Debate: Joe Thornton HHOF worthy?

[Pinkfloyd]

Lack of a Cup didn't prevent Marcel Dionne from making the Hall and he never even made it out of the 2nd round.

 

[Led Zappa]

Bobby Baun

You think that's helping your argument?

 

[OrrNumber4]

Lack of a Cup didn't prevent Marcel Dionne from making the Hall and he never even made it out of the 2nd round.

Sure, and JT deserves to be in the hall.

But Marcel Dionne's poor playoff resume is certainly something people talk about, and it influences his placement on "all-time" lists.

 

[OrrNumber4]

You think that's helping your argument?

Conceivably? Yes.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Sure, and JT deserves to be in the hall.

But Marcel Dionne's poor playoff resume is certainly something people talk about, and it influences his placement on "all-time" lists.

Well this isn't an all-time list debate now is it?

 

[OrrNumber4]

Well this isn't an all-time list debate now, is it?

It is a discussion about JT's merit and accolades. The conversation also flowed to this topic.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

It is a discussion about JT's merit and accolades. The conversation also flowed to this topic.

So the answer is no.

 

[Thepainter]

Not really my point. Thornton is a great playmaker, but the fact that he's the only one to put up back-to-back 90 assist seasons isn't some huge accomplishment. His Art Ross and Hart are much more meaningful.



If you are going to play, you better play well. Otherwise, don't bother suiting up, and carry the reputation as a guy who is always injured.

Torn rib cartilage is a serious injury, but players have been very effective with broken wrists and separated shoulders, especially in the modern age with modern medicine that can completely remove the pain.

Also, Joe Thornton suffered torn rib cartilage in 2004 and played with a separated shoulder for 2 games in 2011.

Just... wow.

 

[Thepainter]

So the answer is no.

Let me answer for him: "this isn't really the point".

 

[OrrNumber4]

So the answer is no.

The question of whether or not the discussion is on topic is itself off topic. So be quiet.

Just... wow.

Followed hockey for very long, have you? Doug Weight had a separated shoulder in 2006 and won a cup with Carolina. Chris Pronger played with a separated shoulder in the 2007 finals. Patrice Bergeron with his concussion, a separated shoulder, and multiple issues (including, IIRC, torn rib cartilage) back in 2011. Heck, Ryane Clowe played with a separated shoulder for almost the entirety of the 2011 playoffs and had a good playoffs.

There are players that have played with concussions, broken legs, on one knee, with one hand, with double hernias, with broken ribs...with just about everything.

Meanwhile, Thornton gets two major injuries (2004 playoffs and 2 games in the 2011 WCF), and you not only want excuse his meager production, but you want to give him praise for doing what every hockey player worth his salt does?

 

[Alwalys]

Perhaps you missed thornton absolutely dominating with the separated shoulder.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Perhaps you missed thornton absolutely dominating with the separated shoulder.

He played two games with a separated shoulder. He had 0 points and was a -2 in those games...

I know you have very low standards, but even you must see how that is far from "dominating".

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The question of whether or not the discussion is on topic is itself off topic. So be quiet.

Which is a hilarious response when you are initiating the off topic conversations but keep it going. Topic is Jumbo's HHOF worthiness and a lack of a Cup has not prevented others like Marcel Dionne from making it. Anything beyond that is not for this thread.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Which is a hilarious response when you are initiating the off topic conversations but keep it going. Topic is Jumbo's HHOF worthiness and a lack of a Cup has not prevented others like Marcel Dionne from making it. Anything beyond that is not for this thread.

Actually, no. I didn't initiate the first off-topic conversation, nor the second (which you did).

Feel free to continue to attack the logistics of the arguments, rather than the substance behind it.

 

[hohosaregood]

I no longer have an opinion on this matter.

New Question: Is Joe Thornton the least flashy elite player ever?

I believe he is. His 900 assists are boring as ****. They're so straightforward. Like his fanciest goal is a lob shot and his fanciest assist was a no look pass. Pfffff

 

[Alwalys]

He played two games with a separated shoulder. He had 0 points and was a -2 in those games...

I know you have very low standards, but even you must see how that is far from "dominating".

If you didn't watch the games and/or are a dishonest person you might have missed the fact that he was the most dominant player in the series even after his injury. This is a shining example of how topline stats can be misleading, how advanced stats are critical for analyzing hockey and why ignoring them makes an analysis ignorant.

Thornton flat out dominated game 4 with a 76% corsi-for, despite playing with a -18% o-zone start differential and getting injured. He put up a 56% game 5 on the road and played 32 minutes, and led the team in shooting. He had the team on his back in that series and any honest Sharks -- and Canucks -- fan has to say he was an absolute monster in those playoffs.

Two games where he had 87.5% PDO (aka horrific luck) are the reason that series turned out the way it did.

 

[hohosaregood]

If you didn't watch the games or are a dishonest person you might have missed the fact that he was the most dominant player in the series even after his injury. This is a shining example of how topline stats can be misleading, how advanced stats are critical for analyzing hockey and why ignoring them makes an analysis ignorant.

Thornton flat out dominated game 4 with a 76% corsi-for, despite playing with a -18% o-zone start differential. He put up a 56% game 5 on the road and played 32 minutes, and led the team in shooting. He literally had the team on his back in that series and any honest Sharks -- and Canucks -- fan has to say he was an absolute monster in those playoffs. He had the team on his back as that series went on.

More basically, 7 shots to lead both teams in that elimination game.

 

[OrrNumber4]

If you didn't watch the games and/or are a dishonest person you might have missed the fact that he was the most dominant player in the series even after his injury. This is a shining example of how topline stats can be misleading, how advanced stats are critical for analyzing hockey and why ignoring them makes an analysis ignorant.

And over short sample sizes, advanced stats are just as subject to luck and variance as anything else.

Advanced stats supposedly correlate with outcomes/good play over long sample sizes. In the short term, there are so many things you have to factor, things that tend to average out over the long course of a season.

Thornton flat out dominated game 4 with a 76% corsi-for, despite playing with a -18% o-zone start differential and getting injured. He put up a 56% game 5 on the road and played 32 minutes, and led the team in shooting. He had the team on his back in that series and any honest Sharks -- and Canucks -- fan has to say he was an absolute monster in those playoffs.

And in game 5, he had 4 shots on one shift. He was on the ice for the tying goal against (his man Edler fires the puck at the net, if I am not mistaken), and the first goal. He had two glorious chances; two glorious open nets with Luongo down and out, and he missed.

Pavelski...Pavelski had a monster game. Great zone entry on the goal that Boyle scored, and then the awesome individual effort on Setoguchi's go-ahead goal.

Two games where he had 87.5% PDO (aka horrific luck) are the reason that series turned out the way it did.

You added this to your post later, so I will address it in this edit. Like I said before, such a stat is not very indicative in a short sample size. Thornton's low PDO can easily be explained by the Sharks taking low-chance shots at Luongo. They were unable to drive the net and really build their transition. Vancouver kept them to the outside and forced San Jose to play a more hypey, fast-paced game. Sharks throw junk on Luongo and give up high-event chances on Niemi...you call it luck, I call it execution.

 

[Alwalys]

And over short sample sizes, advanced stats are just as subject to luck and variance as anything else.

Advanced stats supposedly correlate with outcomes/good play over long sample sizes. In the short term, there are so many things you have to factor, things that tend to average out over the long course of a season

Thornton is a dominant possession player over any sample size you choose. And that's why he is a first-ballot hall of famer.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Thornton is a dominant possession player over any sample size you choose. And that's why he is a first-ballot hall of famer.

You are obsessed with this idea that possession dominance is the end-all-be-all of a great player, especially over small sample sizes in the playoffs (on top of that, you appear to think that regular season success and playoff success are one and the same). So when the Sharks continue to out-possess and outshoot their opponents, and keep on losing, you and others will chalk that up to bad luck. When if you actually watch the games, you can see how other teams specifically neuter the Sharks and their strategies; the Sharks are unable to adapt. They often throw a lot of rubber on net; makes for great shooting stats but poor production.

The PDO argument...the Sharks always seem to have bad PDO in the playoffs. First against Edmonton, then Dallas, then Anaheim, then Chicago, then LA, then LA again...if you're constantly having bad shooting luck, then maybe it isn't luck; maybe its due to some underlying issue.

Thornton is a microcosm of the failures. He approaches every game and every shift with the same attitude...he plays the game a single way. He won't deviate, he won't adjust, and he won't change. It took him 11 years of hockey for him to finally improve away from the puck, for goodness' sake! He ends up dragging the first line and the first PP along with him; eventually the team follows.

 

[oyster]

HHOF'er: Yes.
Babysitter: No.

 

[Alwalys]

You are obsessed with this idea that possession dominance is the end-all-be-all of a great player,

It is. Dominant possession players score more, defend better, and win more games than they are responsible for losing. That's the whole point. Everyone in the know knows that possession is everything these days. It correlates very strongly with success in any situation. It's when the team loses the possession battle that they end up consistently losing.

The PDO argument...the Sharks always seem to have bad PDO in the playoffs. First against Edmonton, then Dallas, then Anaheim, then Chicago, then LA, then LA again...if you're constantly having bad shooting luck, then maybe it isn't luck; maybe its due to some underlying issue.

That issue is poor defense and goaltending more often than not.

Thornton is a microcosm of the failures. He approaches every game and every shift with the same attitude...he plays the game a single way.

Yes, he does, by maximizing his team's chances of beating the other team through the employment of his considerable talents. Which are the best on the team by a fair margin today, and a huge margin in the past.

Argumentatively turning that to a liability is a joke.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Actually, no. I didn't initiate the first off-topic conversation, nor the second (which you did).

Feel free to continue to attack the logistics of the arguments, rather than the substance behind it.

Actually you did sorry. You don't have any substance behind the argument because the argument is about Thornton's hall of fame credentials which you agree he is qualified. Anything beyond that is off-topic and just you being you whenever these subjects come up. It's a real simple question. Is Thornton deserving of the hall of fame? The answer is yes even from you but you just want to keep prodding on about his failures but that's not the topic so get off it.

 

[sharski]

JT's playoff performances over the course of his NHL career are certainly debatable as to whether they are hall of fame worthy on their own… and of course it should be taken into account… however, I don't view players' career in some alternate universe where the only form of hockey that exists is the NHL playoffs

his hockey career AS A WHOLE is not really debatable… the numbers, awards and his effect on his olympic teams and the Sharks speak for themselves… he's clearly one of the best players of his era AINEC

it's the HOCKEY hall of fame, not the "NHL Playoff Success Hall of fame"

 

[LeeIFBB]

Trade him to Toronto and let him end his career there. That will end the debate.