Debate: Joe Thornton HHOF worthy?

[OrrNumber4]

It is. Dominant possession players score more, defend better, and win more games than they are responsible for losing.

They tend to.

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.

As others have pointed out, the correlation isn't nearly as strong as some would have you believe. That is why you get situations like the Anaheim ducks, or the playoffs this year.

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

A massive handwave.

Firstly, if it was poor defense, that should show up in the possession stats, no?

Secondly, I AGREE with you that poor goaltending has been an issue. But I have come to this conclusion watching the game. Nabokov, and Niemi somewhat, have given up a lot of bad goals at very inopportune times. You know...contextualizing their performance.

But if you were to just look at their save percentage, your conclusion has no merit. From 2005 to 2013, league-average save percentage was .906. The Sharks got a % of .907 from their goaltending. On the flip side, goaltending against the Sharks was at a .927 clip...meaning that the Sharks's shooting percentage was well below average. That's a massive indictment of the Sharks's offense's ability to execute and produce.

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.

Keep in mind that the excuse you just trotted out has been used to defend every one-dimensional offensive forward, ever. It was used in defense of pre-2010 Thornton, when he wasn't polished away from the puck. The idea that Thornton would maximally help his team by not focusing on defense looked great since he was so prodigious offensively. Only after he added an extra element to his game, did others see how good he could really be. This is the same situation...he needs to add another element to his game.

The proof is in the pudding that that style of play hasn't produced results...hence Thornton's poor stats, especially as a series progresses. At some point, those theoretical considerable talents need to result in tangible production.

Other star playmakers (Gretzky, Oates, Forsberg) all started scoring and shooting more while passing less once the playoffs started. The time, space, and speed of game that is necessary for passing tends to shrink as the playoffs progress. You play greater defenses with more structure, where you need to press the play and attack the net instead of keeping to the perimeter.

If you WATCH the games...this should be obvious. Thornton keeps to the outside, keeps to his pass-first style of game, and it just doesn't work. The other team's defenses are just too good; his preferred style of play, though usually deadly, can be neutralized. He needs to fall back on something else, and he simply doesn't (or can't).

 

[Alwalys]

<rubbish>

Your view is invalid as a whole. Possession is not a single dimension, it is a statistical measure of *results* which is why it correlates to success both as a player and as a team.

Examined closely and objectively, Thornton's play literally drives team success. With Thornton and a modicum of team support, the Sharks have been a proven top 4 team. The problem is and always has been the Sharks lack of high end drafted defensive talent. They do not have a Keith or Doughty type that is critical to the teams at the very top.

Modern Cup winners tend to be driven by high end drafted talent, something the Sharks simply have not had, again literally due to their success during Thornton's era. Trying to argue that Thornton hasn't led to significant success for the team is simply ignoring reality.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Your view is invalid as a whole. Possession is not a single dimension, it is a statistical measure of *results* which is why it correlates to success both as a player and as a team..

That is a massive, massive, handwave.

In any case..a statistical measure of *results* is somewhat goals and goals against (you know, what actually matters on the scoreboard), and more importantly, wins.

Wins are the literal measure of results.

Examined closely and objectively, Thornton's play literally drives team success.

If you define success as possession (or out chancing and outshooting the opposition), then yes. If you define success as winning playoff games? No. If you define success as scoring? No.

With Thornton and a modicum of team support, the Sharks have been a proven top 4 team.

You act as if Joe Thornton is Jarome Iginla. Thornton has had the chance to play with some world-class players. He's had players like Heatley and Marleau as his direct linemates, something very few superstars can claim.

The problem is and always has been the Sharks lack of high end drafted defensive talent. They do not have a Keith or Doughty type that is critical to the teams at the very top.

That is true that they haven't had a high-end defenseman (I don't see how the fact that they are drafted makes any difference). But they've had a Vezina-caliber goaltender for at least 4 years. They've been much deeper offensively than a lot of their opponents. The Sharks had no business losing to the Oilers in 2006, the Stars in 2008, the Ducks in 2009, and the Kings in 2014. You might argue that the Sharks rosters have had holes. That doesn't excuse their inability to beat teams they should be beating. That doesn't excuse some of Thornton's miserable playoff performances. Having poor defenseman doesn't excuse Thornton's mistakes, poor play, and absence of production.

Trying to argue that Thornton hasn't led to significant success for the team is simply ignoring reality.

No, your argument is ignoring reality...or you just have really low standards.

For god's sake, man...what significant success? One President's trophy....two WCF appearances, with one win to show for it. That's it. No Stanley Cup. Not even a finals appearance.

 

[Los Tiburones]

Bigger joke is that Hossa = 100% yes today and Thornton was only 66%. Very weak sauce by ESPN.

 

[hohosaregood]

Bigger joke is that Hossa = 100% yes today and Thornton was only 66%. Very weak sauce by ESPN.

3 Cups >>> no cups.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

3 Cups >>> no cups.

Seabrook and Sharp are HHOF bound lol

 

[hohosaregood]

Seabrook and Sharp are HHOF bound lol

Pff don't mock Seabrook. He's a top pairing defenseman on a perennial cup contending team. There are like 4 of those guys who've been in that position that many times. He's total legit.

**** seabrook

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Pff don't mock Seabrook. He's a top pairing defenseman on a perennial cup contending team. There are like 4 of those guys who've been in that position that many times. He's total legit.

**** seabrook

Don't tell me what to do, man. If I wanna be a smart-ass, I'mma be a smart-ass! Teal with it!

 

[Bowie22]

Shawn Thornton >>>> Joe Thortin

 

[OrrNumber4]

I think Hossa is borderline...like Marleau. I do think that the 3 cups give him a nice bump, but he was never "the man" on any of those teams, and doesn't have any significant hardware. He does have a few Selke nominations, though...and obviously he's been a face of Slovakian hockey for over a decade.

Sharp and Seabrook...no way. Both well-rounded, collected, and productive complementary players, but that's about it. I'll admit that if admitted, they wouldn't be the worst players in the hall (by a longshot), but that, of course, is a slippery slope.

 

[JeremyTB]

Playoff success should only be used to determine if you are HOF worthy if you don't have have the regular season numbers to get you in. That is not the case with Thornton.

Toews for example needs his playoff success and cup rings in order to be HOF worthy because he doesn't have the regular season numbers.

 

[Thepainter]

That is a massive, massive, handwave.

In any case..a statistical measure of *results* is somewhat goals and goals against (you know, what actually matters on the scoreboard), and more importantly, wins.

Wins are the literal measure of results.

Wins are the literal measure of team success. We are discussing an individual going into the HHOF, not the San Jose Sharks. Assists are just as important as goals.

You act as if Joe Thornton is Jarome Iginla. Thornton has had the chance to play with some world-class players. He's had players like Heatley and Marleau as his direct linemates, something very few superstars can claim.

It's convenient for you to disregard the numerous other players Thornton has made better, especially those he has raised to an elite level of play (hello, Cheechoo).

That is true that they haven't had a high-end defenseman (I don't see how the fact that they are drafted makes any difference). But they've had a Vezina-caliber goaltender for at least 4 years. They've been much deeper offensively than a lot of their opponents. The Sharks had no business losing to the Oilers in 2006, the Stars in 2008, the Ducks in 2009, and the Kings in 2014. You might argue that the Sharks rosters have had holes. That doesn't excuse their inability to beat teams they should be beating. That doesn't excuse some of Thornton's miserable playoff performances. Having poor defenseman doesn't excuse Thornton's mistakes, poor play, and absence of production.

Thornton was a tiny piece of the problem. It blows my mind that the blame for a team's playoff failures is put on the shoulders of a single player. I wonder if you have ever played a team sport? If a single player, even the greatest in the world, could win a series by himself, the Warriors would not have had a parade this summer.

No, your argument is ignoring reality...or you just have really low standards.

For god's sake, man...what significant success? One President's trophy....two WCF appearances, with one win to show for it. That's it. No Stanley Cup. Not even a finals appearance.

This is funny. You literally cherry pick everything and your arguments have no substance to them. They read as if they are your opinions yet we should take them as hard cold facts.

People like you are hard to debate because you will never see something any other way.

 

[Alwalys]

But they've had a Vezina-caliber goaltender for at least 4 years.

this is delusional. period.

 

[SJGoalie32]

Wouldn't it be more like asking for Marino or Favre to run more. Note: I didn't watch football back then so I don't know if they ran much but I assume not.

Not exactly.

Being a consistent running QB doesn't offer a big advantage and can often be a disadvantage in the NFL as it makes your star player more susceptible to injury.

My NFL analogy was geared more towards a behavior that makes the individual player look better, but can at times hurt the overall team's play. Favre, in particular, was often quite reckless with his passes. This generated massive passing yards and TD stats for himself that helped catapult him into the HOF, but the interceptions that resulted from some of his poor decisions when forcing the ball into coverage where he shouldn't hurt his teams in some key situations. Now Favre wouldn't have much to worry about during a Week 7 home game against the Detroit Lions. But in the critical moments of a playoff game, against a TOP team with a GOOD defense, that stat-padding gunslinging mentality could quickly turn into a negative.

Thornton's flaw is less like a QB that refuses to run himself, and more like a QB who refuses to hand the ball off to the RB in situations where the game situation/defense clearly dictates that's what should be done. Why would you throw a pass into triple-coverage when you have a running game that could just as easily gain the 1st down or a TD with a simple handoff? Like Favre, Thornton is talented enough to usually get away with lower-percentage plays (like passing into double-coverage instead of taking the free open lane you've been given). Talented enough to be successful with decisions that would likely fail in anybody else's hands. But in the playoffs, against TOP teams with GOOD defenses, his mentality can become a negative.

It can also become VERY predictable. In the NFL, when everybody knows a pass is coming, it is easier to defend. Even if you have a Brady/Manning, you need to mix in a running game to keep the opposing defense honest. If all you do is run the same play and throw the same pass over and over again, you become one-dimensional and predictable. Hockey isn't much different. If I'm a defender or goalie who has watched the same play unfold every single shift for 4-7 games, that makes it easier to defend. Maybe you have a player who is so talented that most defenses still can't stop him even when they know what's coming and he racks up all kinds of stats along the way. But the good defenses (the ones you tend to encounter in the deeper playoff rounds) will stop it.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Wins are the literal measure of team success. We are discussing an individual going into the HHOF, not the San Jose Sharks.

Wasn't the point of the discussion. Was rebutting Phu's point that possession is the desired result.

Assists are just as important as goals.

So you have a 60-goal-scorer on one hand, and a 60-assist guy on the other.

Who do you take?

It's convenient for you to disregard the numerous other players Thornton has made better, especially those he has raised to an elite level of play (hello, Cheechoo).

How is this at all relevant to the discussion? Follow the conversation...I don't see how Thornton's ability to elevate some players (in the regular season) changes the fact that he's also had a lot of support over the years.

Thornton was a tiny piece of the problem. It blows my mind that the blame for a team's playoff failures is put on the shoulders of a single player.

So criticizing JT is equivalent to putting all the playoff failures on his shoulders? No one is saying that; a pathetic, weak strawman.

I wonder if you have ever played a team sport?

I've likely played at a higher level of hockey than anyone on this HFboards forum

This is funny. You literally cherry pick everything and your arguments have no substance to them.

Well, if you say so. It is the sign that you are losing your argument when you resort to ad-hominem attacks.

this is delusional. period.

Since the lockout, the Sharks have had a goalie finish in the top-5 of Vezina voting four times (2008, 2009, 2010, 2013).

Don't let reality get in your way.

As you've always done, you'll just wave away all the stats and numbers I throw at you (calling it rubbish).

 

[OrrNumber4]

Not exactly.

Being a consistent running QB doesn't offer a big advantage and can often be a disadvantage in the NFL as it makes your star player more susceptible to injury.

My NFL analogy was geared more towards a behavior that makes the individual player look better, but can at times hurt the overall team's play. Favre, in particular, was often quite reckless with his passes. This generated massive passing yards and TD stats for himself that helped catapult him into the HOF, but the interceptions that resulted from some of his poor decisions when forcing the ball into coverage where he shouldn't hurt his teams in some key situations. Now Favre wouldn't have much to worry about during a Week 7 home game against the Detroit Lions. But in the critical moments of a playoff game, against a TOP team with a GOOD defense, that stat-padding gunslinging mentality could quickly turn into a negative.

Thornton's flaw is less like a QB that refuses to run himself, and more like a QB who refuses to hand the ball off to the RB in situations where the game situation/defense clearly dictates that's what should be done. Why would you throw a pass into triple-coverage when you have a running game that could just as easily gain the 1st down or a TD with a simple handoff? Like Favre, Thornton is talented enough to usually get away with lower-percentage plays (like passing into double-coverage instead of taking the free open lane you've been given). Talented enough to be successful with decisions that would likely fail in anybody else's hands. But in the playoffs, against TOP teams with GOOD defenses, his mentality can become a negative.

It can also become VERY predictable. In the NFL, when everybody knows a pass is coming, it is easier to defend. Even if you have a Brady/Manning, you need to mix in a running game to keep the opposing defense honest. If all you do is run the same play and throw the same pass over and over again, you become one-dimensional and predictable. Hockey isn't much different. If I'm a defender or goalie who has watched the same play unfold every single shift for 4-7 games, that makes it easier to defend. Maybe you have a player who is so talented that most defenses still can't stop him even when they know what's coming and he racks up all kinds of stats along the way. But the good defenses (the ones you tend to encounter in the deeper playoff rounds) will stop it.

A dose of reality (football analogy aside).

 

[SJGoalie32]

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.

Which, again, the Sharks lost. In the midst of a stretch where they lost 7 of 9 games. So, clearly those advanced stats weren't everything.

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.

See, Orr's post exemplifies where things change a bit in the playoffs and where your analysis of the higher stats breaks down. Over the long run, over an entire season or career, some of those stats can paint a certain picture.

If I'm the Canucks in that series, Joe Thornton's possession numbers are a BENEFIT to me. Why? Because JT is not really a prime scoring threat. He's so predictable.

If JT has the puck on the half-boards or behind the net, I don't have to worry about him attacking the net and pulling my defensemen or catching my goalie out of position. JT likes to conveniently keep himself out of the way, which is just fine with us. He's like a stray bear in the woods. As long as he's not really harming us or a threat to us, we'll leave him alone. My defense can just collapse back to the front of the crease and wait him out. If he wants to cuddle with the puck along the boards for 10, 15, 30, 60 seconds....I'll let him. Sure, he'll drive up his possession stats, but I'm more concerned with the actual score. Eventually he'll pass the puck to some mid-level defensemen who fires a plainly visible shot that my good goalie will stop 99 times out of 100. Yes, occasionally the puck will hit a random stick or skate and deflect in and JT will notch another precious assist. But more often than not, my team will just pick up that rebound (since behind-the-net JT will be in no position for a screen, tip, or rebound), and take the puck the other way in a 3-on-2 or 3-on-1 odd-man rush with a MUCH higher scoring rate (albeit lower possession time). And then I win. Because I don't need to know Corsi, or PDO, or O-Zone differentials (hell I don't even need to know what teams are actually playing) to know that stout defenses often get the better of predictably passive perimeter offenses.

The Sharks had plenty of perimeter possession in that series. And most of their other series, too. They didn't need MORE guys controlling the puck harmlessly on the outside. What they needed in order to win that series was guys who were willing/able to drive inside and attack the net with speed and skill and fire high quality shots on goal. That's not JT's preferred game.

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

But alright, I'll go ahead and grant you the benefit of the doubt and say that for those 2 games, he just had horrible luck.

What about all the other games? In all the other years?

Even if I accept your premise that JT was a monster in those games and was just the unfortunate recipient of some bad luck....you'd think that luck would even out over time. Eventually, if he had more games like those two, that Vancouver series would be an example of the worst luck he's ever had.....rather than the deepest he'd ever gone in the postseason. And that's part of the problem. For a star player, for a lock HOF'er, there were not NEARLY enough other games like that. Games where the Sharks could have used a performance like that from him to catapult them into the Cup Finals, and it wasn't there.

If he'd had more games like that over his career (like the HOF player we all KNOW him to be), he probably would have had a Cup by now. Or several. And that is the crux of the argument against Thornton. You are a staunch defender of his, and the best even you can say about his playoff resume is, "Well, he had really high Corsi-For numbers during a pair of losses in the middle of one Conference Final series in 2011." Compared to what Madison Bumgarner did over 3 World Series title runs, your defense of JT sounds like someone congratulating a toddler for not losing their shoes at the playground.

 

[Led Zappa]

Don't have to worry about Thornton? LOL. That's why he's always double and triple teamed during the PO's. If JT got half the calls others of his stature would get we'd probably be having a completely different conversation.

 

[hohosaregood]

Alright, I'm convinced. Thornton does not belong in the HOF.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

First-ballot hofer

 

[OrrNumber4]

Don't have to worry about Thornton? LOL. That's why he's always double and triple teamed during the PO's. If JT got half the calls others of his stature would get we'd probably be having a completely different conversation.

You really think that Thornton is always double and triple-teamed in the playoffs? Do you really think the refs are unfair on him? That is the real issue? The refs?

 

[Led Zappa]

You really think that Thornton is always double and triple-teamed in the playoffs? Do you really think the refs are unfair on him? That is the real issue? The refs?

You want to play a semantics game now?

 

[dmband]

Don't have to worry about Thornton? LOL. That's why he's always double and triple teamed during the PO's. If JT got half the calls others of his stature would get we'd probably be having a completely different conversation.

He is a minus 27 in his playoff career so not sure why they are "triple" teaming him. Let him play all he wants

 

[Alwalys]

Which, again, the Sharks lost. In the midst of a stretch where they lost 7 of 9 games. So, clearly those advanced stats weren't everything.

Small sample bias. Over time better advanced stats means more wins. Period. You don't want to lose the possession battle. You just don't.

See, Orr's post exemplifies where things change a bit in the playoffs and where your analysis of the higher stats breaks down. Over the long run, over an entire season or career, some of those stats can paint a certain picture.

If I'm the Canucks in that series, Joe Thornton's possession numbers are a BENEFIT to me. Why? Because JT is not really a prime scoring threat. He's so predictable.

If JT has the puck on the half-boards or behind the net, I don't have to worry about him attacking the net and pulling my defensemen or catching my goalie out of position. JT likes to conveniently keep himself out of the way, which is just fine with us. He's like a stray bear in the woods. As long as he's not really harming us or a threat to us, we'll leave him alone. My defense can just collapse back to the front of the crease and wait him out. If he wants to cuddle with the puck along the boards for 10, 15, 30, 60 seconds....I'll let him. Sure, he'll drive up his possession stats, but I'm more concerned with the actual score. Eventually he'll pass the puck to some mid-level defensemen who fires a plainly visible shot that my good goalie will stop 99 times out of 100. Yes, occasionally the puck will hit a random stick or skate and deflect in and JT will notch another precious assist. But more often than not, my team will just pick up that rebound (since behind-the-net JT will be in no position for a screen, tip, or rebound), and take the puck the other way in a 3-on-2 or 3-on-1 odd-man rush with a MUCH higher scoring rate (albeit lower possession time). And then I win. Because I don't need to know Corsi, or PDO, or O-Zone differentials (hell I don't even need to know what teams are actually playing) to know that stout defenses often get the better of predictably passive perimeter offenses.

The Sharks had plenty of perimeter possession in that series. And most of their other series, too. They didn't need MORE guys controlling the puck harmlessly on the outside. What they needed in order to win that series was guys who were willing/able to drive inside and attack the net with speed and skill and fire high quality shots on goal. That's not JT's preferred game.

You are confusing what possession means. It doesn't mean sitting on the puck and doing nothing, it means moving the puck toward the offensive zone and doing things with it in the offensive zone.

But alright, I'll go ahead and grant you the benefit of the doubt and say that for those 2 games, he just had horrible luck.

What about all the other games? In all the other years?

Even if I accept your premise that JT was a monster in those games and was just the unfortunate recipient of some bad luck....you'd think that luck would even out over time. Eventually, if he had more games like those two, that Vancouver series would be an example of the worst luck he's ever had.....rather than the deepest he'd ever gone in the postseason. And that's part of the problem. For a star player, for a lock HOF'er, there were not NEARLY enough other games like that. Games where the Sharks could have used a performance like that from him to catapult them into the Cup Finals, and it wasn't there.

If he'd had more games like that over his career (like the HOF player we all KNOW him to be), he probably would have had a Cup by now. Or several. And that is the crux of the argument against Thornton. You are a staunch defender of his, and the best even you can say about his playoff resume is, "Well, he had really high Corsi-For numbers during a pair of losses in the middle of one Conference Final series in 2011." Compared to what Madison Bumgarner did over 3 World Series title runs, your defense of JT sounds like someone congratulating a toddler for not losing their shoes at the playground.

Thornton has played some of his best hockey deepest in the deepest runs. The rest of the team didn't though. Hockey is a team game, and the very best teams exploit the Sharks' weaknesses.

Thornton is the absolute least of those weaknesses. He is one of the few on the team that can consistently drive play against the best teams. That is objective fact.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

That last paragraph is spot on.