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.
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.
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.
So the answer is no.
So the answer is no.
Just... wow.
Perhaps you missed thornton absolutely dominating with the separated shoulder.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
You are obsessed with this idea that possession dominance is the end-all-be-all of a great player,
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.
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.