Why did Cam Neely make it and Lindros not?

[Lafleurs Guy]

Neely never should've made it to begin with. Great player but didn't do nearly enough to warrant it. Politics is what got him in. His inclusion has hurt the (already poor) credibility of the HOF. He's among the worst inductions of all-time and is always the measuring stick when players who are left out come up for debate.

The "he was the first power forward" claim is completely bogus (he wasn't even the best power forward of his generation) and his peak years coincidentally coincide with Adam Oates (who somehow is NOT in the HOF?) being on his line. It's absolutely ridiculous that guys like Oates and Mark Howe are sitting around waiting to get in while a guy with less than 400 goals and less than 700 points gets in. Disgraceful.

Lindros was infinitely better and probably was at one point the best player in the world. That said, if the HOF had the standards it should he probably shouldn't get in either. His case is more legitimate than Neely's as he actually won some major awards and could be said to be the best player in the game but again his career is too short. He reminds me of Don Mattingly in that he had a very good career, great short peak but health kept him from becoming the player he would've become. The difference is that baseball has the sense to understand that letting in Mattingly would be lowering the standards of its Hall so they don't do it.

As far as I'm concerned the HOF has zero credibility as it stands. And unfortunately, Lindros getting in will be arbitrarily decided based on political decisions. I wouldn't be surprised with whatever happens there. If Neely gets in though and Lindros doesn't it's just another example of why Neely shouldn't be in there to begin with and underscores what's wrong with the HOF.

 

[BamBamCam*]

that's the reason why I threw the Rick Kehoe mention in there to illustrate the whole point about stats & selection. I just don't see a reason why Neely is in there in the first place. Was he a better power forward than Kevin Stevens? In my book, they were on par. Did Neely revolutionize the sport is some way? No.

That is another reason why the Hall should be reserved for only the very best. It should be exclusive. I have to disagree regarding Lindros. Jagr was the man those years...

Clearly a Pens fan.

Neely had 75 more goals in 175 less games but somehow you have these two guys equal?

Didn't revolution the game? Neely is considered to have created the power forward position as we know it now. GMs go into the draft looking for "Neely type of players" and that is the expression used. I don't hear them use "Lindros type" or Stevens type"

 

[BlackDog13]

Neely never should've made it to begin with. Great player but didn't do nearly enough to warrant it. Politics is what got him in. His inclusion has hurt the (already poor) credibility of the HOF. He's among the worst inductions of all-time and is always the measuring stick when players who are left out come up for debate.

The "he was the first power forward" claim is completely bogus (he wasn't even the best power forward of his generation) and his peak years coincidentally coincide with Adam Oates (who somehow is NOT in the HOF?) being on his line. It's absolutely ridiculous that guys like Oates and Mark Howe are sitting around waiting to get in while a guy with less than 400 goals and less than 700 points gets in. Disgraceful.

Lindros was infinitely better and probably was at one point the best player in the world. That said, if the HOF had the standards it should he probably shouldn't get in either. His case is more legitimate than Neely's as he actually won some major awards and could be said to be the best player in the game but again his career is too short. He reminds me of Don Mattingly in that he had a very good career, great short peak but health kept him from becoming the player he would've become. The difference is that baseball has the sense to understand that letting in Mattingly would be lowering the standards of its Hall so they don't do it.

As far as I'm concerned the HOF has zero credibility as it stands. And unfortunately, Lindros getting in will be arbitrarily decided based on political decisions. I wouldn't be surprised with whatever happens there. If Neely gets in though and Lindros doesn't it's just another example of why Neely shouldn't be in there to begin with and underscores what's wrong with the HOF.

Your Lindros to Mattingly analogy is spot on although Mattingly was so well liked I wouldn't have been surprised if he made it in. There have been some questionable inductions to Cooperstown of late.

 

[SidGenoMario]

His status as being the first power forward and being the one that scouts always look for IS completely bogus. He happened to be born a certain way, so scouts want to look for players like that. How does that help his case? He didn't change the game the way someone who creates a new technique does, he just happened to be somewhat innovative due to his body. But people can't learn from that. He didn't influence future players. I don't get why people keep bringing that up.

 

[RECsGuy*]

Neely is in because he is well liked.

Lindros is not in (yet) because he is not.

I do think Lindros will make it though, he was the best player in the whole league for a while.

#1 what is your definition of "a while"?

#2 specify the years in which he was the best.

 

[revolverjgw]

Didn't revolution the game? Neely is considered to have created the power forward position as we know it now. GMs go into the draft looking for "Neely type of players" and that is the expression used. I don't hear them use "Lindros type" or Stevens type"

That's because a "Lindros-type" hasn't come along in about 20 years, and before that, there had never been one... no point in GMs trying to find another one, there aren't any. If there were, "Neely-types" would be obsolete.

Next time a Lindro-type comes along, it's going to make Crosby's pre-draft hype machine look downright conservative.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Didn't revolution the game?

No.

He didn't revolutionize anything. Power forwards have been around since forever. Richard, Howe, Hull, Espo, Clarke, Messier... Lindros comes in afterwards and is much better. We could go back to the beginning of time for this. How does Neely revolutionize anything?

Neely is considered to have created the power forward position as we know it now.

Considered by who? The game has been around for a lot longer than 1988.

GMs go into the draft looking for "Neely type of players" and that is the expression used. I don't hear them use "Lindros type" or Stevens type"

You hear "Stevens" types all the time on draft day. GMs compare prospects to older players all the time.

As for Lindros, you won't hear it because he was a generational talent. They are impossible to find.

Your Lindros to Mattingly analogy is spot on although Mattingly was so well liked I wouldn't have been surprised if he made it in. There have been some questionable inductions to Cooperstown of late.

Yes. Cooperstown's definition of questionable though is Andre Dawson. A guy with multiple awards to his name as well as multiple top three finishes for the MVP and winning the award itself. To draw a parallel I'd say Dawson's career was like Chris Chelios'. Always among the tops in the game, well rounded, long career etc...

As another parallel, a guy like Dale Murphy for example was far more dominant and had a longer and better career than even Lindros. He won MVPs had a great peak and was considered at one point the best in the game (or at least top five) didn't doesn't sniff the HOF. He's another guy that's close to having a Lindros type career (in fact Murphy's career was probably better.) That's a much higher standard than Hockey has with its Neely and Federko inductions. I can't think of any baseball inductee who's as close to being as bad as either of those guys.

And that's why the baseball HOF is much better than hockey's. Although they're going to have serious problems with the steroid users coming up, but I digress...

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

#1 what is your definition of "a while"?

#2 specify the years in which he was the best.

From about '94 to '99 I'd have said he was the best player in the game. Certainly you could argue he was. Unfortunately (like Neely) he was always hurt.

I think Lindros had HOF talent absolutely for sure. I don't think he had a HOF career though if you apply the standards that the Hall should have.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

#1 what is your definition of "a while"?

#2 specify the years in which he was the best.

From 1994 to 1999 he has a legitimate case of being the best on a per game basis.

 

[BamBamCam*]

No.

He didn't revolutionize anything. Power forwards have been around since forever. Richard, Howe, Hull, Espo, Clarke, Messier... Lindros comes in afterwards and is much better. We could go back to the beginning of time for this. How does Neely revolutionize anything?

Considered by who? The game has been around for a lot longer than 1988.


You hear "Stevens" types all the time on draft day. GMs compare prospects to older players all the time.

As for Lindros, you won't hear it because he was a generational talent. They are impossible to find.

Yes. Cooperstown's definition of questionable though is Andre Dawson. A guy with multiple awards to his name as well as multiple top three finishes for the MVP and winning the award itself. To draw a parallel I'd say Dawson's career was like Chris Chelios'. Always among the tops in the game, well rounded, long career etc...

As another parallel, a guy like Dale Murphy for example was far more dominant and had a longer and better career than even Lindros. He won MVPs had a great peak and was considered at one point the best in the game (or at least top five) didn't doesn't sniff the HOF. He's another guy that's close to having a Lindros type career (in fact Murphy's career was probably better.) That's a much higher standard than Hockey has with its Neely and Federko inductions. I can't think of any baseball inductee who's as close to being as bad as either of those guys.

And that's why the baseball HOF is much better than hockey's. Although they're going to have serious problems with the steroid users coming up, but I digress...

I love it when someone cuts up somebody else's point and takes it all out of context. Picking a choosing what they will argue..

This must be all BS because the experts "liked" Cam as a person.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/36015-THNcom-Top-10-Alltime-power-forwards.html

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I love it when someone cuts up somebody else's point and takes it all out of context. Picking a choosing what they will argue..

This must be all BS because the experts "liked" Cam as a person.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/36015-THNcom-Top-10-Alltime-power-forwards.html

Sorry man,

But this guy is out to lunch. First he disqualifies everyone before 1980... why?

Then he says you have to be a winger to be a prototypical power forward... why?

This is a fluff piece on Neely and the author comes up with arbitrary qualifiers that eliminate everyone else and then says.... 'voila' Cam Neely is the best ever!

Can't be before the 80s? Oh well, guess that eliminates the actual top ten that would make up this list. Can't be a center... oh well, guess that eliminates Messier and Lindros.

You'd have to take an extremely narrow criteria to come up with Cam Neely as number one on your list. And the author still gets it wrong as Iginla has also had a better career than Neely has had. And where the heck is Gary Roberts?

You're arguing that Neely pioneered something... he didn't. Many players had done it long before he was ever born and did it much better than he did.

And you have things backwards. It's much more accurate to say that Neely was among the LAST power forwards the game has seen. And that's not really due to Neely being exceptional, it has more to do with rule changes to the game. And unlike Neely, guys like Messier, Lindros and Iggy have won things like MVP trophies and scoring titles. They had much better careers than Neely did.

Tim Kerr as an example has almost identical numbers to Neely and is nowhere close to the HOF. And he didn't have the luxury of having Adam Oates as a linemate. And Oates doesn't make it? Sorry, but the HOF is way out of whack here.

 

[dafoomie]

1. Neely is not a completely unlikable and loathsome person.
2. Neely had a short career as a result of a cheapshot and not because of the way he played the game, i.e. skating through center ice with his head down.
3. Neely scored 50 in 44 post injury, after completely reinventing his game to adapt to the limitations of his body.
4. Neely scored 15 goals in 15 playoff games before the cheapshot, he played hurt through the final 3 games and scored one more goal. Arguably, if not for the cheapshot we're talking about his name on the Cup (the Bruins were up 2-0 in the series before the hit) and his record for goals in a single playoffs.
5. Neely didn't have 4 mediocre seasons after he got hurt.


I don't think there's any doubt Lindros gets in, but because of reason #1, he won't get in right away.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

What got Neely in was that between 89 and 94 he was the 3rd most prolific goal scorer in the league, behind sure-fire HOFers and top 50 players like Hull and Lemieux but well ahead of guys like Robitaille or Stevens. And more than anything - 50 in 44. Of course, being well-liked helped him but that's not the only thing that got him in.

Oates should be in for sure though.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

1. Neely is not a completely unlikable and loathsome person.
2. Neely had a short career as a result of a cheapshot and not because of the way he played the game, i.e. skating through center ice with his head down.
3. Neely scored 50 in 44 post injury, after completely reinventing his game to adapt to the limitations of his body.
4. Neely scored 15 goals in 15 playoff games before the cheapshot, he played hurt through the final 3 games and scored one more goal. Arguably, if not for the cheapshot we're talking about his name on the Cup (the Bruins were up 2-0 in the series before the hit) and his record for goals in a single playoffs.
5. Neely didn't have 4 mediocre seasons after he got hurt.

I don't think there's any doubt Lindros gets in, but because of reason #1, he won't get in right away.

That last point is interesting too.

Jeremy Roenick was an absolute beast in his early 20s. Physical, could score, fight... do anything. I remember he was just coming into his own and having a great season back in the mid 90s and kaboom. He went down with a serious injury and was never the same again.

He was still a good player and went on to have a good career but people who saw him play in his later years don't have an appreciation for how good he really was. Unlike Neely, he was able to carry on with his career. People now remember him as being mediocre because they don't remember how he was back in the early 90s. He could've had an amazing career.

 

[lextune]

his peak years coincidentally coincide with Adam Oates (who somehow is NOT in the HOF?) being on his line.

Get your facts straight. Cam was a was a shell of his former self by the time Adam joined the B's in '92

Cam's peak was from '87 to '91. Three of his four All-Star seasons came without Oates.

And incidentally every 4 or more time All-Star Right Wing in NHL history is in the Hall; so tell me again how Neely is not worthy and/or different from every other one.....?

 

[lextune]

Tim Kerr as an example has almost identical numbers to Neely and is nowhere close to the HOF. And he didn't have the luxury of having Adam Oates as a linemate.

You have twice used an utter fallacy as some sort of "evidence". You are not holding up very well in this debate.

*Oates should absolutely be in though....but that is another issue.*

....back to Neely....

Cam was a Hall of Famer. There can be no doubt....once again I refer back to a classic G.B.C. post, (for the umpteenth time, lol). Because he said it so well....

There are two reasons that Neely's in the HHOF. And when you bring them together, he should be a no-brainer selection for the HHOF.

The first is definition. He DEFINED the power forward role. Every power forward that comes along for many, many years to come, will have Cam Neely as the measuring stick. It's a measuring stick that only one, Jarome Iginla, had matched. This is not to say that Neely was the first real power forward. He wasn't. Charlie Conacher was a power forward by every definition of the term. But Neely was the first one to get the label of the power forward. Every scout for the last 20 years has been searching for the next Cam Neely. Call it a hunch, I think they'll be seeking for the next Neely for the next 30 years.

Cam Neely is probably one of the 10 or 15 most important players from the game in the last 25 years.

The other reason is playoffs. One of the best playoff performers of his generation. Fourth in career post-season goals per game. Why did Roy hate playing Neely so much? Maybe it's because of the way Neely utterly dominated the Habs in 1988, when the Bruins ended a 40-year post-season drought against Montreal. Or maybe it was Neely's follow-up two years later, when Boston once again dominated the Habs. In 1991, he was an Ulf Samuelsson knee away from leading Boston back to the Cup (that hit changed the entire complexion of the series), and Neely would have certainly set a post-season goals record in the process. (He had 16 in the first three rounds). He had that big-game, high-pressure mentality that can't be taught. When the game was on the line, he wanted to be on the ice. He wanted to be the hero, and he had the ability to do it.

You can cite all the regular season statistical smoke and accolades you want. Personally, when it comes HHOFers, I'd vote for Neely, who defined the game, and dominated in the playoffs, ahead of guys with great career numbers, like an Adam Oates, or even a Dale Hawerchuk or a Denis Savard - great players deserving of the HHOF, but not guys who defined their role, who did things that will make them memorable 25 years from now.

Twenty-five years from now, when we're still searching for the next Neely, nobody will question his place in the HHOF. Those who were fortunate enough to watch him, with an unbiased eye, will rave about how fantastic he truly was.

Those who question Neely's place in the HHOF, have no idea what it takes to truly be great.

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

 

[BamBamCam*]

Sorry man,

But this guy is out to lunch. First he disqualifies everyone before 1980... why?

Then he says you have to be a winger to be a prototypical power forward... why?

This is a fluff piece on Neely and the author comes up with arbitrary qualifiers that eliminate everyone else and then says.... 'voila' Cam Neely is the best ever!

Can't be before the 80s? Oh well, guess that eliminates the actual top ten that would make up this list. Can't be a center... oh well, guess that eliminates Messier and Lindros.

You'd have to take an extremely narrow criteria to come up with Cam Neely as number one on your list. And the author still gets it wrong as Iginla has also had a better career than Neely has had. And where the heck is Gary Roberts?

You're arguing that Neely pioneered something... he didn't. Many players had done it long before he was ever born and did it much better than he did.

And you have things backwards. It's much more accurate to say that Neely was among the LAST power forwards the game has seen. And that's not really due to Neely being exceptional, it has more to do with rule changes to the game. And unlike Neely, guys like Messier, Lindros and Iggy have won things like MVP trophies and scoring titles. They had much better careers than Neely did.

Tim Kerr as an example has almost identical numbers to Neely and is nowhere close to the HOF. And he didn't have the luxury of having Adam Oates as a linemate. And Oates doesn't make it? Sorry, but the HOF is way out of whack here.

I do understand what you are trying to say and yes, I know Kerr, Howe and some others played a similar style but it is accepted that Cam is the first power forward AS we know it today.

You do know Cam was putting up 50+ goal seasons with Janney centering him. It wasn't just OT....

 

[revolverjgw]

And incidentally every 4 or more time All-Star Right Wing in NHL history is in the Hall; so tell me again how Neely is not worthy and/or different from every other one.....?

Consider the context- all other 4 time all-star RWs have things like Harts, scoring titles, multiple Cups, FIRST all-star selections, and far superior longevity/more great seasons. Neely's body of work doesn't compare to any of theirs.

So while being a 4-time all-star is a great achievement, don't think it puts him on par with other 4 time all-stars and that this fact alone should lock him in... he's not even close. Or even necessarily on par with 3-time all-stars like Iginla or St. Louis. These guys have MVPs and had (and are still having) lots of great seasons.

You don't have to be named an all-star to have had an elite season... most elite RWers have long careers with great seasons where they didn't get an all-star spot. With Neely, you can count his number of elite seasons on one hand and he has no hardware, 1st-allstars or Cups to make up for that.

I don't think he should be in, but I'm not passionately opposed to it or anything. There are worse guys in there. Lindros however is much better than Neely, and with Neely in, there's no excuse for him not being in, no matter how much of a twit he was. The HOF better not mess this up.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Consider the context- all other 4 time all-star RWs have things like Harts, scoring titles, multiple Cups, FIRST all-star selections, and far superior longevity/more great seasons. Neely's body of work doesn't compare to any of theirs.

So while being a 4-time all-star is a great achievement, don't think it puts him on par with other 4 time all-stars and that this fact alone should lock him in... he's not even close. Or even necessarily on par with 3-time all-stars like Iginla or St. Louis. These guys have MVPs and had (and are still having) lots of great seasons.

You don't have to be named an all-star to have had an elite season... most elite RWers have long careers with great seasons where they didn't get an all-star spot. With Neely, you can count his number of elite seasons on one hand and he has no hardware, 1st-allstars or Cups to make up for that.

I don't think he should be in, but I'm not passionately opposed to it or anything. There are worse guys in there. Lindros however is much better than Neely, and with Neely in, there's no excuse for him not being in, no matter how much of a twit he was. The HOF better not mess this up.

He has the Bill Masterson Trophy, 1st all star team is objective due to fan voting.

 

[bruinforstanley]

Is it really surprising that Canadian fans appear to be the most vocal "anti Neely" supporters?

Anyone who suggests Neely doesn't belong in the HOF is just plain ignorant.

Problem is that you have too many fans that can't look past the hometown colors. Using "adjusted stats" to make your case is lame. Saying "Lindros is just better than Neely" is even lamer.

Neely did, has done, and continues to do more for the game of Hockey than Lindros could ever dream of (and no, I'm not being ignorant like the haters and bringing in strictly stats)

 

[BlackDog13]

No.


Yes. Cooperstown's definition of questionable though is Andre Dawson. A guy with multiple awards to his name as well as multiple top three finishes for the MVP and winning the award itself. To draw a parallel I'd say Dawson's career was like Chris Chelios'. Always among the tops in the game, well rounded, long career etc...

As another parallel, a guy like Dale Murphy for example was far more dominant and had a longer and better career than even Lindros. He won MVPs had a great peak and was considered at one point the best in the game (or at least top five) didn't doesn't sniff the HOF. He's another guy that's close to having a Lindros type career (in fact Murphy's career was probably better.) That's a much higher standard than Hockey has with its Neely and Federko inductions. I can't think of any baseball inductee who's as close to being as bad as either of those guys.

And that's why the baseball HOF is much better than hockey's. Although they're going to have serious problems with the steroid users coming up, but I digress...

I agree once again, Murphy put up some big numbers and was an all around star. That he played the bulk of his career in the "Launching Pad" is the only qualifier regarding his HR production during those peak years. The selection committee for the BBHOF definitely seems to hold a higher standard than the HHOF.

 

[lextune]

I don't think he should be in, but I'm not passionately opposed to it or anything. There are worse guys in there. Lindros however is much better than Neely

Has anyone argued otherwise?

Of course Lindros was better than Neely and he should definitely be in, in my opinion.

Also in my opinion; Neely was a mortal lock....

And just as a final note I reiterate one last time: Cam's best years had nothing to do with Oates, since Oates was on the Blues at the time. <-Not an opinion.

 

[lextune]

1st all star team is objective due to fan voting.

Fan's do not vote. You are thinking of the All-Star game.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Fan's do not vote. You are thinking of the All-Star game.

You are correct, I have never really paid attention to first team votes. I see I am mistaken in ignoring that fact to a player's resume'.

 

[lextune]

You are correct, I have never really paid attention to first team votes. I see I am mistaken in ignoring that fact to a player's resume'.

Yet another reason to get rid of the stupid All-Star game, lol.

Confusing it with being named a post season All-Star has always driven me nuts since one is next to meaningless and the other is one of the highest honors in the league.

Cam was a four time All-Star Right Wing, and every other RW in history that can say that is also in the Hall.

Neely did nothing to negatively differentiate himself from the rest of them. It cannot be "spun" away.