Actually in this case "near miss" is correct. "Near" is an adjective which modifies "miss" - it says what kind of miss it was. A miss can be near or far. Near misses are nearly hits. Far misses aren't anywhere close to being a hit. "Near hit" makes no sense as the fact that something hits already entails that it is near. Because "near" functions as an adjective, any near miss is a miss. What Carlin did was to trade on the fact that "miss" and "hit" can be both nouns and verbs, and "near" can function as an adverb in certain loose or vernacular formulations. Furthermore, when "nearly" precedes it verb, it implies that the verb does not actually apply to the event. COmpare for example, "nearly missed" with "missed nearly". In the first case you did not miss, but in the second you did (although only by a little, so it was a near miss.)
Near misses miss nearly and nearly hit.
cheers,
nihili