Debate: Joe Thornton HHOF worthy?

[chris39bong]

Phu and Thepainter have the best arguments here, hands down.

JT is a first ballot HOFer.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Phu and Thepainter have the best arguments here, hands down.

JT is a first ballot HOFer.

They haven't put forth any arguments. They continue to say that Thornton is awesome, that he is great, that he is not a problem, that he is a source of greatness, etc. Thepainter hasn't made any arguments at all; just ad-hominem attacks. Phu continues to handwave any statistic that disagrees with him as "small sample size", or he just ignores it all together. They make assertions like feckless children. Phu continues to talk about the possession narrative, ignoring its relevance to producing in and winning hockey games come June.

I want to note that it isn't just Joe putting up great possession numbers. Its all of the top-six, for the most part. Everyone on the team is putting up great possession numbers. Hell, the Sharks corsi numbers tend to go UP in the postseason. So why are they still losing?

 

[hohosaregood]

They haven't put forth any arguments. They continue to say that Thornton is awesome, that he is great, that he is not a problem, that he is a source of greatness, etc. Thepainter hasn't made any arguments at all; just ad-hominem attacks. Phu continues to handwave any statistic that disagrees with him as "small sample size", or he just ignores it all together. They make assertions like feckless children. Phu continues to talk about the possession narrative, ignoring its relevance to producing in and winning hockey games come June.

I want to note that it isn't just Joe putting up great possession numbers. Its all of the top-six, for the most part. Everyone on the team is putting up great possession numbers. Hell, the Sharks corsi numbers tend to go UP in the postseason. So why are they still losing?

Because Joe Thornton, aka useless in POs, is bringing everybody down. He gets shut down so easily that the opposing team can just down right ignore him and the rest of the top 6 isn't good enough to compete against other top 6 players and our 2nd line gets knocked out by the 1st line and our 3rd gets knocked out by their 2nd line and Thornton's line is pretty bleh in the playoffs so they only need to put some scrub like Bolland out there to work Thornton out of the game.

I mean, it's pretty obvious isn't it? Especially when the likes of Clowe and Pavelski are putting balls to the wall effort every playoffs.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Because Joe Thornton, aka useless in POs, is bringing everybody down. He gets shut down so easily that the opposing team can just down right ignore him and the rest of the top 6 isn't good enough to compete against other top 6 players and our 2nd line gets knocked out by the 1st line and our 3rd gets knocked out by their 2nd line and Thornton's line is pretty bleh in the playoffs so they only need to put some scrub like Bolland out there to work Thornton out of the game.

I mean, it's pretty obvious isn't it? Especially when the likes of Clowe and Pavelski are putting balls to the wall effort every playoffs.

That is going to far in the other direction.

Sure Thornton is often neutralized. That doesn't excuse players like Couture and Marleau to play so poorly. In 2014...the Couture line was hammered by the Kopitar line. Yeah, Kopitar is the best player in the matchup, and yes, he was backed by Doughty. But Nieto was the best forward on the Sharks's line...that simply cannot happen.

The talent was there, but the execution wasn't.

Same thing happens year after year. Everyone talks about how the Sharks were so deep in 2011. On paper, the Sharks's third line of should have obliterated Lapierre's line, yet the reverse happened.

The talent was there...the execution wasn't.

It is a popular narrative that the reason Toews and Kopitar can have bad nights, is because players like Versteeg and Toffoli are there to pick up the slack. Not really. They can have bad games because their fellow top players, like Kane and Carter, don't have bad nights along with them.

 

[hohosaregood]

That is going to far in the other direction.

Sure Thornton is often neutralized. That doesn't excuse players like Couture and Marleau to play so poorly. In 2014...the Couture line was hammered by the Kopitar line. Yeah, Kopitar is the best player in the matchup, and yes, he was backed by Doughty. But Nieto was the best forward on the Sharks's line...that simply cannot happen.

The talent was there, but the execution wasn't.

Same thing happens year after year. Everyone talks about how the Sharks were so deep in 2011. On paper, the Sharks's third line of should have obliterated Lapierre's line, yet the reverse happened.

The talent was there...the execution wasn't.

It is a popular narrative that the reason Toews and Kopitar can have bad nights, is because players like Versteeg and Toffoli are there to pick up the slack. Not really. They can have bad games because their fellow top players, like Kane and Carter, don't have bad nights along with them.

All our talent **** the bed every year. They're like the least useful top 6 in the league when it comes to the playoffs and I blame the leadership from top to bottom. When the "captain" is like the 3rd best leader on the team and the best leader doesn't even have a letter, you got a problem. Pavelski's like an island of leadership, always has been and always will but he's just one man. He can't will his will into the will of his teammates and make their will his will when their will puts up more will keeping out his will than willing their way to winning. Marleau, Couture, Thornton, Boyle, Niemi don't "execute" when needed because they don't--no they can't--adapt when needed. They never buy in. Frankly, top to bottom, the team's not good enough. "Talented" but you know the saying "will beats skill"? Well if they don't have the will to adapt then that actually means they just aren't skilled enough actually. People never talk about like it's a thing but it really is a skill to have the will to compete and the top 6 just don't got it.

Some people may argue we have a team full of "award caliber players" but you know what, it ain't true. No Harts, No Rosses, No Selkes, No Pearsons, No Vezinas, No Calders, No Messiers, No Norrises. You know how you get these awards? By being good enough to grab league attention. You know who grabs league attention? Goddamn multiple flashy as **** scoring top 6 forwards. You know who's not flashy as ****? The Sharks top 6 forwards. They aren't even good enough to get national recognition, how the hell are they gonna be good enough to make other teams scared of them in the playoffs. Peter ****ing Chiarelli didn't even know who Patrick Marleau was but everybody knows who Dustin Brown is. More hockey people know about this maroon of a 4th liner than they know Patrick Marleau and Marleau's been around for almost a decade longer. That's how the rest of the league looks at this team. They don't bother to worry about the Sharks because the key players just ain't worth worrying about.

 

[OrrNumber4]

All our talent **** the bed every year. They're like the least useful top 6 in the league when it comes to the playoffs and I blame the leadership from top to bottom. When the "captain" is like the 3rd best leader on the team and the best leader doesn't even have a letter, you got a problem. Pavelski's like an island of leadership, always has been and always will but he's just one man. He can't will his will into the will of his teammates and make their will his will when their will puts up more will keeping out his will than willing their way to winning. Marleau, Couture, Thornton, Boyle, Niemi don't "execute" when needed because they don't--no they can't--adapt when needed. They never buy in. Frankly, top to bottom, the team's not good enough. "Talented" but you know the saying "will beats skill"? Well if they don't have the will to adapt then that actually means they just aren't skilled enough actually. People never talk about like it's a thing but it really is a skill to have the will to compete and the top 6 just don't got it.

Some people may argue we have a team full of "award caliber players" but you know what, it ain't true. No Harts, No Rosses, No Selkes, No Pearsons, No Vezinas, No Calders, No Messiers, No Norrises. You know how you get these awards? By being good enough to grab league attention. You know who grabs league attention? Goddamn multiple flashy as **** scoring top 6 forwards. You know who's not flashy as ****? The Sharks top 6 forwards. They aren't even good enough to get national recognition, how the hell are they gonna be good enough to make other teams scared of them in the playoffs. Peter ****ing Chiarelli didn't even know who Patrick Marleau was but everybody knows who Dustin Brown is. More hockey people know about this maroon of a 4th liner than they know Patrick Marleau and Marleau's been around for almost a decade longer. That's how the rest of the league looks at this team. They don't bother to worry about the Sharks because the key players just ain't worth worrying about.

[mod]
I don't think it is about effort. It is about execution. Part of the problem is that certain players seem to take any criticism of their play as a criticism of their effort. If you work hard stupidly, you end up proliferating bad things. I'll agree about the issue of the lack of adaptability (of course), but why are Boyle and Niemi thrown into that lot? Boyle issue is that he isn't Keith; Niemi's is that he just isn't good enough to win on a bad team.

Thornton has a Hart and an Art Ross.

You get those awards by being GOOD. Not by "grabbing league attention".
[mod]

 

[Mafoofoo]

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

I really hope they do this next time we're in the playoffs. I really hope other teams begin to buy into the "Thornton sucks in playoffs" argument so hard they ignore him. That'd be amazing for us.


Also I agree with everything hoho has said so far. He never lies and never exaggerates. He's the smartest and most unbiased poster here. That's why he is correct in everything he's said about how we suck.

 

[hohosaregood]

I really hope they do this next time we're in the playoffs. I really hope other teams begin to buy into the "Thornton sucks in playoffs" argument so hard they ignore him. That'd be amazing for us.


Also I agree with everything hoho has said so far. He never lies and never exaggerates. He's the smartest and most unbiased poster here. That's why he is correct in everything he's said about how we suck.

respek man. respek

 

[Thepainter]

They haven't put forth any arguments. They continue to say that Thornton is awesome, that he is great, that he is not a problem, that he is a source of greatness, etc. Thepainter hasn't made any arguments at all; just ad-hominem attacks. Phu continues to handwave any statistic that disagrees with him as "small sample size", or he just ignores it all together. They make assertions like feckless children. Phu continues to talk about the possession narrative, ignoring its relevance to producing in and winning hockey games come June.

I want to note that it isn't just Joe putting up great possession numbers. Its all of the top-six, for the most part. Everyone on the team is putting up great possession numbers. Hell, the Sharks corsi numbers tend to go UP in the postseason. So why are they still losing?

I'm very confused on your arguments. The arguments for him being a sure lock for the HHOF are his stats, both in the playoffs and regular season and his awards and trophies. By the end of his career, he will be statistically one of the best playmakers to ever play the game and dominated for a substantial amount of time.

Is he part of the problem when it comes to playoff success? Sure. I don't think anybody says otherwise. But he is no more responsible than anybody else. Even if he elevated his game to be the most dominant playoff performer, I don't see this team winning a cup as the goaltending and defense were never good enough.

If your argument if the lack of a Stanley Cup, I have to laugh. Why ignore all of his other championships and medals? Say Joe wins a cup but plays a minor role, does that all of a sudden catapult him into the HHOF in the eyes of his detractors? It makes no sense to use Stanley Cup, a team award, for determining there fate of a single player.

I fail to see how anybody can argue against Joe being a 100% lock unless they simply don't like him or they just want to sit things up.

 

[Sleepy]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/38367/hall-of-fame-debate-joe-thornton

LeBrun puts up the arguments on both sides, but believes he should be. ESPN panel voted 67% for his induction.

And that's without a Stanley Cup (yet).

He's 100% in and should be 1st-ballot. 67% is an embarrassment.

If I'm an ESPN hockey editor, that poll alone makes me seriously question the competency of my hockey staff. I also probably wouldn't let someone publish that number, exposing how embarrassingly bad ESPN is at hockey.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I'm very confused on your arguments. The arguments for him being a sure lock for the HHOF are his stats, both in the playoffs and regular season and his awards and trophies. By the end of his career, he will be statistically one of the best playmakers to ever play the game and dominated for a substantial amount of time.

That is because you haven't been reading.

As I have said many times, JT belongs in the HHOF. But I believe he gets in despite his playoff play. As the discussion evolved into his overall merits, I criticized him.

Is he part of the problem when it comes to playoff success? Sure. I don't think anybody says otherwise.

Phu literally says otherwise.

But he is no more responsible than anybody else.

This thinking I cannot abide by. He has no more responsibility than Mike Brown or James Sheppard?

Joe Thornton is the team's franchise player. He's the highest-paid, he gets a ton of ice time, he gets a lot of responsibility. With great power, comes great responsibility. If he desires to spread the blame to everyone else, he should give up his salary and ice time to those players.

Even if he elevated his game to be the most dominant playoff performer, I don't see this team winning a cup as the goaltending and defense were never good enough.

How about this: let him elevate his game first. Then let us see the results. Otherwise, what you are suggesting is that because the Sharks theoretically couldn't win the cup anyways, Thornton can play as poorly as he wants. You'd be surprised how good the rest of your team looks when your top players are clicking.

It makes no sense to use Stanley Cup, a team award, for determining there fate of a single player.

I think it does when you are comparing top players in similar roles. Thornton gets compared to players like Kopitar and Toews...these players have deep playoff runs. They have cup wins. We seen their tremendous play in these important games. That counts for a lot, in my book.

 

[hohosaregood]

[mod]
I don't think it is about effort. It is about execution. Part of the problem is that certain players seem to take any criticism of their play as a criticism of their effort. If you work hard stupidly, you end up proliferating bad things. I'll agree about the issue of the lack of adaptability (of course), but why are Boyle and Niemi thrown into that lot? Boyle issue is that he isn't Keith; Niemi's is that he just isn't good enough to win on a bad team.

Thornton has a Hart and an Art Ross.

You get those awards by being GOOD. Not by "grabbing league attention".
[mod]

Everybody knows that Hart belongs to Jagr but Thornton was the "big name traded". OF course, he got all the attention.

 

[SactoShark]

I just realized I hate this team. Actually, I don't even like hockey. It's stupid.

Thanks, Hoho.

 

[hohosaregood]

I just realized I hate this team. Actually, I don't even like hockey. It's stupid.

Thanks, Hoho.

I can't believe I wasted so much time thinking this team had a snowball's chance in hell.

 

[Bowie22]

I have reached enlightenment through Hoho.

ty senpai

 

[SJGoalie32]

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.

Ideally you don't want to lose the possession battle because generally most teams will attack with the puck. But if you're facing an opponent that prefers to maintain possession of the puck by staying in the low-risk/low-threat areas.....you can manage that to your benefit. As long as they remain contained on the outside and you maintain control of the slot, it's an acceptable strategy.

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.

No, I know very well what it should mean. And then there's what the Sharks do.....perimeter passing, minimal player rotation into the slot, self-sabotaging of odd-man rushes

The two things that tick me off the most......1) When the Sharks get a PP only to waste 40 seconds of their man-advantage passing the puck back and forth around the perimeter and behind the net looking for the perfect pass that good defenses don't allow, then having Dan Boyle or fire off a hopeless 50-foot slapshot through a forest of opposing shinguards that is worse than the one he could have had 5 seconds in......or 2) When the Sharks get a 3-on-2 rush and, instead of driving the net or cutting to the middle or passing the puck to the middle with other guys attacking, Joe Thornton kills the rush and peels off to the half boards allowing all the other defenders time to race back and get set up.

Thornton has played some of his best hockey deepest in the deepest runs.

He did pretty well against the Canucks. In the 2010 postseason, he went 0G, 4A, -11 in 10 playoff games against Colorado and Chicago. He had a very good series against the Wings, but his production was atrocious against everyone not from the Detroit area.

Hockey is a team game, and the very best teams exploit the Sharks' weaknesses.

Thornton's predictability, unwillingness to adapt, and at various points in his career his poor defensive play contributing to several of the Sharks exploitable weaknesses.

 

[The Nemesis]

In light of the fact that this thread and the ongoing (but precarious) Thornton/Marleau debate thread are largely duplicating their arguments at this point, we're going to close this one. If the other one gets locked maybe we'll look at re-opening this so that there can be continued discussion of Thornton specifically with respect to the HHOF, but since actual referencing to the HHOF has been sparing in the last few days of activity, the majority of the content regarding his playoff play and what that means is almost a complete duplication of the other thread.


We'll cross the bridge on re-opening this thread later if we come to it. In the mean time, head over to the Thornton/Marleau thread to get your fill of dead-horse-whipping on the "is Thornton (and to a lesser extent Marleau) doing enough in the playoffs?" issue.