his problem. Wendel Clark had HOF talent too, he was a great player but could never stay healthy enough to prove it.

Wendel Clark deserves much admiration and respect, but he never had the elite talent that Neely did. Wendel Clark wouldn't have been able to reinvent himself as a pure sniper the way Neely did if he had to.

And again, his contemporaries played much longer. That's going to affect the goal per game number too. You want apples to apples Neely vs Kurry? Go back and look at what Kurri did up until he was 30 (when Neely retired) the numbers are going to look different.

If Neely's numbers were inflated by Oates, what did Gretzky do for Kurri? Kurri's a great player and I don't dispute that but we have to be consistent.

That's why you should look at a player's career as a whole and it's why a guy with less than 400 goals should never make it in if he was a forward playing in the 1980s.

5 more goals and he's in then?

You're right, not his fault. HOF talent? Sure. And believe me, I feel bad for the guy. I don't like seeing anyone's career end that way.

But it's unfair to let him in under those circumstances and deny guys like Tim Kerr. If we're only looking at how good they were over a couple of years then Kerr belongs there too no doubt in my mind.

But neither of them have near the totals that they should for inclusion.

Kerr in my mind is very close and I wouldn't object if the Hall were to decide to induct him after bringing in lesser players. But what hurts him is that he wasn't a complete player and he doesn't have that historic accomplishment like Neely's 50 in 44. The PP goals thing is good, but its not the same. Once Neely was permanently compromised and unable to play the game that made him a dominant player, he basically became Tim Kerr and did as well as Kerr did.

After the injury he had 123 goals in 162 games, .759 goals per game, 1.17 points per game, not including playoffs. In Kerr's two best seasons, he had 116 goals in 151 games, .768 goals per game, 1.18 points per game. Kerr's absolute prime in a higher scoring era (86-87 vs 92-96) vs a hobbled Neely, the shadow of Cam Neely was as good as Tim Kerr's best. Thats why Neely's in and Kerr's not.

Can you name another player who's in who was dominant for as short a period of time as Neely was vs his contemporaries?

The problem is that Neely got hurt so young but still accomplished a lot after. Lindros and Forsberg will be interesting cases to look at down the road, as far as short careers.

And remember, Neely wasn't an MVP type player either

He absolutely was an MVP caliber player, the Bruins offense began and ended with him. He was a dominant postseason player.

 

[seventieslord]

Neely DOMINATED playoff series. Gartner was never even close to that kind of player. He was a consistent scorer. And a good playmaker. Any team with him as their best player was going not where. Neely was far, far, far more of a difference maker than Gartner ever was. Peak for peak Neely is as much better than Gartner is better than Neely if you look at career value.

Just a note about the bolded. It is definitely true of Gartner. But, considering Neely was never the best player on his team, couldn't the same be said of him? Even with Ray Bourque in peak form and Neely at his finest, the Bruins could not get to the finals.

maybe a team with Neely as their best player could win. But we don't really know, as Neely was never his team's best player. It's fair to say that about Gartner because, I think for a few seasons, he was.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Once again we're entering the Neely/Kerr territory where we're comparing only goal scoring between a guy who could only score goals and another who could have a major, game changing impact on a game in other ways. I'm not even going to debate Ciccarelli because I think its that laughable.

The reason I brought up Kerr in this instance is not so much for comparison (I think they're dead even you don't agree... that's fine we'll just leave that be for another day.)

Forget about Neely altogether for a minute. Kerr was the highest scorer in the game (not named Gretzky) for six years (even though he missed an entire season). That is certainly dominant. If I use your criteria (was the guy good enough) then the answer would be an unequivocal YES. Tim Kerr had HOF talent for sure.

If we open the door for these kinds of guys though, the HOF becomes far less exclusive and really loses a lot of it's meaning. Both Kerr and Neely were great players but neither played long enough to gather the totals that you really should have for induction. And that's why neither should be in. HOF talent doesn't mean HOF career.

Wendel Clark deserves much admiration and respect, but he never had the elite talent that Neely did. Wendel Clark wouldn't have been able to reinvent himself as a pure sniper the way Neely did if he had to.

Wendel Clark had HOF talent and the best wrist shot I've ever seen a player have. He was an absolute animal on the ice and was a spectacular player. I disagree with you on this, his talent was elite, that's why he was drafted number one overall. And to this day I have never seen a player with a better wrist shot than Clark.

Anyways, my point is not Clark vs. Neely, it's just that there are a lot of guys out there who had the talent and not the career. Clark is one of those guys in my opinion. But I digress here and I don't want this to turn into a 'Lafleurs' Guy thinks that Clark should make it over Neely' because I can see that argument coming now from some of the folks here...

If Neely's numbers were inflated by Oates, what did Gretzky do for Kurri? Kurri's a great player and I don't dispute that but we have to be consistent.

Of course, I would never say otherwise. I only used Kurri because that's the guy you cited. The whole argument Neely's supporters like to use is that he was dominant in terms of goal per game average. Guys here are saying "Look! Neely has a higher goal per game average than Kurri! And Kurri played with Gretz!"

Well okay, a big reason for that is that Kurri played much longer than Neely did and his gpg average obviously drops as he gets older. Neely retired at 30. So like I said, compare the gpg until each of them is 30. Neely isn't going to dominate Kurri, it's going to be the other way around.

And THAT's why totals are important. If you just look at per game rates, it gets skewed by guys who didn't play that long. Of course Neely's gpg is going to be higher, he only played until he was 30.

5 more goals and he's in then?

105 more and maybe we can consider him. That or 300+ more points. If he doesn't have either, we shouldn't even think about it. And even there, 1000 points is still very low.

Kerr in my mind is very close and I wouldn't object if the Hall were to decide to induct him after bringing in lesser players. But what hurts him is that he wasn't a complete player and he doesn't have that historic accomplishment like Neely's 50 in 44. The PP goals thing is good, but its not the same. Once Neely was permanently compromised and unable to play the game that made him a dominant player, he basically became Tim Kerr and did as well as Kerr did.

After the injury he had 123 goals in 162 games, .759 goals per game, 1.17 points per game, not including playoffs. In Kerr's two best seasons, he had 116 goals in 151 games, .768 goals per game, 1.18 points per game. Kerr's absolute prime in a higher scoring era (86-87 vs 92-96) vs a hobbled Neely, the shadow of Cam Neely was as good as Tim Kerr's best. Thats why Neely's in and Kerr's not.

I won't get into this with you as I already gave you my opinion. I see what you're saying here but I respectfully disagree with you on this. I say they are very close to each other.

I do agree though that the 50 in 50 was very important to Neely's induction.

The problem is that Neely got hurt so young but still accomplished a lot after. Lindros and Forsberg will be interesting cases to look at down the road, as far as short careers.

He got hurt young and that sucks. I don't think he accomplished enough to really be considered for the HOF. Keep in mind though that I think the Hall's standards are way too low.

He absolutely was an MVP caliber player, the Bruins offense began and ended with him. He was a dominant postseason player.

He wasn't even the MVP of his own team. He wasn't Yzerman, Lindros or Forsberg. Those are MVP type players. Neely was really good but a cut below those guys for sure. Maybe he could've been one of those guys but he never really proved it. He just wasn't healthy enough to put together the kind of career that those MVP caliber players could.

 

[revolverjgw]

He absolutely was an MVP caliber player, the Bruins offense began and ended with him. He was a dominant postseason player.

That's all well and good, but that's not the definition of an "MVP caliber player". That's the definition of any number of stars in the league at any given time. He wasn't the best player on his own team let alone a guy that was ever remotely close to MVP contention. If Neely was, then tons of other guys were/are, which dilutes the importance of being an MVP-caliber player.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You are just looking at stats. You are questioning Neely being selected over Stephane Richer when Neely even has more goals and points? Just because Richer has a better plus/minus? I mean really. A healthy physical 55 goal Neely vs Stephane Richer?

Did you ever see Richer?

Richer was another amazing player with HOF talent. He was fast, big and his slapshot was every bit as good as Al MacInnis'. Richer was absolutely close to Neely at his best. Problem is... he was so inconsistent.

The problem with Richer (and this came out years later) was that he was clinically bi-polar. People always wondered why he was so moody and inconsistent, it was a mental disorder that he suffered from.

But when he was on (as he was in '88) he was incredible. A lot of people were surprised that Neely beat him out that year. Again, you'd probably laugh about Loob being better than Neely but he was for that season. I thought Richer was better that season too and so did a lot of folks (and no this was not in Montreal, it was in Toronto... neutral ground.) Anyways Neely got it.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Did you ever see Richer?

Richer was another amazing player with HOF talent. He was fast, big and his slapshot was every bit as good as Al MacInnis'. Richer was absolutely close to Neely at his best. Problem is... he was so inconsistent.

The problem with Richer (and this came out years later) was that he was clinically bi-polar. People always wondered why he was so moody and inconsistent, it was a mental disorder that he suffered from.

But when he was on (as he was in '88) he was incredible. A lot of people were surprised that Neely beat him out that year. Again, you'd probably laugh about Loob being better than Neely but he was for that season. I thought Richer was better that season too and so did a lot of folks (and no this was not in Montreal, it was in Toronto... neutral ground.) Anyways Neely got it.

So says the Hab homer.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Neely might be one of the weaker inductions, but let's not get carried away and compare him to wendel clark and stephane richer.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

That's basically why I've stopped arguing in the thread, give these arguments another go-around and we'll be at "Neely? NEELY IN THE HALL OF FAME? Turner Stevenson has a better case!"

 

[lextune]

Hasn't literally every argument in this thread been argued now about 5 times?

Yep....but it is basically two guys with a bone to pick that are hell bent on arguing against everyone else anyway, lol.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

So says the Hab homer.

Thank you BamBamCam...

Neely might be one of the weaker inductions, but let's not get carried away and compare him to wendel clark and stephane richer.

I specifically said that I wasn't trying to do this. Clark was just an example of a guy with talent who was too busted up to prove how good he was.

Richer was definitely deserving of consideration in '88 as were others. Hakan Loob was great that year right? The guy who was ridiculing Richer didn't know what he was talking about.

But no, like I said Richer's career was a mess. You never knew which guy was going to show up. He was extremely inconsistent. Awesome talent, all the tools but no toolbox. File him under the Al Iafrate category. It's too bad that he couldn't have done something about his condition because he was a great player when his head was screwed on right.

Anyways you're right, it's going too far off on a tangent. Neely had a far better career than either of those guys.

 

[dafoomie]

That's all well and good, but that's not the definition of an "MVP caliber player". That's the definition of any number of stars in the league at any given time. He wasn't the best player on his own team let alone a guy that was ever remotely close to MVP contention. If Neely was, then tons of other guys were/are, which dilutes the importance of being an MVP-caliber player.

Neely has received Hart Trophy votes, unlike Anderson, Gartner, or Robitaille, more than Kurri, Mullen, or Ciccarelli. If he had a healthy, Hull-like season with Oates he could've contended for it, but thats not what I took MVP as when I replied.

Neely was the best forward on his team until Oates arrived, by then his hip was cooked. He carried his teams offensively, he had two dominant playoff runs in 90 and 91 where he was certainly their MVP. MVP of the league? No. We might be talking Conn Smythe if he doesn't get cheap shotted during that playoff run, he was close to the record for goals while still in the Conference Finals.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Neely has received Hart Trophy votes, unlike Anderson, Gartner, or Robitaille, more than Kurri, Mullen, or Ciccarelli. If he had a healthy, Hull-like season with Oates he could've contended for it, but thats not what I took MVP as when I replied.

Neely was the best forward on his team until Oates arrived, by then his hip was cooked. He carried his teams offensively, he had two dominant playoff runs in 90 and 91 where he was certainly their MVP. MVP of the league? No. We might be talking Conn Smythe if he doesn't get cheap shotted during that playoff run, he was close to the record for goals while still in the Conference Finals.

Saying that Neely was the Bruins MVP might be going a lil too far imo.
They may have scored less goals without Neely but they were almost dysfunctional without Bourque.

 

[lextune]

Saying that Neely was the Bruins MVP might be going a lil too far imo.
They may have scored less goals without Neely but they were almost dysfunctional without Bourque.

I think it is safe to say I am one of Neely's biggest backers, and I think he is a lock for the Conn Symthe in '91 if not for Ulf, because of the glamor of the goal scoring record, which would have most likely fallen.

But with that said, he was never more valuable to the Bruins than Bourque. Not even close.