A master list of players that should not be in the Hall of Fame, but currently are?
I have been browsing for a while and it looks like the consensus is that there is some rage to be had at a few of the inductions of the Hockey Hall of Fame. I would agree - for a lot of players, it seems as though the selection committee was basking a little too much in the glory days or had allegiances to certain teams that compromised their duty of creating a respectable Hall.
I'll start with some of mine:
Dick Duff
Bernie Federko
Edgar Laprade
Leo Boivin
Bob Pulford
Clark Gillies
Glenn Anderson
Questionable:
Lanny McDonald
Joe Mullen
Ed Giacomin
Bert Olmstead
I would go back further but my knowledge of pre-70s hockey is lacklustre and it gets worse the further we go back.
Dick Duff obviously got in for his Toronto connections.
Edgar Laprade is the big head scratcher for me. I honestly can't figure out if it's a bad selection or not. Like, why exactly was their a push to induct an undeserving member of the 1930s Rangers? It just doesn't make sense. His numbers are good, not great, and he was supposedly an elite defensive player, but he never won anything. Just bizarre.
Cam was a four time All-Star right winger. Against monster competition.
Every four or more time All-Star RW in NHL history is in the Hall. What exactly do you think is different about Cam that warrants him 'questionable' status?
I could go on and on, (how about Neely being one of the greatest playoff goal scorers in history for example), but I usually just quote GBC now........
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
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.
EDIT: here is a little list for you....
1. Mario Lemieux
2. Mike Bossy
3. Maurice Richard
4. Cam Neely
5. Wayne Gretzky
That is your top five playoff goals per game leaders, (minimum 35 games played).
Add that to the four regular season all-star berths and there you go.
Was Gerry Cheevers a better goalie than the likes of non-HOFers Vachon, Vernon, Richter, Beezer and Moog? Good guy, but probably the weakest goalie in the HoF.
Dick Duff obviously got in for his Toronto connections.
Edgar Laprade is the big head scratcher for me. I honestly can't figure out if it's a bad selection or not. Like, why exactly was their a push to induct an undeserving member of the 1930s Rangers? It just doesn't make sense. His numbers are good, not great, and he was supposedly an elite defensive player, but he never won anything. Just bizarre.
Edgar Laprade was the Rangers offensive and defensive leader from 1945-1955,Lady Byng quality, almost led the Rangers to a surprising 1950 Stanley Cup victory.
Dick Duff was a very under appreciated clutch player. Scored game winning goals on the road in 1959 to cap the Leafs surprising playoff run, Cup winning goal in Chicago in 1962, Huge role in 1965 Finals game 7 against Chicago. Very reliable defensively.
Cam was a four time All-Star right winger. Against monster competition.
Every four or more time All-Star RW in NHL history is in the Hall. What exactly do you think is different about Cam that warrants him 'questionable' status?
I could go on and on, (how about Neely being one of the greatest playoff goal scorers in history for example), but I usually just quote GBC now........
EDIT: here is a little list for you....
1. Mario Lemieux
2. Mike Bossy
3. Maurice Richard
4. Cam Neely
5. Wayne Gretzky
That is your top five playoff goals per game leaders, (minimum 35 games played).
Add that to the four regular season all-star berths and there you go.
Howe defined the power forward roll so already there the thing fell apart. So because Neely spiked in playoffs during his prime he should be in HHoF?
So he gets in for 4 all star berths and a good GPG in his prime.
Damn more people should have retired before turning 30 so they could get in HHoF because of high GPG.
If Bob Pulford is a bad choice, then what about Bob Gainey?
Pulford was the elite defensive player of his era, won many Cups, and was a better scorer than Gainey.
On the Leafs alone Dave Keon and George Armstrong were better,probably Kelly as well. Pulford was very good defensively and definitely deserves to be a HHOFer.
I am still waiting for you to tell me how Neely differs from every other 4 time All-Star right wing in NHL history.....
....or baring that; what others should be on the "questionable" list.
If you're going by All-Star teams, LeClair has a better post-season all-star resume than Neely, and he certainly shouldn't be inducted.
two first team, three 2nd team
You could also make a good argument that LeClair's three consecutive 50 goal seasons during the dead puck era and 5 straight of 40 (if you facrotr in proration of the lockout season its 6 straight) goals plus is more impressive than Neely's regular season goal scoring.
There was a 5 year stretch where LeClair was the highest goal scoring player in the NHL, it's not something Neely can claim.
LeClair was also excellent internationally, and a Stanley Cup Champion.
Was Gerry Cheevers a better goalie than the likes of non-HOFers Vachon, Vernon, Richter, Beezer and Moog? Good guy, but probably the weakest goalie in the HoF.
If you're going by All-Star teams, LeClair has a better post-season all-star resume than Neely, and he certainly shouldn't be inducted.
two first team, three 2nd team
....come on man; as a left wing.
Big difference.
Every four or more time All-Star RW is in the Hall.
Every four or more time All-Star LW is not, (I.E. - Rick Martin).
I'm not "going by" anything. Except my eyes and 40+ years of NHL hockey.
I reiterate; how is Neely different from every other 4 time All-Star right wing in NHL history? And/or let us see the name(s) of the others that should be on the "questionable" list.
Every four or more time All-Star RW is in the Hall.
Every four or more time All-Star LW is not, (I.E. - Rick Martin).
I'm not "going by" anything. Except my eyes and 40+ years of NHL hockey.
I reiterate; how is Neely different from every other 4 time All-Star right wing in NHL history? And/or let us see the name(s) of the others that should be on the "questionable" list.
Seriously, does all-star teams even count as a significant? Cam Neely managed to get on a second all-star team four times. You do know that he lost a 1st team to Håkan Loob right?
What you also managed to erase was the fact that Barry Pederson and Cy Denneny had a better GPG.
Can't you post playoff GPG for players in their prime years? Because I know that both Cicciarelli and Hull beats Neely there too.
4 times 2nd team all star is would not be enough in my book. 50 in 50 is legendary. Therefore he is in.
But is his career HHoF worthy? A feat is a feat. It's a great one for sure but other players have done amazing things too. 150+ points in a season is an excusive club too, doesnt mean we should let Nicholls in HHoF.
What you also managed to erase was the fact that Barry Pederson and Cy Denneny had a better GPG.
I didn't "manage" to do anything. Pederson only played 34 career playoff games. Denneny only 25.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx
You do know that he lost a 1st team to Håkan Loob right?
Yeah? So? And his other three All-Star seasons he was second to a guy that scored 86 and 72 goals, and another guy who scored 60......And Loob had 50 goals and 106 points. So what's your point? That Loob had one really great season...? That would fall under the "feat" category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx
Seriously, does all-star teams even count as a significant?
Ha! Sorry. I thought I was having a conversation with someone with at least a basic understanding of NHL hockey. "Lets just disregard one of the leagues highest honors"
"What's that? He was voted one of the top two right wingers in the game? PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT!"
Brilliant argument.....
....at least now I get why you are so clueless about Cam, lol.
A feat is a feat. It's a great one for sure but other players have done amazing things too. 150+ points in a season is an excusive club too, doesnt mean we should let Nicholls in HHoF.
Was Cam's years of dominance a "feat" too?
....oh wait, you have decided that those years weren't "significant", lol.
The thing is that Cam Neely's #8 was never a lock to be retired plays an issue with how he's perceived. If he had played just as well, but never left Vancouver, let's say.
Vancouver is a newer team, and while it's not necessarily 'easier' to make a big impact on one, it gets perceived as a bigger accomplishment.
Look at the Lightning. Marty St. Louis seems to be a guy who will get in the hall eventually, if he had played his career for Montreal, the chances probably wouldn't be so good because he'd be compared to every other legend the team has, and it's nigh impossible to stack up to someone you see with rose-tinted glasses.
Paul Kariya and his impact on the Ducks is an actual example. He's still very highly regarded for his time there but because of the time he's spent away from the team, it's put him in context a bit more, and it's more unlikely than ever that he'll have his number retired by the team. They also won their cup without him, so they know they can get along without him.
Cam Neely's accomplishments, though impressive, aren't as valuable in a sense because it happened with the Bruins, the oldest team in the U.S. and one who didn't win a cup in that time.
