Why did the Sharks 2006-2019 not win a cup?

[MadLuke]

All stars are expected to suffer in playoffs. Games are tighter. Fewer powerplays. No awful teams. But they should still look like stars.

I lot of this are more for the last 2 round than the first one if i am not mistaken (or was true in a different era and we continued to repeat it over the years).

Infinit overtime introduce some complication but in 2010 playoff, team had in average 4.2 PP0 per games played vs 3.71 in the regular season, would we adjust by 60 minutes played maybe we end up lower but probably not by that much.

 

[coooldude]

I agree with you, just pointing out a contradiction by @coooldude

No, they weren't world leading players. Thornton won the Hart in 2006, that's it. I doubt at any given time if you had a live draft of the full league during his career that Thornton would have been anyone's top pick, maybe top 5, maybe even in his Hart year. Did you just not read the part of the post that you removed in the reply, where I listed a bunch of players that were probably better than him and definitely beat him and the Sharks in the playoffs?

How many threads is this crusade going to span?

 

[The Macho King]

The crusade will end when Thornton has a great playoff run.

 

[Professor What]

The crusade will end when Thornton has a great playoff run.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Did you just not read the part of the post that you removed in the reply, where I listed a bunch of players that were probably better than him and definitely beat him and the Sharks in the playoffs?

I didn't read that, and if I did I immediately blocked it out from my memory because it is false information.

The truth is Thornton and Marleau were bad in the playoffs.

 

[coooldude]

I didn't read that, and if I did I immediately blocked it out from my memory because it is false information.

The truth is Thornton and Marleau were bad in the playoffs.

Wasn't asking you, was asking OrrNumber4. The part of my post I was referring to explicitly stated that Thornton and Marleau weren't as good as the top of the lineups of the teams that kept beating them during their primes (ANA, LAK, CHI, etc). So, "it is false information" is somehow just you, what, trying to tweak a stranger? I'm not sure the point of your post.

The crusade will end when Thornton has a great playoff run.

For post number 48,756, really wish it were contributing more value.

 

[Gorskyontario]

For post number 48,756, really wish it were contributing more value.

I think his post is humorous, and valuable. Thornton has yet to have a good playoff run.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

Reminds me a bit of the Chargers of that era. Just a mine field in the conference.

2006-2009: Red Wings + Ducks
2010-2015: Blackhawks + Kings

Maybe not too different than the post-lockout Capitals; On paper the 2018 Caps might not have even been the best squad they had. The 2016 Sharks squad which made the SCF probably wasn't the best version of that era.

Like a lot of teams, it's maybe easy to point at the stars but I'm looking at some of the rosters they had and there's some depth issues. Looks like for a couple runs they were still relying on broken versions of Ryane Clowe and Martin Havlat to provide secondary offense.

And naturally with hindsight you wonder with a couple draft picks, like if they had gone with Suter/Parise in 2003 instead of Michalek/Bernier or Kopitar instead of Setoguchi in 2005.

There was nothing wrong with Michalek. He would likley have been close to Parise if he hadn't been cheapshotted by an Edmonton turd (Torres I believe). No one wanted Kopitar.
Marleau was good in the playoffs. One year the Sharks took out the Avs and Patrice Roy with 3 good players - Nabokov, Damphousse (the goal scorer) and Marleau (the set up man).
Thornton on the other hand refused to play a complete game. If he had shot more they might have won during his tenure.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

Inconsistent goaltending, bad luck, and lack of depth on both ends were the real issues. People love to put it all on Thornton and Marleau, and sure…they didn’t always play well, but they had other issues too.
2006 and 2007 I don’t see how anyone thought we were favorites to win. We had Thornton and that was it.
2009 and 2014 will always haunt them though. 2008, 2010, and 2011, we lost to clearly better teams. 2012 and 2013, I wouldn’t say we were cup ready. 2016 a lot of things came together but we were out played and our coached in the finals.

Even a if they are playing a better team they can still win it. Canadiens have won several Cups when they were not the most talented team.

Inconsistent goaltending, bad luck, and lack of depth on both ends were the real issues. People love to put it all on Thornton and Marleau, and sure…they didn’t always play well, but they had other issues too.
2006 and 2007 I don’t see how anyone thought we were favorites to win. We had Thornton and that was it.
2009 and 2014 will always haunt them though. 2008, 2010, and 2011, we lost to clearly better teams. 2012 and 2013, I wouldn’t say we were cup ready. 2016 a lot of things came together but we were out played and our coached in the finals.

Even a if they are playing a better team they can still win it. Canadiens have won several Cups when they were not the most talented team.

 

[DRW895]

Has anyone ever unironically praised Stamkos's playoff performances?

Many times differnt people tried to introduce Stamkos better playoff perfomer than he is. Just becauce his teammates from Sean Bergenheim in 2011 to Nick Paul in 2022 suprisingly helped TBL in tough moments

 

[coooldude]

I think his post is humorous, and valuable. Thornton has yet to have a good playoff run.

at ~3 posts per day, and this post being of similar value to his, you could be the same kind of poster in approximately 43 years. But if you increase your post count to 9 one-sentence posts a day, you could get there by 2035. Best of luck!

 

[trentmccleary]

Great soundbite! *of his generation*, real ring to it. What stats back that up?

This is a quick table about the playoff production of star players drafted from 1991-2001.
1.00 PPG - is the number of postseasons they finished at a PPG or better, whether they played 1 series or 4.
Series - is the total number of playoff series' that they played in.
>1.00 % - is the percentage of playoff series' they played in that they produced a PPG or better. The table is currently sorted by this category.

Based on this list of players, regular season production would probably put Thornton at 3rd on this list. He ranks close to bottom in most categories measuring postseason production. He should have posted a PPG in 50% of the postseason series' that he played in, not 30%.

Player	GP	Pts	PPG	1.00 PPG	Series	1.20+	1.00-1.19	>1.00 %	<0.60 %
Forsberg	151​	171​	1.13​	9​	27​	12​	7​	0.70​	0.15​
Lindros	53​	57​	1.08​	3​	12​	4​	3​	0.58​	0.25​
Kovalchuk	32​	27​	0.84​	1​	6​	2​	1​	0.50​	0.33​
Zetterberg	137​	120​	0.88​	6​	24​	4​	7​	0.46​	0.33​
Alfredsson	124​	100​	0.81​	6​	24​	6​	5​	0.46​	0.29​
St.Louis	107​	90​	0.84​	4​	18​	4​	4​	0.44​	0.33​
Kovalev	123​	100​	0.81​	3​	22​	3	6	0.41​	0.41​
Kariya	46​	39​	0.85​	4​	10​	3​	1​	0.40​	0.40​
H.Sedin	105​	78​	0.74​	4​	18​	2​	5​	0.39​	0.39​
Naslund	52​	36​	0.69​	2​	8​	1​	2​	0.38​	0.63​
Iginla	81​	68​	0.84​	3​	14​	2​	3​	0.36​	0.21​
Spezza	69​	65​	0.94​	4​	14​	4​	1​	0.36​	0.36​
Elias	162​	125​	0.77​	5​	29​	3​	7​	0.34​	0.34​
Datsyuk	157​	113​	0.72​	4​	29​	3​	7​	0.34​	0.45​
B.Richards	146​	105​	0.72​	3​	25​	3​	5​	0.32​	0.44​
Lecavalier	75​	56​	0.75​	2​	13​	2​	2​	0.31​	0.38​
Thornton	179​	133​	0.74​	3​	33​	4​	6​	0.30​	0.39​
Hossa	205​	149​	0.73​	1​	37​	5​	6​	0.30​	0.43​
Marleau	177​	120​	0.68​	2​	31	5​	4​	0.29​	0.39​
D.Sedin	102​	71​	0.70​	3​	18​	3​	2​	0.28​	0.44​
Arnott	122​	73​	0.60​	0​	23​	0​	3​	0.13​	0.61​
Doan	55​	28​	0.51​	1​	11​	1​	0​	0.09​	0.55​
Whitney	108​	53​	0.49​	0​	19	0​	1​	0.05​	0.68​

In addition, Thornton has never been over 1.00 PPG in the playoffs and only 2x in 19 playoff appearances has he hit 1.00 PPG

I think it was 3x (02, 07 & 12).

 

[coooldude]

This is a quick table about the playoff production of star players drafted from 1991-2001.
1.00 PPG - is the number of postseasons they finished at a PPG or better, whether they played 1 series or 4.
Series - is the total number of playoff series' that they played in.
>1.00 % - is the percentage of playoff series' they played in that they produced a PPG or better. The table is currently sorted by this category.

Based on this list of players, regular season production would probably put Thornton at 3rd on this list. He ranks close to bottom in most categories measuring postseason production. He should have posted a PPG in 50% of the postseason series' that he played in, not 30%.

Player	GP	Pts	PPG	1.00 PPG	Series	1.20+	1.00-1.19	>1.00 %	<0.60 %
Forsberg	151​	171​	1.13​	9​	27​	12​	7​	0.70​	0.15​
Lindros	53​	57​	1.08​	3​	12​	4​	3​	0.58​	0.25​
Kovalchuk	32​	27​	0.84​	1​	6​	2​	1​	0.50​	0.33​
Zetterberg	137​	120​	0.88​	6​	24​	4​	7​	0.46​	0.33​
Alfredsson	124​	100​	0.81​	6​	24​	6​	5​	0.46​	0.29​
St.Louis	107​	90​	0.84​	4​	18​	4​	4​	0.44​	0.33​
Kovalev	123​	100​	0.81​	3​	22​	3	6	0.41​	0.41​
Kariya	46​	39​	0.85​	4​	10​	3​	1​	0.40​	0.40​
H.Sedin	105​	78​	0.74​	4​	18​	2​	5​	0.39​	0.39​
Naslund	52​	36​	0.69​	2​	8​	1​	2​	0.38​	0.63​
Iginla	81​	68​	0.84​	3​	14​	2​	3​	0.36​	0.21​
Spezza	69​	65​	0.94​	4​	14​	4​	1​	0.36​	0.36​
Elias	162​	125​	0.77​	5​	29​	3​	7​	0.34​	0.34​
Datsyuk	157​	113​	0.72​	4​	29​	3​	7​	0.34​	0.45​
B.Richards	146​	105​	0.72​	3​	25​	3​	5​	0.32​	0.44​
Lecavalier	75​	56​	0.75​	2​	13​	2​	2​	0.31​	0.38​
Thornton	179​	133​	0.74​	3​	33​	4​	6​	0.30​	0.39​
Hossa	205​	149​	0.73​	1​	37​	5​	6​	0.30​	0.43​
Marleau	177​	120​	0.68​	2​	31	5​	4​	0.29​	0.39​
D.Sedin	102​	71​	0.70​	3​	18​	3​	2​	0.28​	0.44​
Arnott	122​	73​	0.60​	0​	23​	0​	3​	0.13​	0.61​
Doan	55​	28​	0.51​	1​	11​	1​	0​	0.09​	0.55​
Whitney	108​	53​	0.49​	0​	19	0​	1​	0.05​	0.68​

I think it was 3x (02, 07 & 12).

This is awesome, thank you. Although Joe was 0.90ppg regular season, and that's below Forsberg, Datsyuk, Lindros, Kariya, St. Louis... I stopped looking after that. He wasn't 3rd on the list for overall PPG. 6th at best. Delta was 0.90 -> 0.74.

People don't need to defend Thornton or Marleau. But I'm a bigger fan of thoughtful posts and data to trolling and sound bites. This data indicate pretty clearly that Thornton had a major delta between regular season and postseason (not news) and that he was an underperformer over his career vs. many other big names. It does not, however, clearly or even fuzzily show him as "the worst of his generation."

If you're trying to answer the question this thread is asking, Thornton's underperformance is one piece of the puzzle but it's definitely not the whole thing. Not over 15 seasons.

You can look at the season-by-season of Thornton during his run on the Sharks

Season	Regular Season	Playoff	Notes
2005-06	125 points 130 point on Sharks 1st in NHL in PPG 1st in NHL in points	Round 1: 4 points in 5 games (tied for 4th on Sharks), 0 EVP Round 2: 5 points in 6 games (tied for 2nd on Sharks), 4 EVP	Hart Trophy, 125+ point player, into sub PPG player in both rounds. Outplayed by Marleau in both rounds A disappointing performance for the best offensive player in the world
2006-07	114 points 2nd in NHL in points 2nd in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 6 points in 5 games (tied for 1st on Sharks, 0 goals), 6 EVP Round 2: 5 points in 6 games (1st on Sharks by 2 points), 4 EVP	Still offensively dominant in regular season, he had the best playoffs of his career so far. He was the Sharks best player against Detroit. Marleau put up 0 points in 6 games
2007-08	96 points 5th in the NHL in points 9th in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 7 points in 7 games (tied for 2nd on Sharks), 4 EVP Round 2: 3 points in 6 games (tied for 3rd on Sharks), 2 EVP, 0 goals	First year the Sharks are really good. Good first round. Awful second round, but the whole team played terrible against the Stars. Marleau with 2 points in 6 games in Round 2
2008-09	86 points 11th in NHL in points 13th in NHL in PPG	5 points in 6 games, first on Sharks (3 EVP)	The President's Trophy Sharks get upset in the first round. No Shark has a good series. Marleau only 3 points in 5 games
2009-10	89 points 8th in NHL in points 12th in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 3 points in 6 games (3 EVP, -4). Tied for 7th on Sharks in points. Pavelski dominant 8 points in 6 games Round 2: 8 points in 5 games (first on Sharks) Round 3: 1 point in 4 game sweep (-5)	Sharks won the Western Conference that year. Thornton had a great round 2, but stunk in round 3 and was middling in round 1
2010-11	70 points 25th in NHL in points 30th in NHL in PPG 2nd on Sharks in points behind Marleau	Round 1: 5 points in 6 games (tied for 2nd on Sharks, 5 EVP) Round 2: 6 points in 7 games (tied for 3rd on Sharks, team worst -3 Round 3: 6 points in 5 games (2nd on Sharks)	Nothing great this year, but was steady through 3 rounds while other players had ups and downs.
2011-12	77 points 13th in NHL in points 19th in NHL in PPG	5 points in 5 games, leading the Sharks	A good series. Marleau and Pavelski combine for 0 points in 5 games
2012-13	40 points 30th in NHL in points 32nd in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 6 points in 4 games, 3rd on Sharks Round 2: 4 points in 6 games, tied for 1st on Sharks	Good first round. Whole team including Thornton stunk against the Kings. Pavelski, Marleau, Thornton combine for 1 goal in 7 games.
2013-14	76 points 13th in NHL in points 20th in NHL in PPG	3 points in 7 games, tied for 7th on Sharks. Team worst -6	All around bad round. Marleau had 7 points, Pavelski 6
2014-15	65 points 28th in NHL in points 30th in NHL in PPG 3rd on Sharks behind Pavelski and Couture	Did not qualify
2015-16	82 points 4th in NHL in points 7th in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 3 points in 5 games (tied for 6th on Sharks) Round 2: 8 points in 7 games (2nd on Sharks) Round 3: 7 points in 6 games (tied 2nd on Sharks) SC Finals: 3 points in 6 games (tied for 4th on team)	Good in rounds 2 and 3. Not good in rounds 1 and 2. Couture had an outstanding playoffs, but Thornton only finished 4th on his team in points. Marleau was poor in general.
2016-17	50 points 4th on Sharks	2 points in 4 games, hurt in other 2	Nothing positive to write about, but he was injured
2017-18	36 points in 47 games 9th on Sharks (4th in PPG)	Missed playoffs to injury
2018-19	51 points in 73 games 8th on Sharks (8th in PPG)	Round 1: 4 points in 6 games (missed 1), tied for 5th on Sharks Round 2: 2 points in 7 games Round 3: 4 points in 6 games, tied for 3rd on Sharks	I can't fault him here because he was old. It wasn't his team anymore

All in all, Thornton played 25 playoff series for the Sharks.

6 times he lead the team in points
15 times was top 3 in points

If you focus on his prime (2006-2008) where the Sharks were a strong team.

30 points in 35 games.
Marleau: 28 points in 35 games

302 points in 222 regular season games
Marleau: 212 points in 237 regular season games

Player	Regular Season 82 game pace (2006-2008)	Playoffs 82 game pace (2006-2008)	Change
Joe Thornton	26 G 85 A 111 P	12 G 59 A 71 P	- 40 P (-36%)
Patrick Marleau	29 G 44 A 73 P	37 G 28 A 65 P	- 8 P (-11%)

I can't blame him for the whatevers in the mid 2010s when he was in his 30s.

But that three year run where he finished 1st in the NHL in regular season points, and 0.01 behind Crosby for 1st in PPG. He just plain underperformed in the playoffs.


Stamkos is absolutely criticized as a playoff performer here.

This was also a great post. To your point about "in his prime" 30 points in 35 games, that's 0.86ppg. That puts him at 5th in playoff PPG on the list shared by the poster above. He wasn't as dominant as he probably should have been, and in some series he plain underperformed. But Joe's issues were not the whole story with why the Sharks were so disappointing.

 

[The Panther]

Stamkos is absolutely criticized as a playoff performer here.

Stamkos f***ing sucks in the playoffs - if he were still our best player we would have never had the postseason success we've had.

Stamkos is criticized a lot here... I think, a bit too much!

We shouldn't expect post-injury Stamkos to produce points at a regular-season Joe Thornton or Nikita Kucherov level. That is a level clearly beyond him.

In the 2021 run, Stamkos put up 18 points in 23 games while playing only 15:52 per night. In 2022, he had 19 points in 23 games. These are great playoff numbers for a post-career-threatening-injury guy in his thirties. And no, he's certainly not the guy you want to be your best player. But it doesn't mean he "f***ing sucks" either.

In my opinion, Thornton's level of play in the post-season is much more disappointing.

 

[The Macho King]

Stamkos is criticized a lot here... I think, a bit too much!

We shouldn't expect post-injury Stamkos to produce points at a regular-season Joe Thornton or Nikita Kucherov level. That is a level clearly beyond him.

In the 2021 run, Stamkos put up 18 points in 23 games while playing only 15:52 per night. In 2022, he had 19 points in 23 games. These are great playoff numbers for a post-career-threatening-injury guy in his thirties. And no, he's certainly not the guy you want to be your best player. But it doesn't mean he "f***ing sucks" either.

In my opinion, Thornton's level of play in the post-season is much more disappointing.

22 was Stamkos' best run. He created a lot that season and stepped up a bit after Point went down.

But 21 - he wasn't great. I'd have to look at the logs but if you pulled it up I think a lot of those 18 points came in a handful of lobsided, penalty-filled games.

His highest PPG playoff performance is the one where he played 2 minutes and 52 seconds. I mean... yeah.

 

[Michael Farkas]

These are great playoff numbers for a post-career-threatening-injury guy in his thirties.

I don't want to spend too much time on this because I think everyone knows what Stamkos was and wasn't doing at this point...but, Mr. Career Threatening Injury Man came back with a career high 106 points the following year.

Maybe it's just a seasonal allergy...

Also, the ice time thing is a pretty funny own-goal...your offense-only captain saw his ice time go down like 20% in the playoffs (when games are, on average, longer). Stamkos was 13th on his team in ATOI that playoffs...13th!

He's awful in the postseason. Bottom of the barrel vs expectation/skill level.

 

[Michael Farkas]

But 21 - he wasn't great. I'd have to look at the logs

I got your back here...

How about this as an appetizer:
In the five-game Final, Stamkos had one point and was a minus-1. He scored a power play goal with one minute left in game 1 to put Tampa up 5-1.

He factored in on 1 of 17 goals in the series, the least important one.

 

[GlitchMarner]

For what it's worth, Stamkos has looked quite good in this year's playoffs (granted, it's been two games). He's certainly seemed more dangerous than NK86 thus far. We'll see what happens in Tampa.

 

[DRW895]

Stamkos is criticized a lot here... I think, a bit too much!

We shouldn't expect post-injury Stamkos to produce points at a regular-season Joe Thornton or Nikita Kucherov level. That is a level clearly beyond him.

In the 2021 run, Stamkos put up 18 points in 23 games while playing only 15:52 per night. In 2022, he had 19 points in 23 games. These are great playoff numbers for a post-career-threatening-injury guy in his thirties. And no, he's certainly not the guy you want to be your best player. But it doesn't mean he "f***ing sucks" either.

In my opinion, Thornton's level of play in the post-season is much more disappointing.

In 2015 many "experts" including Cherry and Feraro are blaming Cooper for low Stamkos ice time, but coach gave excelent question.
In 2022 Point was out after G7 in 1/8, but even after that he only tied and goal scoring with Palat, while 2way wing had more points. And he was given 3 votes in MVP ballot. It`s a lot - Kucherov didn`t get anything. In 2023 M. Tkachuk got only 1.

For what it's worth, Stamkos has looked quite good in this year's playoffs (granted, it's been two games). He's certainly seemed more dangerous than NK86 thus far. We'll see what happens in Tampa.

He scored twice in PP with Kucherov contribution, but he`s better Florida should eliminate Tampa this year

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Maybe it's just a seasonal allergy...

i have never considered this before and yes you are joking but what if some of the usual suspects really just had severe april allergies haha

 

[DRW895]

It`s sad Red Wings didn`t cameback against SJS in 2011, they were close to do the same LAK did in 2014

 

[Michael Farkas]

i have never considered this before and yes you are joking but what if some of the usual suspects really just had severe april allergies haha

Heh, unfortunately...
Stamkos
RS April: 85 GP, 51+47=98, +11
Playoff career: 125 GP, 47+51=98, -8

Thornton
RS April: 118 GP, 26+74=100, +17
Playoff career: 187 GP, 32+102=134, -36

At this very moment in time, the Stamkos one is so graphically appealing...

 

[The Panther]

I don't want to spend too much time on this because I think everyone knows what Stamkos was and wasn't doing at this point...but, Mr. Career Threatening Injury Man came back with a career high 106 points the following year.

Strange-but-true about Stamkos that 2022 season: Prior to April (i.e., for over 80% of his season), he had scored 73 points in 65 games — i.e., around a 90-point pace, or a typical Stamkos season.

Then, he inexplicably scored 33 points in April, 2022, the single most productive NHL month by ANY player in over 28 years—since Mario Lemieux in December 1995.

He's awful in the postseason. Bottom of the barrel vs expectation/skill level.

Not seeing it. "Bottom of the barrel" per skill level would be Joe Thornton.

In the five-game Final, Stamkos had one point and was a minus-1. He scored a power play goal with one minute left in game 1 to put Tampa up 5-1.

So, about the same stat-line as Crosby in 2016 when he won the Conn Smythe...

To be clear, I am not arguing that Stamkos is a playoff stud. I would say he's been a little disappointing. But the level of disappointment is exaggerated by some on here. Majorly disappointing would be Thornton.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It was decided that Thornton and Stamkos were of different generations. Anyhow, yeah, if he's down there with Thornton in your mind, then you're back in good shape.

You find Stamkos factoring in on the single least important goal, out of 17 the same as Crosby's four points in six games? Crosby led his team in scoring among forwards in the series (one point behind Letang).

He assisted on the second goal in a 3-2 win in game 1.
He assisted on the OT winner in game 2.
He assisted on the Cup winning goal in game 6, then the EN goal to seal it.

Four critical goals vs zero. What's your angle here?

 

[The Panther]

Four critical goals vs zero. What's your angle here?

I have no angle, other than to say that "Stamkos f***ing sucks" in the playoffs is a big overstatement. "He's a little disappointing" would be more accurate.