HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

If Cam Neely is in the Hall, then why Tim Kerr isn't?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-27-2013, 12:06 PM
  #26
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Let's be clear: a big reason Neely is in the HOF is that he's a player a lot of people involved with hockey liked who got hurt in altercations with a player a lot of those same people didn't like.
Seems true. Don Cherry and John Buccigross in particular both lobbied hard for Neely, and they weren't the only ones. Neely did play a popular style for a team a lot of influential people liked.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 01:06 PM
  #27
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Or I can point out that Kerr had a split of 220/150/0 in his goals, and Neely had 252/142/1. 36% of Neely's goals came on the power play, compared to 40.5% for Kerr. That's not exactly a huge difference.
Philadelphia Flyers forwards from 1983-84 to 1988-89, minimum 300 GP, sorted by plus-minus.

Player GP PTS +/-
Brian Propp 431 507 182
Dave Poulin 437 375 162
Murray Craven 358 277 99
Ilkka Sinisalo 340 275 93
Tim Kerr 381 463 88
Ron Sutter 390 264 69
Peter Zezel 310 261 64
Rick Tocchet 344 268 36
Derrick Smith 367 137 14
Dave Brown 311 62 3

Boston Bruins forwards from 1986-87 to 1993-94, minimum 200 GP, sorted by plus-minus

Player GP PTS +/-
Cam Neely 434 503 128
Ken Linseman 251 217 78
Craig Janney 262 283 45
Randy Burridge 307 181 39
Dave Reid 206 79 26
Lyndon Byers 213 47 -6
Steve Kasper 207 146 -7
Bob Sweeney 382 193 -8

Looks like Neely was a difference-maker at ES in a way that Kerr wasn't - he led all Bruin forwards in plus-minus by quite a bit, while Kerr was in the middle of the pack among Flyer forwards. It's also interesting that there was so much less continuity in Boston - I had to drop the GP minimum to 200 because only three forwards reached 300 GP over those eight seasons.

During Neely's prime (86-87 to 93-94) Boston won their division three times, finished second four times, won the President's Trophy once, and lost in the Cup Finals twice. During Kerr's prime (83-84 to 88-89) Philadelphia won their division three times, finished second once, won the President's Trophy once, and lost in the Cup Finals twice. The difference was that Neely was the unquestioned best forward on Boston. Kerr was not that player for Philadelphia.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 01:07 PM
  #28
Crosbyfan
Registered User
 
Crosbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,651
vCash: 500
Neely had a reasonable, if outside, shot at earning his way into the HOF, if not for injury. His nomination is a gift for what possibly might have been.

Crosbyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 01:09 PM
  #29
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Philadelphia Flyers forwards from 1983-84 to 1988-89, minimum 300 GP, sorted by plus-minus.

Player GP PTS +/-
Brian Propp 431 507 182
Dave Poulin 437 375 162
Murray Craven 358 277 99
Ilkka Sinisalo 340 275 93
Tim Kerr 381 463 88
Ron Sutter 390 264 69
Peter Zezel 310 261 64
Rick Tocchet 344 268 36
Derrick Smith 367 137 14
Dave Brown 311 62 3

Boston Bruins forwards from 1986-87 to 1993-94, minimum 200 GP, sorted by plus-minus

Player GP PTS +/-
Cam Neely 434 503 128
Ken Linseman 251 217 78
Craig Janney 262 283 45
Randy Burridge 307 181 39
Dave Reid 206 79 26
Lyndon Byers 213 47 -6
Steve Kasper 207 146 -7
Bob Sweeney 382 193 -8

Looks like Neely was a difference-maker at ES in a way that Kerr wasn't - he led all Bruin forwards in plus-minus by quite a bit, while Kerr was in the middle of the pack among Flyer forwards. It's also interesting that there was so much less continuity in Boston - I had to drop the GP minimum to 200 because only three forwards reached 300 GP over those eight seasons.

During Neely's prime (86-87 to 93-94) Boston won their division three times, finished second four times, won the President's Trophy once, and lost in the Cup Finals twice. During Kerr's prime (83-84 to 88-89) Philadelphia won their division three times, finished second once, won the President's Trophy once, and lost in the Cup Finals twice. The difference was that Neely was the unquestioned best forward on Boston. Kerr was not that player for Philadelphia.
Plus minus is useless...

As for Kerr not being the best forward on his team, I'd disagree with that. And even if it was true, you're going to penalize him for having better teammates up front? This is a silly argument. Neely wasn't the best player on his team either btw, do we penalize him for this too?

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 01:15 PM
  #30
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Philadelphia Flyers forwards from 1983-84 to 1988-89, minimum 300 GP, sorted by plus-minus.

Player GP PTS +/-
Brian Propp 431 507 182
Dave Poulin 437 375 162
Murray Craven 358 277 99
Ilkka Sinisalo 340 275 93
Tim Kerr 381 463 88
Ron Sutter 390 264 69
Peter Zezel 310 261 64
Rick Tocchet 344 268 36
Derrick Smith 367 137 14
Dave Brown 311 62 3

Boston Bruins forwards from 1986-87 to 1993-94, minimum 200 GP, sorted by plus-minus

Player GP PTS +/-
Cam Neely 434 503 128
Ken Linseman 251 217 78
Craig Janney 262 283 45
Randy Burridge 307 181 39
Dave Reid 206 79 26
Lyndon Byers 213 47 -6
Steve Kasper 207 146 -7
Bob Sweeney 382 193 -8

Looks like Neely was a difference-maker at ES in a way that Kerr wasn't - he led all Bruin forwards in plus-minus by quite a bit, while Kerr was in the middle of the pack among Flyer forwards. It's also interesting that there was so much less continuity in Boston - I had to drop the GP minimum to 200 because only three forwards reached 300 GP over those eight seasons.

During Neely's prime (86-87 to 93-94) Boston won their division three times, finished second four times, won the President's Trophy once, and lost in the Cup Finals twice. During Kerr's prime (83-84 to 88-89) Philadelphia won their division three times, finished second once, won the President's Trophy once, and lost in the Cup Finals twice. The difference was that Neely was the unquestioned best forward on Boston. Kerr was not that player for Philadelphia.
Howe's plus minus in that period was absurd I think. Bourque likely had a really high one too. I doubt either player spent much time on ice without Howe or Bourque.

Those Flyer teams were stacked.... Whilst the 2 time Bruins finals teams were really led by Bourque, Neely and Moog.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 01:18 PM
  #31
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Plus minus is useless...

As for Kerr not being the best forward on his team, I'd disagree with that. And even if it was true, you're going to penalize him for having better teammates up front? This is a silly argument. Neely wasn't the best player on his team either btw, do we penalize him for this too?
Plus/minus in this context... Is rather useful. It is only useful in comparing teammates really. Kerr doesn't look bad here, but these stats sure show Philly had 3 great lines...

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 01:21 PM
  #32
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
Plus/minus in this context... Is rather useful. It is only useful in comparing teammates really. Kerr doesn't look bad here, but these stats sure show Philly had 3 great lines...
I don't think so. There's so much here that we don't know about in terms of context. This doesn't hold a whole lot of water for me anyway. And the argument that Kerr wasn't the best forward on his team vs Neely is also ludicrous esp when Neely was playing part of that time with Adam Oates (a much better forward than anyone Kerr played with) and had Ray Bourque on his squad.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 01:30 PM
  #33
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I don't think so. There's so much here that we don't know about in terms of context. This doesn't hold a whole lot of water. And the argument that Kerr wasn't the best forward on his team vs Neely is also ludicrous esp when Neely was playing part of that time with Adam Oates and had Ray Bourque on his squad.
Oates wasn't there when they went to the finals twice.

My eye test actually watching these teams was that Philly had a ton of talented forward depth. Boston had Neely and Bourque.

Neely literally ended the Habs decades long hex on the Bruins himself. For a guy without a Cup, he was a force of nature in the playoffs.

Kerr is not nearly the player Neely was. All he did was score a lot of goals for 5 seasons. Which is great and all, but Neely was a force. He literally changed the momentum of games all the time. He was feared. For several years he would EASILY have been a top 10 selection by NHL GMs if they could pick one player to add to their team.

If you are worried about the numbers when thinking of Neely then you probably didn't see him play at his best. Even the 50 in 49 games.... He was far, far from his best at that point. Not even close.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 01:46 PM
  #34
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
Oates wasn't there when they went to the finals twice.
Okay, but he was there when Neely scored 50 in 50. If you're going to cite a guy's teammates and slam Kerr then I don't see why you'd ignore Oates.

And to be honest, the argument was silly to begin with regardless of whether Oates or Propp or any other player was on those rosters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
My eye test actually watching these teams was that Philly had a ton of talented forward depth. Boston had Neely and Bourque.
So what? Not sure why this matters dude. Like I said, put Kerr in that '87 final and the Flyers win the cup. Better team? Okay sure... but Kerr was a huge part of that club.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
Neely literally ended the Habs decades long hex on the Bruins himself. For a guy without a Cup, he was a force of nature in the playoffs.
The Habs hex ended because Patrick Roy couldn't stop a beachball against them. Neely scored a goal from center ice for Pete's sake. As for the Habs, once Richer went down in '88 after dominating game one and part of game two... the offense went completely away. Lemelin bascially shut the door.

Neely was great for sure and he deserves credit for smoking Montreal those years but Patrick Roy was a bigger factor in a lot of those losses. So much so that there was talk of trading him in '93 before he won the cup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
Kerr is not nearly the player Neely was.
Their production is dead even with Kerr actually being better on the points side. This 'AINEC' argument is BS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
All he did was score a lot of goals for 5 seasons. Which is great and all, but Neely was a force. He literally changed the momentum of games all the time. He was feared. For several years he would EASILY have been a top 10 selection by NHL GMs if they could pick one player to add to their team.
Yeah right he was "a force..." whatever man.

They were different players. But for all the talk of Neely pounding on people, I'd say this doesn't really translate into wins or production. Nice that he could stand up for himself but then again... so could Tim Kerr. Kerr was actually a bigger monster than Neely was.

Neely was a more complete player in my estimation but he wasn't that much better that they're in an entirely different class. Better hitter, better skater, more physical... So sure, I'd take Neely too. But there's no way he's that much better than Kerr that he makes the HOF and Kerr doesn't. Both had HOF talent but neither one of them should be there.

Kerr was more one dimensional but then again so was Brett Hull and you don't hear anyone complaining about him. And so much of what Kerr did doesn't show up on the stat sheet too. He'd screen the goalie and give a lot of space to his teammates. Like I said in a post above, its a thankless job but it makes a huge difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
If you are worried about the numbers when thinking of Neely then you probably didn't see him play at his best. Even the 50 in 49 games.... He was far, far from his best at that point. Not even close.
I saw lots of Neely. Great player. HOF talent but not a HOF resume. He's in because of politics.

And its ridiculous that he gets in on his 2nd try while guys like Gilmour, Lindros and Oates have to wait forever... totally stupid.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 01:51 PM
  #35
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Plus minus is useless...

As for Kerr not being the best forward on his team, I'd disagree with that. And even if it was true, you're going to penalize him for having better teammates up front? This is a silly argument. Neely wasn't the best player on his team either btw, do we penalize him for this too?
I really see no argument for ranking Kerr over Brian Propp on Philadelphia. Propp outscored Kerr, and was a far better all-round player by any criteria.

If any 80s Flyers forward should be in the HHOF, it is Propp, not Kerr.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 01:56 PM
  #36
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I really see no argument for ranking Kerr over Brian Propp on Philadelphia. Propp outscored Kerr, and was a far better all-round player by any criteria.

If any 80s Flyers forward should be in the HHOF, it is Propp, not Kerr.
None of them should be in there. But Propp was a perimeter player, I'm not sure why you'd choose him over a guy who was consistently scoring close to 60 goals a season...

I'd take Kerr over Propp for sure. More points per game, far more goals, big player you can sit in front of the net. Why would you take Propp? Kerr was certainly the better player, just didn't have the longevity. Within the context of him 'being the best forward' I don't see how anyone would take Propp over Kerr.

Within the context of HOF... I guess Propp has the better resume because he managed to rack up 1000 total points. But that's a different question than the one (I thought) was being argued.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 01:59 PM
  #37
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
None of them should be in there. But Propp was a perimeter player, I'm not sure why you'd choose him over a guy who was consistently scoring close to 60 goals a season...

I'd take Kerr over Propp for sure.
That's not what Propp's LOH bio says:

Quote:
The Philadelphia Flyers in the 1979 Amateur Draft then snapped him up. He joined the club the following season and found himself on a line with Bobby Clarke and Reggie Leach. The trio clicked as Propp established himself as a complete player who could work the corners, check opponents, make creative passes, and score goals.
Everything I've gathered would lead me to believe that Propp was a much more well-rounded player than Kerr.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 02:06 PM
  #38
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
That's not what Propp's LOH bio says:

Everything I've gathered would lead me to believe that Propp was a much more well-rounded player than Kerr.
Watching him I never saw him as a particularly physical player.

More well rounded? Like I said, Kerr was pretty one dimensional. But seriously man... who cares? You're getting 60 goals a year out of the guy and he's creating space for creative players like Propp to do his thing by creating havoc in the crease.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 02:34 PM
  #39
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Let's be clear: a big reason Neely is in the HOF is that he's a player a lot of people involved with hockey liked who got hurt in altercations with a player a lot of those same people didn't like.
Pretty much. And this is not a knock against Cam, but a guy who played 726 games and had 694 points who did not win a Selke has got some explaining to do. Not to mention no Cup, never led the league in anything and tons of injury riddled seasons. I too think Neely would have been a legit HHOFer without the injuries. That being said, I still prefer inducting a guy based on his accomplishments and not his "what ifs"

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 02:55 PM
  #40
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,216
vCash: 500
I have mixed feelings about Neely in the HHOF myself, but these posts explain the reasoning behind those who feel he should be in:

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
My case for Neely being in the HHOF has actually been already posted. It's also my case, on the flip-side, for Theo Fleury getting inducted. A lasting, long-term, defining impact on the game, and an absolutely incredible playoff portfolio. Neely doesn't have the conduct flaws that Theo had, but at the end of the day, Neely and Fleury are two guys who will be blue-prints for many years to come. Every scout will be searcing for "The Next Cam Neely" for 20 years. That's something that can't be said about, say, Rick Tocchet. (And I'm a huge Tocchet fan).

The biggest argument about Neely being in the HHOF is longevity. I don't think peak value is an issue. He was a four-time all-star. Every other four-time all-star forward is in the HHOF, except for one, Rick Martin. (Note: John LeClair will set the record with five, but, again, he was an LW). Martin was an LW. Neely was an RW, a position that until very recently had much more quality and quantity for all-star selections. His third all-star season (1991) came in one of the best years ever for the RW position. But when a player is as good Neely was (especially in the playoffs), when he defined a pivotal role like Neely did, longevity isn't an issue.

Not concerned about whether Neely didn't play 80 games or not. From 86 to 91, he didn't miss a playoff game. I'm more impressed with that (especially when you consider how many playoff games Boston played) than worried about how many games he missed in the qualifier for the playoffs.

I don't think Neely was the first power forward. Charlie Conacher was a power forward. So was Dit Clapper. So were Gordie Howe and Jean Beliveau. But Neely was the first to really get that power forward label thrust upon him. And as such, he's the blueprint, the prototype, for what scouts are looking for in a power forward.

As for Lindros: he's maybe the most polarizing player in the history of the game. That's what will keep him out of the HHOF for a long time. When Lindros was at his best, he was unstoppable. But if you think longevity is an issue for Neely, it's an even bigger issue for Lindros. Lindros had three seasons in which he played at an elite level. One of them was the first lockout season. Then there were two others: 1995-96 (when he was a second-team all-star in an outstanding year for centres) and 1998-99, when he should have been a Hart Trophy finalist, but the voters went with Yashin instead. And Lindros had one dominant playoff in 1997, but he struggled against Detroit in the final. The other four years from 92-93 to 98-99 were marred by injuries. By the time 99-00 rolled around, his strained relationship with Clarke became an issue. (I've always maintained that the beginning of the end for Lindros wasn't the concussions, but the collapsed lung in 98-99 that ended his season, and ignited his feud with Clarke).

Ask 20 people what they think of when they hear the name Cam Neely, you'll get a pretty consistent answer. Ask those same 20 people what they think of when they hear the name Eric Lindros, you'll get a wide range of answers. The name Eric Lindros doesn't always conjure up the most positive of emotions for a lot of hockey people.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 03:30 PM
  #41
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I have mixed feelings about Neely in the HHOF myself, but these posts explain the reasoning behind those who feel he should be in:
All these posts do is make me realize how overhyped he is. Best power forward not named Messier? Yeah, I guess somebody forgot how to spell Lindros. Then I read crap like "force of nature" and the like...

Good player. HOF talent but if you're going to get into the HOF with those kinds of numbers you'd better have had a spectacular career and Neely doesn't come close to qualifying.

No MVPs
No Scoring titles
No Goal scoring titles
No cups
Not even a 1st team all-star selection
No top ten point finishes
No individual awards apart from the Masterson...

You can scream power forward - force of nature - all you want, if he was that good he'd have some 1st team all-stars selections at the very least. Not even 400 goals and less than 700 points with no individual awards of any kind.

There's no way this guy should be in the HOF and its ridiculous that he gets in right away and better players have to wait. But again, that's the hockey HOF. Arbitrary, old boys network who pick their favourites. And that's why the HOF isn't held in high regard.

One of the 15 most important players of the past 25 years? Why? The power forward doesn't even exist anymore...

You're telling me his career is more "important" than any of these guys (just off the top of my head?)

In no particular order:

Yzerman
Stevens
Sakic
Gretz
Messier
Lemieux
Jagr
Roy
Hasek
Chelios
Bourque
Leetch
Ovechkin
Crosby
Forsberg
Lindros
Brodeur
Iginla
Pronger
Hull
Gilmour
Lidstrom
Belfour
Coffee
Niedermayer
Lundqvist
Selanne
Oates


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 12-27-2013 at 03:53 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 03:50 PM
  #42
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,078
vCash: 500
there are a great many differences between tim kerr and cam neely, many of which have already been outlined in this thread.

to me, the biggest difference is playoffs. tim kerr was a very good playoff scorer (unlike andreychuk, whose name should never be mentioned in the same sentence as kerr), but even though he put up monster goal totals in the flyers' two 80s cup runs, he only played in half their games those two years. cam neely did not miss a playoff game between '87 and '91.

a question: both guys had their signature playoff runs in years where their teams only made the conference finals. both guys' scoring dried up in the third round after tearing up the league in the first two. we know that ulf samuelsson happened to neely (who scored 3 goals in the first two games of that series, before scoring just one more goal the rest of the way). was kerr playing hurt too, or did he just put up an o-fer in the wales finals in '89 because of patrick roy?

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2013, 04:45 PM
  #43
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Looks like Neely was a difference-maker at ES in a way that Kerr wasn't - he led all Bruin forwards in plus-minus by quite a bit, while Kerr was in the middle of the pack among Flyer forwards. It's also interesting that there was so much less continuity in Boston - I had to drop the GP minimum to 200 because only three forwards reached 300 GP over those eight seasons.

During Neely's prime (86-87 to 93-94) Boston won their division three times, finished second four times, won the President's Trophy once, and lost in the Cup Finals twice. During Kerr's prime (83-84 to 88-89) Philadelphia won their division three times, finished second once, won the President's Trophy once, and lost in the Cup Finals twice. The difference was that Neely was the unquestioned best forward on Boston. Kerr was not that player for Philadelphia.
That's fine and dandy, but I don't particularly care. I'm not getting caught up in the idea that Kerr and Neely were truly comparable; I'm arguing that Neely's induction was a mistake and that he should not be used as support for anyone else's case.

From 1979-80 to today, there have been 12 forwards whose career production can be described as comparable to Cam Neely. The parameters are:
- Between 600 and 800 NHL games, and
- 300 or more career goals in the NHL

The forwards who meet these are Mike Bullard, Pavel Bure, Wendel Clark, Marian Gaborik, Tim Kerr, Petr Klima, Eric Lindros, Paul MacLean, Rick Nash, Cam Neely, Alexander Ovechkin, and Ziggy Palffy. Marcel Dionne and Rick Middleton hit those as well, but their careers began before that point so they don't belong.

The question isn't Neely over Kerr. It's why Neely more than anyone else in that group?

Let's compare Neely and Palffy. Neely had 395 goals and 694 points in 726 games; Palffy had 329 goals and 713 points in 684 career games. That's an average of 0.54 GPG and 0.96 PPG for Neely, and 0.48 GPG and 1.04 PPG for Palffy. Of course, they played in very different eras; Neely in an offensively-friendly era, Palffy in the dead puck era. Adjusted totals are 363 goals and 629 points for Neely, 366 goals and 784 points for Palffy. The adjusted averages are 0.5 GPG and 0.87 PPG for Neely, compared to 0.54 GPG and 1.15 PPG for Palffy.

Both played on the power play, with each leading the NHL in power play goals once. Palffy killed penalties, Neely did not. Palffy was a career +83 despite playing on some poor teams, Neely was a career +82 despite playing on the Bruins during a time that they made the SCF twice. Neely led his team in goals 8 times and scoring twice, Palffy in goals 7 times and points 5 times. In 2002-03, Palffy led the Kings in scoring with 85 points (in on 41.9% of the team's goals); second place was Mathieu Schneider with 43. Neely never had a year like that.

Neely was in the top-10 in goals four times, Palffy three times. Palffy was in the top-10 in points four times, Neely never cracked that. Neither won a major individual award (Neely has the Masterton), and neither was a first-team All-Star (Neely had four second-team appearances).

Palffy had a prolific international career, Neely did not. Neely gets a huge advantage in the playoffs, which is partially a function of playing on a contending team during an era when 16/21 teams made the playoffs. Palffy broke in with the Islanders during their fisherman years and didn't move on until he was 27. He finished with 24 career playoff games; Neely played more than 20 in a single playoff year twice.

Like I said above, it's not a question of Neely over Kerr; it's a question of why Neely at all over those others in the group.

(More fun. Neely with the Bruins was a +138 against a team overall goal differential of +331. Palffy with the Islanders was a -1 against a team goal differential of -191. With the Kings, he was +85 against a team goal differential of +40.)


Last edited by Mayor Bee: 12-27-2013 at 04:53 PM.
Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2013, 01:13 AM
  #44
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,508
vCash: 500
I'm going to say that Neely was more important and a better player than Ziggy Palffy. I don't really have to think longer than a microsecond when someone asks who I would rather have on my team between the two. Palffy wasn't physical, he needed the puck on his stick to be effective. Neely didn't, I'll give him that. The 4 second team all-stars stick out to me at least. Part of me wants to see him have at least one first team all-star. I know the RW position was tough at that time with a lot of competition, but to fully look close at it, I'm not sure he deserved all of those all-stars. Observe:

1988 - Neely had 69 points. Alright fine. Loob was a 1st team all-star. Kurri had 96 points that year. Glenn Anderson had 88. Just saying. Does Neely make up for 27 extra points on Kurri? I don't think he does.

1990 - This is one I won't argue on. Hull had 113 points that year and 73 goals. He's 1st team all-star. Neely had 55 goals and 92 points. Give it to him.

1991 - A bit of a stronger year for RW. Neely had 51 goals and 91 points. Hull had 131. After that Recchi had 113, Fleury had 104 and Larmer had 101. All of the latter three had a bigger impact on their team, I think, than Neely. Recchi filled in greatly with Lemieux's absence. Fleury got some Hart votes, and Larmer stepped up with Savard gone. All were RW. All played full seasons and all had far more points. I don't think Neely's season makes up for this. But I can accept that, it isn't that far off.

1994 - This one bugs me the most. 50 goals and 74 points in 49 games. It is a sexy total. I get it. And I think he hits 70 goals in a full season especially with Adam Oates as his center. Bure gets the 1st team all-star nod. That's fine. But Recchi (107), Jagr (99) and Hull (97) all significantly outscore Neely. Do you not think these guys who actually played a full year and not 60% of it made more of an impact on their teams and had better seasons? Yet they hand the 2nd team all-star to Neely.

So I have an issue with this, because it makes him look like he had a better career than he did. And I am taking into account the whole idea that Neely played a physical game and was a beast out there. I watche him, I know. But the guys I am comparing him to (Fleury, Recchi, etc.) had their own intangibles too.

I realize Cournoyer had 4 2nd team all-stars without having a 1st team as well. But the difference is winning 8 Cups, a Conn Smythe and captaining a dynasty. Not to mention Cournoyer actually scored more and had better longevity.

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2013, 01:04 PM
  #45
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I'm going to say that Neely was more important and a better player than Ziggy Palffy. I don't really have to think longer than a microsecond when someone asks who I would rather have on my team between the two. Palffy wasn't physical, he needed the puck on his stick to be effective. Neely didn't, I'll give him that. The 4 second team all-stars stick out to me at least. Part of me wants to see him have at least one first team all-star. I know the RW position was tough at that time with a lot of competition, but to fully look close at it, I'm not sure he deserved all of those all-stars. Observe:

1988 - Neely had 69 points. Alright fine. Loob was a 1st team all-star. Kurri had 96 points that year. Glenn Anderson had 88. Just saying. Does Neely make up for 27 extra points on Kurri? I don't think he does.

1990 - This is one I won't argue on. Hull had 113 points that year and 73 goals. He's 1st team all-star. Neely had 55 goals and 92 points. Give it to him.

1991 - A bit of a stronger year for RW. Neely had 51 goals and 91 points. Hull had 131. After that Recchi had 113, Fleury had 104 and Larmer had 101. All of the latter three had a bigger impact on their team, I think, than Neely. Recchi filled in greatly with Lemieux's absence. Fleury got some Hart votes, and Larmer stepped up with Savard gone. All were RW. All played full seasons and all had far more points. I don't think Neely's season makes up for this. But I can accept that, it isn't that far off.

1994 - This one bugs me the most. 50 goals and 74 points in 49 games. It is a sexy total. I get it. And I think he hits 70 goals in a full season especially with Adam Oates as his center. Bure gets the 1st team all-star nod. That's fine. But Recchi (107), Jagr (99) and Hull (97) all significantly outscore Neely. Do you not think these guys who actually played a full year and not 60% of it made more of an impact on their teams and had better seasons? Yet they hand the 2nd team all-star to Neely.

So I have an issue with this, because it makes him look like he had a better career than he did. And I am taking into account the whole idea that Neely played a physical game and was a beast out there. I watche him, I know. But the guys I am comparing him to (Fleury, Recchi, etc.) had their own intangibles too.

I realize Cournoyer had 4 2nd team all-stars without having a 1st team as well. But the difference is winning 8 Cups, a Conn Smythe and captaining a dynasty. Not to mention Cournoyer actually scored more and had better longevity.
i think you're probably right. it's funny-- in recchi's four year peak, he makes the second all-star team in the worst season of the four ('92); he's 4, 5, and 10th in points in the other three, 12th in '92.

and to also show the capriciousness of counting AST finishes, that could easily be kerr as the four time 2nd team all-star, if not for kurri/bossy being automatics in the mid-80s.


none of that makes palffy comparable to neely, though. and i was a big palffy fan.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2013, 01:04 PM
  #46
zidell*
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vancouver Blazers View Post
Neely was a gamebreaking power forward who redefined the position, Tim Kerr just stood in front of the net on the powerplay.
This about sums it up.

zidell* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2013, 01:24 PM
  #47
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Neely doesn't belong in the HOF. It's that simple. He's exhibit A of what's wrong with the Hall. No transparency, old boys network, arbitrary inductions... neither has a HOF resume. And his inclusion is a big reason why the Hockey HOF is a joke.
Right on time!

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2013, 01:26 PM
  #48
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Watching him I never saw him as a particularly physical player.

More well rounded? Like I said, Kerr was pretty one dimensional. But seriously man... who cares? You're getting 60 goals a year out of the guy and he's creating space for creative players like Propp to do his thing by creating havoc in the crease.
I'm pretty sure we've had longtime Flyers fans in here saying they would take Propp over Kerr in a heartbeat.

He was not a perimeter player, he was a fantastic all around player. All scouting reports confirm this, as well as Kerr being terrible at just about everything but putting the puck in the net.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2013, 01:32 PM
  #49
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Right on time!
Yup.

Every now and then when I see the "headlines" on the side of the page I see a topic I'm intersted in I click it. It was the Richard thread.

Then I look down and low and behold...

Took you a while to get here though. I expected to see you sooner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I'm pretty sure we've had longtime Flyers fans in here saying they would take Propp over Kerr in a heartbeat.

He was not a perimeter player, he was a fantastic all around player. All scouting reports confirm this, as well as Kerr being terrible at just about everything but putting the puck in the net.
Meh, I might've been unfair to Propp. He did go into the corners but he wasn't exactly a big phsyical player.

And yes Kerr was one dimensional but so what? So was Brett Hull. At the end of the day scoring goals consistently while driving goalies nuts in the crease is a valuable commodity. If Tim Kerr stays healthy he's a slam dunk HOFer. Brian Propp for the most part was healthy and doesn't come close. No doubt who I'd want on my team.

Playoff series are won and lost in the crease. Its why Chara and Pronger are so valuable in the postseason. Kerr may not have done much else but going to the dirty areas and causing havoc is how cups are won.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2013, 01:42 PM
  #50
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Yup.

Every now and then when I see the "headlines" on the side of the page I see a topic I'm intersted in I click it. It was the Richard thread.

Then I look down and low and behold...

Took you a while to get here though. I expected to see you sooner.
Actually, you might be behind on the issue if you think you know why I'm involved in this topic.

Quote:
Meh, I might've been unfair to Propp. He did go into the corners but he wasn't exactly a big phsyical player.

And yes Kerr was one dimensional but so what? So was Brett Hull. At the end of the day scoring goals consistently while driving goalies nuts in the crease is a valuable commodity. If Tim Kerr stays healthy he's a slam dunk HOFer. Brian Propp for the most part was healthy and doesn't come close. No doubt who I'd want on my team.

Playoff series are won and lost in the crease. Its why Chara and Pronger are so valuable in the postseason. Kerr may not have done much else but going to the dirty areas and causing havoc is how cups are won.
There are degrees of one-dimensionality. Hull was one-dimensional, yes, but Kerr took that to a whole other level.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:10 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.