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

[Michel Beauchamp]

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.

A great example of why simply looking at numbers is wrong.

Neely dominated the game (and, as a Canadiens fan, it hurts me to say so).

Kerr ? Absolutely not.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Kerr dominated the front of the net probably better than anyone in history.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

looking at some numbers:

peak kerr (1985-90)

games: 421 (max: 560)
goals: 299 (5th)
pts: 511 (26th)
ES goals: 173 (12th)
ES pts: 303 (41st)
PP goals: 126 (1st)
PP pts: 208 (18th)

playoff games: 57
playoff goals: 36 (8th)
playoff pts: 62 (16th)
playoff ES goals: 17 (18th)
playoff ES pts: 29 (45th)
playoff PP goals: 19 (2nd)
playoff PP pts: 33 (9th)


peak neely (1987-95)

games: 476 (max: 696)
goals: 318 (11th)
pts: 544 (39th)
ES goals: 195 (11th)
ES pts: 357 (35th)
PP goals: 122 (7th)
PP pts: 185 (55th)

playoff games: 86
playoff goals: 55 (4th)
playoff pts: 87 (20th)
playoff ES goals: 30 (7th)
playoff ES pts: 53 (18th)
playoff PP goals: 24 (2nd)
playoff PP pts: 33 (21st)


as expected, neely has the edge in ES scoring while kerr is more PP-reliant. but i’ll be honest, i expected the gap to be bigger.

 

[seventieslord]

For those who speak Jfresh style analytics language... I didn't see a lot of Kerr, but based on scouting reports coupled with his undeniable prolificacy, I feel like he's the kind of guy who'd have a Patrik Laine -like card: like 20% on offense, 5% on defense, 100% on PP and finishing. And would show up as like an 85% overall despite not being a play driver at all.

 

[Albatros]

A great example of why simply looking at numbers is wrong.

Neely dominated the game (and, as a Canadiens fan, it hurts me to say so).

Kerr ? Absolutely not.

Neely scored 28 goals and 51 points against the Habs in 53 games while Kerr got 6 and 11 in 24, so it's no wonder if Canadiens fans feel that way. Conversely Kerr was much more prolific than Neely against certain other teams like the dynasty Oilers.

 

[Hobnobs]

For those who speak Jfresh style analytics language... I didn't see a lot of Kerr, but based on scouting reports coupled with his undeniable prolificacy, I feel like he's the kind of guy who'd have a Patrik Laine -like card: like 20% on offense, 5% on defense, 100% on PP and finishing. And would show up as like an 85% overall despite not being a play driver at all.

I would say that is wrong. Watched a few games with Kerr playing. Like I wrote earlier in the thread. He's more of a rich mans Tomas Holmström. Is he a play driver? I don't know because that term can be very broad and very narrow.

He definitely created chances by himself, was an immovable object on the ice, owned the slot and corners, created space for teammates and could fight with the best of them.

I'd say his biggest negative was the constant injuries especially his early knee injuries which hampered his skating. He became more of a PP-specialist after the leg and knee injuries and his effectiveness at ES obviously suffered a bit.

 

[Johnny Engine]

For those who speak Jfresh style analytics language... I didn't see a lot of Kerr, but based on scouting reports coupled with his undeniable prolificacy, I feel like he's the kind of guy who'd have a Patrik Laine -like card: like 20% on offense, 5% on defense, 100% on PP and finishing. And would show up as like an 85% overall despite not being a play driver at all.

I'd expect that the difference that would show up in those numbers between him and Laine is that Laine shoots from a distance more often, while Kerr's teammates would be trying to funnel the puck into the slot far more often, and the expected value of doing so would show up in the numbers downstream.

 

[carjackmalone]

Rephrase the question

Why is Cam Neely in the HHOF and Tim Kerr AND Rick Martin are not

 

[Nogatco Rd]

Acting chops

 

[seventieslord]

I would say that is wrong. Watched a few games with Kerr playing. Like I wrote earlier in the thread. He's more of a rich mans Tomas Holmström. Is he a play driver? I don't know because that term can be very broad and very narrow.

He definitely created chances by himself, was an immovable object on the ice, owned the slot and corners, created space for teammates and could fight with the best of them.

I'd say his biggest negative was the constant injuries especially his early knee injuries which hampered his skating. He became more of a PP-specialist after the leg and knee injuries and his effectiveness at ES obviously suffered a bit.

Nowadays I don't think the term is too broad or narrow. Since there's more than enough shot data to use, a play driver can now be described fairly specifically as a player who appears to have a tendency to result in more shots/scoring chances go in favour of their team when they're on the ice at 5v5, and/or fewer shots/scoring chances against. This doesn't explain how or why these trends emerge, just that they do.

These models take a wide range of data to come to these conclusions, including WOWY data. This means, for example, that when you have your Lebda playing up with your Lidstrom, the numbers would (likely) show that the Lidstrom continues to perform strongly in the extra minutes he plays without Lebda and assigns him more credit for the strong results that he attains while on the ice with Lebda (and less credit to Lebda)

In the case of a player like Kerr, considering the number of goals and points he scored, I am sure he created many of his own chances, and I'm also sure his linemates created many chances for him. It would be impossible to describe what a Tim Kerr 5v5 shift looks like in one sentence as there would be a wide variety of outcomes over dozens of shifts per game and hundreds of games in a career. But I think it's likely that he's the kind of player who, due to his limitations, didn't necessarily cause or see more chances take place while he was on the ice, but due to his obvious strengths, saw a more concerted effort take place to funnel chances through him. I think knowing his limitations it's very likely that his teams saw more chances go against the team with him on the ice as well.

And I guess I should explain the whole reason I brought this up to begin with. I don't think, after years of watching Cam Neely play, that he was like this. I think he was more a part of the flow of a game in all three zones (certainly more in the offensive zone) and less of a turret tower - his offense was generated in the "right" way as opposed to catered to him (which Kerr's may have been to a degree, though like I said it's obviously not possible to describe a typical Kerr shift or goal with any accuracy). Neely's play was more translatable to all game situations while Kerr was successful in very specific ways. In retrospect, the players he played with seemed to do alright creating those conditions, but it may have come at a cost.

 

[The Panther]

Both these guys were great in the playoffs. But not in the Finals.

Neely didn't do much in the 1988 or 1990 Finals. Maybe you give him a pass for '88 because he was still young and the Bruins were a bit overmatched. But in 1990 he could have been a difference-maker and he simply wasn't. 24 shot on net, 0 goals.

Kerr appeared in only 3 of the 12 Finals games the Flyers had in 1985 and 1987 (also both vs. Edmonton). He did score 2 goals in those 3 games, though (one of which the Flyers won). 1987 he didn't appear at all.

I think we tend to remember Neely as a slightly better player simply because of the visuals -- he was more dynamic, more physical, more in-yer-face. He also played for a popular, old franchise and didn't have an 80s' porn-stache.

But was he really more effective than Kerr? I'm not sure about that. Like, remember how incredible Mario Lemieux was vs. Philly in the 1989 series? Mario dropped 4 goals and 3 assists in the first 33 minutes of game five (and added an empty-netter in the third). But here's the thing -- Tim Kerr scored more goals and more points than Mario in that series... and Philly won the series.

If we're looking at post-injured Kerr outscoring 1989 Mario Lemieux in a playoff series, I am not sure Cam Neely could have ever done that.

 

[Fantomas]

Isn't the answer obvious? Neely has for a long time been very involved in the NHL hockey community and has been a hockey executive for a couple of decades. He's a member of the old boys club. Kerr is not.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Kerr should be in. He was a key spoke in the wheel for the Flyers but insanely one-dimensional. Neely was one of the most feared players because he could beat you with anything except speed, although he was in open ice a bunch, even on the Garden’s smaller sheet. I still think Neely in 1990 and 1991 was Pearson-caliber. You simply couldn’t defend him, and then he pulverized you for good measure.

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

Flyers were one of the most hated franchises until maybe 2000, due to Bullies era and style of play adopted afterwards...this had a clear effect on HHOF selections when the time came...just look at how long it to Shero to get in.

 

[Boxscore]

I don't think either should be in the Hall, but I would argue that Kerr's "best" was as great (or better) than Neely's "best."

Neely wins on style points and became an icon in Boston due to his nasty approach and ability to chuck fists with the best of them. On paper, Kerr could edge Neely, but Cam was beloved... think Wendel Clark but more offense.

To me, Kerr was a better Dave Andreychuk, but Davie had longevity and captained a Cup team at the end. Kerr succumbed to injuries, and his prime was halted.

 

[sr edler]

Nowadays I don't think the term is too broad or narrow. Since there's more than enough shot data to use, a play driver can now be described fairly specifically as a player who appears to have a tendency to result in more shots/scoring chances go in favour of their team when they're on the ice at 5v5, and/or fewer shots/scoring chances against. This doesn't explain how or why these trends emerge, just that they do.

These models take a wide range of data to come to these conclusions, including WOWY data. This means, for example, that when you have your Lebda playing up with your Lidstrom, the numbers would (likely) show that the Lidstrom continues to perform strongly in the extra minutes he plays without Lebda and assigns him more credit for the strong results that he attains while on the ice with Lebda (and less credit to Lebda)

In the case of a player like Kerr, considering the number of goals and points he scored, I am sure he created many of his own chances, and I'm also sure his linemates created many chances for him. It would be impossible to describe what a Tim Kerr 5v5 shift looks like in one sentence as there would be a wide variety of outcomes over dozens of shifts per game and hundreds of games in a career. But I think it's likely that he's the kind of player who, due to his limitations, didn't necessarily cause or see more chances take place while he was on the ice, but due to his obvious strengths, saw a more concerted effort take place to funnel chances through him. I think knowing his limitations it's very likely that his teams saw more chances go against the team with him on the ice as well.

And I guess I should explain the whole reason I brought this up to begin with. I don't think, after years of watching Cam Neely play, that he was like this. I think he was more a part of the flow of a game in all three zones (certainly more in the offensive zone) and less of a turret tower - his offense was generated in the "right" way as opposed to catered to him (which Kerr's may have been to a degree, though like I said it's obviously not possible to describe a typical Kerr shift or goal with any accuracy). Neely's play was more translatable to all game situations while Kerr was successful in very specific ways. In retrospect, the players he played with seemed to do alright creating those conditions, but it may have come at a cost.

I don’t think this needs to be complicated much by bringing numbers (and definitely not models) into the equation. A play driver is simply someone who drives play (and creates scoring chances) over significant surface (preferably through all zones), meaning you probably have to be two things: a good skater and somewhat creative.

These things you can notice fairly easily by just watching games or players.

This said, and I say this as someone who loves myself a play driver, I think you can still be a very valuable piece to a team without being much of a play driver. Strong net front presence, and/or slot presence as well, is a real thing that can make a whole lot of difference.

This is why even relative plugs like Pat Maroon are somewhat hot commodities.

As for your earlier point on Laine, Laine actually is a good skater, I just think he’s generally speaking a pretty low IQ guy (if we’re allowed to say this about players on this site), based on what I’ve seen and heard from him, and hence not a cerebral player, but I think he does possess all the physical tools or skills to be a serious play driver just not the cognitive ability.

 

[PepeBostones]

Those of you who watched Cam Neely during his peak period should know he wasn't just scoring goals for Boston. He was one of the most feared players in the league, especially defensemen, due to his ferocious hitting game. Always finishing checks often crushing the opponent.
At the time it was measured equally to another assist that never showed in the stats.

So I don't think Tim Kerr is of equal value of Neely at all. Not downplaying Tim Kerr outstanding goalscoring career, I just think Neely brought a whole lot more than goals to his team.
Neely carried his Bruins teams during his peak era and only Ray Bourque was more important to his team. Bourque and Neely were the only big names and they carried their team to two Cup finals.

Almost from the minute he set foot in Boston he started scoring goals and winning fans over in what many believe is the ultimate power forward.
If you wanted to start a team during those years I certainly would have Cam Neely on my team.