Why did Cam Neely make it and Lindros not?

[dafoomie]

It's not the Hall of Coulda Been though...

But Cam Neely's in it and Tim Kerr isn't, and thats not going to change.

I'd say he was more complete but not by nearly as wide a margin as you're arguing. Esposito was one dimensional too as was Brett Hull... at the end of the day though, they excelled at goal scoring really, really well. And people did NOT mess with Tim Kerr.

Tim Kerr might've been the strongest player in the NHL, there was nothing you could do once he was in the slot, but that was his whole game. Espo and Hull scored 70, broke 100 points multiple times and had long careers. When you have a short career like Kerr and Neely, you need those one or two crowning achievements to put you over the top. The only historic thing Kerr did was get the single season powerplay goal record.

And Kerr has four 50 goal seasons to Neely's three. He's also in the top ten in scoring five times vs. 4 for Neely, as well as a top ten finish in points which Neely never had. You can go back and forth on these guys all day. It's still really close.

From 89 to 94, Neely scored at a 66 goal pace despite the injuries. In 260 regular season and playoff games in that span, he scored at a 60 goal, 107 point pace. He demonstrated that he was more than simply a 50 goal scorer before Oates when he approached the record for goals in a single playoffs despite getting injured and not making the Finals, and he demonstrated that he could match or beat Hull's numbers with Oates when he scored 50 in 44 while injured.

Neely was cut down before his prime by a cheapshot while Kerr lost a couple seasons, but arguably played out most of his best years. We don't wonder what Kerr could've been because we saw him at the absolute top of his game, we just don't know how long he could've stayed productive. We will never really know the heights Neely could've reached, but those goals per game numbers give us an idea. There isn't a doubt in my mind that a healthy Neely could've hit 70 goals with Oates. Between the 91 playoffs and the end of his 50 in 50 season, he scored 86 goals in 90 games. Regular season only, 70 goals in 71 games.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

In the seven seasons between 83/84 and 89/90 Kerr's goal per game was 0.71, that's without a doubt Kerr's peak. Neely had the exact same goal per game value between 87/88 and 93/94. The value for total goals per game in the NHL during Kerr's peak was 7.60 however, whereas it was just 7.12 during Neely's peak. So Neely's scoring pace had a little more value.

In general those stats are strikingly similar though, but I think that what puts Neely in when Kerr isn't, is the fact that people who saw Neely figured he could be a 70-80 goal scorer if healthy. The 50 in 44 basically proved it to people (it's not actually proof but in the imagination of people it was), that was one of the best paces anyone ever had? I don't think there ever was this sense of high-end elite talent with Kerr and that's what hurt him. Perception is a funny thing.

 

[FiveForDrawingBlood]

This.

Secondarily (but still important), Neely was a nice guy with the media who everyone liked and Lindros was a big jerk.

This for sure had a lot to do with it.

 

[lextune]

Really? Because if I measure it by goals per game it's '94 right? Is that what you mean by 'immeasurably'?

As I predicted I was just wasting my time, lol.


[sarcasm]"As we all know everything in hockey can be measured by stats. So obviously the guy who could only skate every other game or so, and played a one-dimensional style, was better than the game changing physical presence that defined a team's offense every night, (while scoring 50+ goals). Because that guy scored at a higher GPG when he could play."[/sarcasm]

Seriously though; only a fool could think that the Cam Neely of '94 compares to Cam in his prime, ('87-'91).

 

[Ola]

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

Of course he should make it.

HHOF -- IMHO -- should be, to some extent, a history book of the NHL. You know, the really special players that stands out should make it in there. Mostly "scorers", but also a few role-players.

And I think thats howt he HHOF operates. Some guys with stats don't make it, because in reality they didn't make all that big of a impression.

Eric Lindros, during his short prime stint in the league really, made a helluva impression for anyone who saw him. Nobody before or after have been as powerful on the ice as Eric Lindros. He was like AO but 30% bigger and stronger.

He will and should make it -- of course.

 

[JT Dutch*]

You pointing out that he "never scored 100 points" only further illuminates how little you understand why Neely was a Hall of Fame player.

... Neely was a Hall of Famer because the people who vote for the Hall of Fame are kinda dumb. That's really the only reason why he's in there.

To over-romanticize the accomplishments of Neely (his zero times leading the league in any significant category, his zero Stanley Cups) and to say that nobody combined size, aggressiveness, and scoring ability before Cam did is really silly and people should stop doing it, so they don't look so dumb.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Because you mention him every time you post, Oates that, Oates that. Neely had a few center but namely Janney than Oates. Neely was so injured by the time OT came around, he never played more than 49 games a season with him.

I loved OT but Neely could have scored with Luke Adam in the middle. His shot was deadly and better than anyone else's outside of Hulls during his playing days, he didn't just stand in front of the net like Kerr did.

Kerr was just as productive as Neely and didn't have the benefit of Adam Oates. Different skill set? Sure. You want to say Neely is better? I think you could make the case. But to say that Neely's a "mortal lock" and writeoff Kerr makes no sense.

But Cam Neely's in it and Tim Kerr isn't, and thats not going to change.

Right. And that's a big reason why the Hall has no credibility.

Adam Oates isn't in the HOF either...

Tim Kerr might've been the strongest player in the NHL, there was nothing you could do once he was in the slot, but that was his whole game. Espo and Hull scored 70, broke 100 points multiple times and had long careers. When you have a short career like Kerr and Neely, you need those one or two crowning achievements to put you over the top. The only historic thing Kerr did was get the single season powerplay goal record.

If you have less than 400 goals and 700 points, you'd better have MVP type seasons behind you. Neither of these guys did and that's why neither of them belong.

From 89 to 94, Neely scored at a 66 goal pace despite the injuries. In 260 regular season and playoff games in that span, he scored at a 60 goal, 107 point pace. He demonstrated that he was more than simply a 50 goal scorer before Oates when he approached the record for goals in a single playoffs despite getting injured and not making the Finals, and he demonstrated that he could match or beat Hull's numbers with Oates when he scored 50 in 44 while injured.

Neely was cut down before his prime by a cheapshot while Kerr lost a couple seasons, but arguably played out most of his best years.

Sorry, but you're being unfair here. Kerr managed to keep it together for four out of five years but overall both guys were busted up all the time. And both guys have almost identical careers numbers wise in terms of games played and production.

We don't wonder what Kerr could've been because we saw him at the absolute top of his game, we just don't know how long he could've stayed productive. We will never really know the heights Neely could've reached, but those goals per game numbers give us an idea.

Then he should be in the coulda been HOF. Not the real one.

There isn't a doubt in my mind that a healthy Neely could've hit 70 goals with Oates. Between the 91 playoffs and the end of his 50 in 50 season, he scored 86 goals in 90 games. Regular season only, 70 goals in 71 games.

And how well would Kerr have done with Oates?

In the seven seasons between 83/84 and 89/90 Kerr's goal per game was 0.71, that's without a doubt Kerr's peak. Neely had the exact same goal per game value between 87/88 and 93/94. The value for total goals per game in the NHL during Kerr's peak was 7.60 however, whereas it was just 7.12 during Neely's peak. So Neely's scoring pace had a little more value.

In general those stats are strikingly similar though, but I think that what puts Neely in when Kerr isn't, is the fact that people who saw Neely figured he could be a 70-80 goal scorer if healthy.

Again, you're using 'coulda been' arguments.

If we do that then how many more goals does Kerr get with Oates? How much better is Roenick's career without that injury in the mid 90s? Neely wasn't an 80 goal scorer. If he had 80 goal seasons and 500 goals then nobody would question it. He doesn't have the totals to justify inclusion and that's why he's always the first to get compared. He's among the weakest inductions ever.

The 50 in 44 basically proved it to people (it's not actually proof but in the imagination of people it was), that was one of the best paces anyone ever had?

And I'll ask you because others don't seem to want to answer... how much credit does Adam Oates get for this?

I don't think there ever was this sense of high-end elite talent with Kerr and that's what hurt him. Perception is a funny thing.

Kerr was about as elite a goal scorer as you could get. He was just always hurt. Esposito himself said that Kerr was the closest thing he'd ever seen to himself. Of course he was elite.

As I predicted I was just wasting my time, lol.

You're wasting everyone's time. Don't post your opinion and claim it's fact.

And TheMoreYouKnow's quote just proves my point:
"I think that what puts Neely in when Kerr isn't, is the fact that people who saw Neely figured he could be a 70-80 goal scorer if healthy."

Many of his supporters point to his goal per game stretch and this came with Oates. Those seasons that you're downplaying are the ones that his apologists use to justify his induction. So again, stop trying to sluff this off as unimportant.

 

[Ola]

... Neely was a Hall of Famer because the people who vote for the Hall of Fame are kinda dumb. That's really the only reason why he's in there.

To over-romanticize the accomplishments of Neely (his zero times leading the league in any significant category, his zero Stanley Cups) and to say that nobody combined size, aggressiveness, and scoring ability before Cam did is really silly and people should stop doing it, so they don't look so dumb.

But let's say that you look beyond stats, let's say that you have a bunch of VHS's infront of you and you are to pick players to show for your grandchild because you want to show him the best of the 90's.

What players do you show?

I mean, Cam Neely is a player you put pretty high up. Not Bernie Nicholls or someone like that.

 

[Briere Up There*]

I think both sides have their points. Maybe you two can stop bickering and keep it to the facts?

Neely before his injuries was better than Neely after his injuries. 94 was a magical year but he could only play every other game and outside of a few brief spurts had lost his speed and power. That season was a testament to the guy's resiliency, but it was also a testament to Oates. Pair Adam up with guys who can finish at a 40-50 goal clip and they became monsters.

I don't think it's a shame Cam Neely is in the Hall of Fame, especially when Ciccarelli and other compilers are in there. What is a shame is Adam Oates is still on the outside.

 

[lextune]

You're wasting everyone's time. Don't post your opinion and claim it's fact.

It is a fact.

The Neely of '94 could barely skate compared to his former self, and was incapable of playing two games in a row.

No one with half a brain could think he was as dominate a force as he was from '87 to '91.

Fact.

....not opinion.

 

[lextune]

It's the hall of fame, not hall of the best stats, and that is why Neely is in.

Says it nice and succinctly.

 

[JT Dutch*]

But let's say that you look beyond stats, let's say that you have a bunch of VHS's infront of you and you are to pick players to show for your grandchild because you want to show him the best of the 90's.

What players do you show?

... That's always what Cam Neely supporters say. "Look beyond the stats." Do you know why that is? Because Neely's stats are weak. If they were stronger, you would say "hey - look at the stats" like Dino Ciccarelli's supporters do.

If Neely has something beyond the stats, what is it? So he was a physical player. That's mildly interesting. So were guys with better stats, like John LeClair, Kevin Stevens, Steve Thomas, Rick Tocchet. I don't see them in the Hall of Fame.

What else is there to sell? Was Neely an exceptional winner? No. He went to the SCF twice and his team got hammered both times. Was Neely the best player on his team? No, Ray Bourque was. Was Neely a unique player? No, Mark Messier was doing the same thing and doing it better even before Neely was in the NHL. So, what IS it??? Did Neely have anything outside of the NHL, such as Canada Cups, Olympics, etc. to add to his NHL resume? No.

People want to say "well, if not for the injuries" but that's the whole thing. You can't honor a player for what he didn't do. It doesn't work that way. I can sit here and tell you that Bo Jackson was the best running back I ever saw in my life, but does that mean he belongs in the NFL Hall of Fame? Of course not. Because Jackson got hurt and had a very short career.

Was Neely a better forward than Tony Amonte, or Gary Roberts, or Brendan Shanahan, or Pat Verbeek? No, clearly he wasn't. So, what made Neely stand out? Nothing really, except the injury that ended his career prematurely. So, yes - even if you look beyond the numbers, it was a really dumb decision to put Cam Neely in the Hall of Fame.

 

[PB37]

... That's always what Cam Neely supporters say. "Look beyond the stats." Do you know why that is? Because Neely's stats are weak. If they were stronger, you would say "hey - look at the stats" like Dino Ciccarelli's supporters do.

If Neely has something beyond the stats, what is it? So he was a physical player. That's mildly interesting. So were guys with better stats, like John LeClair, Kevin Stevens, Steve Thomas, Rick Tocchet. I don't see them in the Hall of Fame.

What else is there to sell? Was Neely an exceptional winner? No. He went to the SCF twice and his team got hammered both times. Was Neely the best player on his team? No, Ray Bourque was. Was Neely a unique player? No, Mark Messier was doing the same thing and doing it better even before Neely was in the NHL. So, what IS it??? Did Neely have anything outside of the NHL, such as Canada Cups, Olympics, etc. to add to his NHL resume? No.

People want to say "well, if not for the injuries" but that's the whole thing. You can't honor a player for what he didn't do. It doesn't work that way. I can sit here and tell you that Bo Jackson was the best running back I ever saw in my life, but does that mean he belongs in the NFL Hall of Fame? Of course not. Because Jackson got hurt and had a very short career.

Was Neely a better forward than Tony Amonte, or Gary Roberts, or Brendan Shanahan, or Pat Verbeek? No, clearly he wasn't. So, what made Neely stand out? Nothing really, except the injury that ended his career prematurely. So, yes - even if you look beyond the numbers, it was a really dumb decision to put Cam Neely in the Hall of Fame.

While some over-romanticize him, you go the other route and pretend to give an objective opinion, but gloss over his career, accomplishments, and his impact on the league during his playing days.

 

[JT Dutch*]

While some over-romanticize him, you go the other route and pretend to give an objective opinion, but gloss over his career, accomplishments, and his impact on the league during his playing days.

... Go ahead and tell me what I missed, OK? You have from now until the end of time. Go.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

... That's always what Cam Neely supporters say. "Look beyond the stats." Do you know why that is? Because Neely's stats are weak. If they were stronger, you would say "hey - look at the stats" like Dino Ciccarelli's supporters do.

If Neely has something beyond the stats, what is it? So he was a physical player. That's mildly interesting. So were guys with better stats, like John LeClair, Kevin Stevens, Steve Thomas, Rick Tocchet. I don't see them in the Hall of Fame.

Was Neely a better forward than Tony Amonte, or Gary Roberts, or Brendan Shanahan, or Pat Verbeek? No, clearly he wasn't. So, what made Neely stand out? Nothing really, except the injury that ended his career prematurely. So, yes - even if you look beyond the numbers, it was a really dumb decision to put Cam Neely in the Hall of Fame.

Really? I don't even care about Neely - I don't think the hall is cheapened by him bring on or out. But some of those comparisons are brutal. Neely had much better stats than freaking Tocchet or Thomas. Stevens had two good seasons playing with Lemieux, then fell into drug problems. LeClair is the only one from the first group who is comparable at all. Steve Thomas, really? Ge wasn't even a power forward.

As for the second group, Neely was quite clearly a better overall player than amonte or verbeek. Roberts had one season at even close to the same level than Neely had five. Shanahan had a better career than Neely sure - he's also a likely first ballot hhof.

 

[arrbez]

Was Neely a better forward than Tony Amonte, or Gary Roberts, or Brendan Shanahan, or Pat Verbeek? No, clearly he wasn't.

What? Cam Neely has more allstar selections than those 4 players combined. Shanahan is the only guy that's comparable there.

 

[PB37]

During his playing career ( 1983 - 1996 ) Cam Neely is ranked 18th among all forwards during that period in goals and 9th in goals per game. Considering how much time he lost due to injury from the Ulf cheapshot and how many HOF players in that era, that's pretty damn impressive. Taking a look at the list of names ahead of him, nobody played fewer games during that span, and few ( if any ) had as impressive of a physical game combined with raw fighting skill.

But wait, it gets even better.

Among right wingers during his span as a player, he was 6th in goals, 9th in points, 4th in goals per game, and 13th in points per game.

I don't have the numbers for playoff careers, but I'm willing to bet that Neely's production was among the best during his playing days.

So combine his goal scoring production ( which I've shown is among the best in his position during his playing years ) with his power forward style of play which there were few ( if any ) were better than him at and also his impact on a hockey culture as one of the more popular players of his time, it's rather easy to see why Cam Neely is in the Hall of Fame.

 

[arrbez]

I don't have the numbers for playoff careers, but I'm willing to bet that Neely's production was among the best during his playing days.

From 1984-1995 (his playoff career), he's 6th in the NHL in goals behind the 4 Oilers forwards and Brett Hull. He's 3rd in goals-per-game behind Lemieux and Hull.

If you just look at his years as a Bruin (1987-1995), he's 4th in the NHL behind Messier, Lemieux, and Hull in goals, and third behind Lemieux and Hull in GPG.

 

[PB37]

From 1984-1995 (his playoff career), he's 6th in the NHL in goals behind the 4 Oilers forwards and Brett Hull. He's 3rd in goals-per-game behind Lemieux and Hull.

If you just look at his years as a Bruin (1987-1995), he's 4th in the NHL behind Messier, Lemieux, and Hull in goals, and third behind Lemieux and Hull in GPG.

Ahh thank you.

So in his 13 year career, he was one of the top goal scoring right wingers in his day, as well as being one of the best power forwards. Not only that, but he was in an elite group of company when it came time to produce in the playoffs.

All this all while losing several seasons of his prime due to injury.

Do people still wonder why he's in the HOF?

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Neely is 4th all-time for playoff goal per game (players with 40 or more playoff games) and in the top 40 for point per game, ahead of guys like Lemaire, Richard and the younger Hull.

 

[lextune]

Do people still wonder why he's in the HOF?

Young (didn't see him play), uninformed (can only see surface statistics and can't imagine a hockey player bringing more to the game than something that can be measured in numbers), people do; yes.

 

[dafoomie]

Ahh thank you.

So in his 13 year career, he was one of the top goal scoring right wingers in his day, as well as being one of the best power forwards. Not only that, but he was in an elite group of company when it came time to produce in the playoffs.

All this all while losing several seasons of his prime due to injury.

Do people still wonder why he's in the HOF?

I think we're making a mistake by taking about only his goal scoring, which is impressive, because it leads to silly comparisons to people like Tim Kerr who contributed little other than their goal scoring. The scoring numbers are far more important for one dimensional guys like that. Neely's impact on the game was far greater than just the goals he scored.

This isn't baseball, you don't compare Paul Coffey and Denis Potvin based on statistics. You don't compare Ray Sheppard and Rick Tocchet based on goals scored.

 

[Seanconn*]

If Lindros makes it, Bure should make it to. all Lindros has over Bure is a Hart trophy, and more physical play. Bure was faster, and the better goal scorer.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If Lindros makes it, Bure should make it to. all Lindros has over Bure is a Hart trophy, and more physical play. Bure was faster, and the better goal scorer.

Lindros was better than bure at every aspect of the game but goal scoring. I agree that both should make it. Lindros, bure, and Neely are the kinds of guys a Hall of FAME should induct, not compilers like Ciccarelli.

 

[FrozenJagrt]

If Lindros makes it, Bure should make it to. all Lindros has over Bure is a Hart trophy, and more physical play. Bure was faster, and the better goal scorer.

You ask every coach and GM in the league who they'd take if they were trying to win the cup, and every single one of them would say Lindros for a reason. He was more physical, he was bigger, he was a better playmaker, he was better in his own end. Bure was fast with a great shot and good stickhandling, but Lindros wasn't a slouch in those areas either. Pavel Bure was never the best player in the world.