Why is Cam Neely in the Hall of Fame but Tim Kerr isn't?

[MadLuke]

The question can sound a little bit, why the way more famous and beloved players is in the hall of fame ?

It will be for a lot of the same reason that he was more famous and beloved...

Neely scored at 50 goals rate in the playoff, just a bit more than that with 55 in 86 has a Bruins vs 39 in 73 for Kerr.

Has a Bruins 344 in 525 for Neely, (0.66) vs 363 in 601 for Kerr (.61) one got to play with Oates for a while, so it would not be for the regular season numbers that is true.

Playoff a little bit... not the timing of the injury either, Kerr just had two 58 goals season.

Fame is a great argument for Neely, but unfortunately one that isn't applied very consistently.

And need to be, Sean Avery or John Scott could have become one of the most famous nhler ever (Probert, Domi are more famous than a lot of HHOF), that why we have a commitee of human, talking and voting, because we are not aiming at some strong consistency.

 

[HalifaxforNhl100]

I think Kerr Neely and maybe all above besides Suter should come in, sooner or later definitively and more than so
Nilsson Neely and Kerr are the best forwards, Nabokov could had a longer career but over 350 wins can may be considered hall of fame accomplishments to count in
I forgot Chris Osgood
Red wings were without doubt a
great team otherwise though also
Its a little of a question like in a way
like with Moog there
Moog werent used in playoffs
but were not far from a really big
contributor to Oilers success as Fuhr
Perhaps Fuhr and Moog were better goalies than Osgood though if i would try to compare the different eras in a kind of special consideration

 

[Finster8]

Looking at another good comparable Rick Martin GP-685 G384 A317 Pt701
Neely GP-726 G395 A299 Pt694
Kerr GP-655 G370 A304 Pt674

All were dominating in their prime and all careers ended to short by injuries. Still JMO a little shy of HHOF.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Was he though? I get the whole physical aspect of his game but Kerr wasnt a pushover. He was versatile, could take face offs, big, took a lot of punishment and was a big impact player for the Flyers. They both had their careers cut short by injuries. Tbh, I dont see a big difference between the two.

Neely was a 4-time 2nd team all-star. Twice behind Brett Hull, once behind Pavel Bure and once behind Hakken Loob.

Kerr was a 2nd team all-star once, behind Jarri Kurri.

Goals per game in the playoffs, Neely is 5th all-time, behind only Mario Lemieux, Mike Bossy, Rocket Richard and Barry Pederson (who he was traded for).

 

[Hobnobs]

Neely was a 4-time 2nd team all-star. Twice behind Brett Hull, once behind Pavel Bure and once behind Hakken Loob.

Kerr was a 2nd team all-star once, behind Jarri Kurri.

Goals per game in the playoffs, Neely is 5th all-time, behind only Mario Lemieux, Mike Bossy, Rocket Richard and Barry Pederson (who he was traded for).

8ish years later? I guess I have to defend my argument from back then.

I guess when you have to go ASTs and 5th most GPG in the playoffs as tiebreakers it's a very marginal difference between the players.

I might as well say Kerr got more hart considerations and if he had retired in 89 like he should have he would have been 7th in GPG in the playoffs at the time.

As for the ASTs. I think it's more impressive to be 3rd behind Bossy and Kurri than beating Leeman to get a 2nd AST.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

8ish years later? I guess I have to defend my argument from back then.

I guess when you have to go ASTs and 5th most GPG in the playoffs as tiebreakers it's a very marginal difference between the players.

I might as well say Kerr got more hart considerations and if he had retired in 89 like he should have he would have been 7th in GPG in the playoffs at the time.

As for the ASTs. I think it's more impressive to be 3rd behind Bossy and Kurri than beating Leeman to get a 2nd AST.

Woops!

Didn't realize this was thread dug up from way back when.

Anyway, if you saw these two guys play then you should know why there was a difference in their impact on games.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

imo the point of the hall of fame is so the kinds of significant things that dads tell their sons but eventually get lost to the sands of time are recirculated.

so pull up a seat kids, here goes: many of us know that neely owned patrick roy. but what you also have to understand is that the habs owned boston for decades. boston hadn’t won a playoff series against montreal since 1943. even when they were winning their bobby orr cups the rookie dryden-led habs upset them in 1971, their best year, when they destroyed the regular season like no one. three straight losses to the habs, 1977 to 79, including back to back finals. four straight first round losses to the habs leading up to the 1988 playoffs (neely got five goals in the last one, a habs sweep).

so neely’s 20 goals in 26 playoff games against montreal, a 3-2 series record in a five year span that included two finals runs, was positively legend-making. against one of the great defensive teams, led by the premiere defensive center of their generation in his selke winning prime, and of course the greatest playoff goalie of all time.

anyway, i’m not aware of kerr ever being that kind of series/O6 power of balance-altering force of nature.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I’m surprised nobody has mentioned that Neely was a very game fighter. He dropped gloves with guys like Tiger Williams, Joey Kocur, Chris Nolan, Basil McRae, Rick Tocchet. Even Donald Brashear when they briefly overlapped.

As a result he had more than double Kerr’s PIMs.

Attitudes about this have changed a lot since 2005. At the time, it was important to have a fighter willing to take on the heavyweights. A guy like Neely who could bang around all night, drop the gloves, score a couple goals along the way… that was a BIG asset to your team. He was a Wendel Clark type player and if Clark had been just a little better he might also be in the HHOF.

 

[Hobnobs]

Woops!

Didn't realize this was thread dug up from way back when.

Anyway, if you saw these two guys play then you should know why there was a difference in their impact on games.

I get you man. I don't really care who we think is better. Neely is more fondly remembered but I dont think Kerr is as far behind as people seem to think.

I’m surprised nobody has mentioned that Neely was a very game fighter. He dropped gloves with guys like Tiger Williams, Joey Kocur, Chris Nolan, Basil McRae, Rick Tocchet. Even Donald Brashear when they briefly overlapped.

As a result he had more than double Kerr’s PIMs.

Attitudes about this have changed a lot since 2005. At the time, it was important to have a fighter willing to take on the heavyweights. A guy like Neely who could bang around all night, drop the gloves, score a couple goals along the way… that was a BIG asset to your team. He was a Wendel Clark type player and if Clark had been just a little better he might also be in the HHOF.

Being a star and fighting 4th liners on a regular basis is not something to admire. There is a reason why Tocchet, Kerr, Shanahan etc stopped doing it. It's a waste. One of the biggest draw backs of Neely is simply this.

 

[MadLuke]

There is a reason why Tocchet, Kerr, Shanahan etc stopped doing it. It's a waste.

Tocchet was small as well..

Neely became a big deal in 89-90 (and started to make money in 90-91), according to this:

Cam Neely (RW) | HockeyFights

Cam Neely (RW)

www.hockeyfights.com

Only fought 14 time for all of that star portion of his career and some of those were perfectly fine fight to have (vs Wendel clark, U Samuelsson x2 , Claude Lemieux, type)

One big heavyweight in Brashear fight, McRae-Sheehy, but they seem really rare.

Scoring so many goals and missing so many games to injury (and zero need to fight to keep a spot, get more money), he seem to have involved.

He had more fights than that in a single season before he turned a star.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Being a star and fighting 4th liners on a regular basis is not something to admire. There is a reason why Tocchet, Kerr, Shanahan etc stopped doing it. It's a waste. One of the biggest draw backs of Neely is simply this.

Again, attitudes have changed a lot on this. A star being able to fight for himself (or a fighter being able to play, like Probert or Tocchet) means one less goon needed to protect them. It allows you to put another decent player on the roster.

This hasn’t mattered at all in the post-lockout era but during Neely’s career it was very much a factor in team construction and the dynamics of a hockey game. It was still the era where a Nilan would just go around bullying skill players unless someone stood up to him.

 

[MadLuke]

This hasn’t mattered at all in the post-lockout era

There was still some division Leafs-Sabres/Wilds-Ducks that burned a couple of spot on bad skater that could fight, it is a little bit more recent as a phenomenon that it would have been perceived as neutral-bad for a star player to risk injury and 5 minutes in fights..

Chara ability to change everyone way to act after a whistle and able to get it on with Laraque top heavyweigh in the league was still nice and appreciated by Bruins fan circa 2006-2012.

But once Neely turned into a superstar, how many times in total he ever went toe to toe with an heavyweight, maybe 5 times at the very max ? It cannot be said to have been a drawback.

 

[JackSlater]

imo the point of the hall of fame is so the kinds of significant things that dads tell their sons but eventually get lost to the sands of time are recirculated.

so pull up a seat kids, here goes: many of us know that neely owned patrick roy. but what you also have to understand is that the habs owned boston for decades. boston hadn’t won a playoff series against montreal since 1943. even when they were winning their bobby orr cups the rookie dryden-led habs upset them in 1971, their best year, when they destroyed the regular season like no one. three straight losses to the habs, 1977 to 79, including back to back finals. four straight first round losses to the habs leading up to the 1988 playoffs (neely got five goals in the last one, a habs sweep).

so neely’s 20 goals in 26 playoff games against montreal, a 3-2 series record in a five year span that included two finals runs, was positively legend-making. against one of the great defensive teams, led by the premiere defensive center of their generation in his selke winning prime, and of course the greatest playoff goalie of all time.

anyway, i’m not aware of kerr ever being that kind of series/O6 power of balance-altering force of nature.

That's all well and good, but I knew no less than three guys who named their dogs after Neely. And I do not live in Massachusetts either. Around the same time I knew a dog named Roenick and a dog named Wendell, but certainly no Kerr. If that, the dog test, is not definitive proof then surely nothing is.

 

[Hobnobs]

Again, attitudes have changed a lot on this. A star being able to fight for himself (or a fighter being able to play, like Probert or Tocchet) means one less goon needed to protect them. It allows you to put another decent player on the roster.

This hasn’t mattered at all in the post-lockout era but during Neely’s career it was very much a factor in team construction and the dynamics of a hockey game. It was still the era where a Nilan would just go around bullying skill players unless someone stood up to him.

This is revisionist history. Yes, fans loved it. But every coach tried to get Neely to fight less. Same with Tocchet and he played Phily. Even Neely has said that in a later interview about fighting but he was too hard headed to follow coaches order.

Even back then it was more valuable to have a 50 goal scorer on the ice instead of in the penalty box because he fought someone like Basil McRae.

What was appreciated was a good player who could fight other physical good players like Messier, Shanahan, Tocchet and so on.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is revisionist history. Yes, fans loved it. But every coach tried to get Neely to fight less. Same with Tocchet and he played Phily. Even Neely has said that in a later interview about fighting but he was too hard headed to follow coaches order.

Even back then it was more valuable to have a 50 goal scorer on the ice instead of in the penalty box because he fought someone like Basil McRae.

What was appreciated was a good player who could fight other physical good players like Messier, Shanahan, Tocchet and so on.

We’re not talking about what was the best hockey strategy or who was more coachable, we’re talking about why one guy is in the HHOF and the other isn’t despite near-identical numbers.

Peak Neely was a terror on ice in a way that Kerr never was. If you don’t think that his hitting and fighting and resulting widespread popularity (even pop culture relevance) had anything to do with that, then I don’t know what to tell you. It’s not like Neely got in because of all his Cup rings and being the best faceoff guy in the league. He got in because he did a couple of things really well that your typical scoring stars didn’t even attempt to do.

 

[Gorskyontario]

I get you man. I don't really care who we think is better. Neely is more fondly remembered but I dont think Kerr is as far behind as people seem to think.



Being a star and fighting 4th liners on a regular basis is not something to admire. There is a reason why Tocchet, Kerr, Shanahan etc stopped doing it. It's a waste. One of the biggest draw backs of Neely is simply this.

Neely didn't fight that often.

 

[Hobnobs]

We’re not talking about what was the best hockey strategy or who was more coachable, we’re talking about why one guy is in the HHOF and the other isn’t despite near-identical numbers.

Peak Neely was a terror on ice in a way that Kerr never was. If you don’t think that his hitting and fighting and resulting widespread popularity (even pop culture relevance) had anything to do with that, then I don’t know what to tell you. It’s not like Neely got in because of all his Cup rings and being the best faceoff guy in the league. He got in because he did a couple of things really well that your typical scoring stars didn’t even attempt to do.

Sure, I get you but that's not why he got in (fighting 4th liners) he got in because 50 in 50, well liked and he was the definition of a good ol canadian boy (which includes the physical stuff)

I'm not actually arguing for Kerr being inducted or being better for that matter. He's also a different player to Neely. A rich mans Tomas Holmström if you will. Just that when it comes down to what actually matters which is scoring goals, winning games and not being a reason you lose both are nearer eachother than people here wants to admit.

Neely didn't fight that often.

Not really what we are talking about.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

They have very similar numbers. Both their careers were in roughly the same era and both were cut short by injuries.

Is Neely's 50 in 50 the only reason he's in and Kerr isn't?

Have you seen them play ?

Apples and oranges...

 

[Staniowski]

Most people who saw them play knows there's a big difference between Kerr and Neely as hockey players. Neely is the quintessential power forward of all-time, and one of the best goal-scorers in the history of hockey. He was a significant superstar in the NHL.

Kerr was none of those things.

Neely was the type of player who makes the HHOF whether he plays a full career or not; Kerr was the type of player who makes it based on career totals....which didn't happen.

 

[The Panther]

Neely was the type of player who makes the HHOF whether he plays a full career or not; Kerr was the type of player who makes it based on career totals....which didn't happen.

As usual, you have a bit of a weird take:

Kerr goals finishes
2, 3, 3, 6
Kerr goals per game
2, 3, 5, 5, 6, 10
Neely goals finishes
2, 3, 8, 9
Neely goals per game
1 (played only 49 games), 2, 5, 5

 

[Albatros]

Most people who saw them play knows there's a big difference between Kerr and Neely as hockey players. Neely is the quintessential power forward of all-time, and one of the best goal-scorers in the history of hockey. He was a significant superstar in the NHL.

Kerr was none of those things.

Is there a tangible difference in their goal scoring though? Neely scored 395 goals in 726 games (0.54 gpg) and Kerr 370 goals in 655 games (0.56 gpg). Both in 13 seasons, Neely age 18-30 and Kerr age 20-33. I'd call that even.

 

[The Panther]

Interesting video here on Kerr... I didn't know much about his off-ice background and challenges until I saw this a while ago:

 

[Fish on The Sand]

I'm sure that's part of it, but I don't think it's the only reason. Neely was a power forward that had something closer to a complete game. As effective as Tim Kerr was, there was probably a perception that Neely was closer to being one of the best players in the league during his peak/prime. I do believe that Tim Kerr is an underappreciated player though.

I think the biggest reason is that Don Cherry and others like him jerked off Neely every week on TV for 20 years until he made it in.

 

[SML2]

How would Tim Kerr measure up against John LeClair?


Neely's induction is one of the reasons I believe Corey Perry will have a good shot at induction if he ends up with well over 400 goals and more than 900 points.

Perry is interesting. I don't know if he helps or hurts his cause by continuing to play. He dilutes his numbers, but improves his reputation as every team he is on goes deep in the playoffs.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think the biggest reason is that Don Cherry and others like him jerked off Neely every week on TV for 20 years until he made it in.

Real nice.