Does Joe Thornton’s playoff record keep him out of the HOF?

[Dark Shadows]

That's a pretty narrow definition for HoF candidacy. Thornton's had some good years but if he retired today I would hardly say he is a lock for induction.

Made 1st All-Star once?
Never won any award except in a single season (2006)?
Not only does he have no Cups, but a leaguewide reputation specifically as a choker?
Traded in his prime? People constantly talking about whether he needs to be traded again?

Sorry, being one of the better assist-men in the league for a few years doesn't make you a shoo-in for the Hall. See: Adam Oates.

If he sticks with it and lands high on the career list, then he's got a good shot. But a lock if he retired tomorrow? No.

Disagree.

4th, 1st, 5th, 6th, 9th in Hart voting.
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 8th in scoring.
3 consecutive seasons of leading the league in assists(including back to back 90 assist seasons, which only he, Lemieux and Gretzky have done), and the credentials of a top 5-10 all time playmaker.

The Hart record is the clincher.

Find me one retired player with a Hart record near that who is not in the Hall of fame?

His playoff woes will keep him off the first ballot unless he turns it around like Yzerman did(Mind you, Yzerman was nowhere near as abysmal as a Thornton or a Dionne. Just not himself), but Thornton is already a lock for the Hall.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Disagree.

4th, 1st, 5th, 6th, 9th in Hart voting.
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 8th in scoring.
3 consecutive seasons of leading the league in assists(including back to back 90 assist seasons, which only he, Lemieux and Gretzky have done), and the credentials of a top 5-10 all time playmaker.

The Hart record is the clincher.

Find me one retired player with a Hart record near that who is not in the Hall of fame?

His playoff woes will keep him off the first ballot unless he turns it around like Yzerman did(Mind you, Yzerman was nowhere near as abysmal as a Thornton or a Dionne. Just not himself), but Thornton is already a lock for the Hall.

There are always exceptions to every rule. Regular season domination is rather worthless if it is followed up with playoff underachievment without interruption. At this point, Thornton's playoff reputation is worse than Dionne's, and probably by a fair amount considering he's played for elite teams as opposed to Dionne's mostly terrible Kings squads. And Thornton is nowhere near the goal scorer that Dionne was.

Jean Ratelle might be the best comparable, and in fairness, nobody complains about his induction. He had some decent playoff performances with Boston later in his career as well though. For those that remember, was Ratelle well known as a playoff disappointment back during his playing days and when he was inducted? I would speculate that the lack of mass media and the internet in the 70's probably made it tougher for a player to acquire a universal reputation like Thornton has.

I agree with finchster in that he is has justly earned the label of a point collector. He may be the best point collector of them all, but he's still just that. It's tough for me to get behind those types when it comes to HOF induction.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting Points

There are always exceptions to every rule. Regular season domination is rather worthless if it is followed up with playoff underachievment without interruption. At this point, Thornton's playoff reputation is worse than Dionne's, and probably by a fair amount considering he's played for elite teams as opposed to Dionne's mostly terrible Kings squads. And Thornton is nowhere near the goal scorer that Dionne was.

Jean Ratelle might be the best comparable, and in fairness, nobody complains about his induction. He had some decent playoff performances with Boston later in his career as well though. For those that remember, was Ratelle well known as a playoff disappointment back during his playing days and when he was inducted? I would speculate that the lack of mass media and the internet in the 70's probably made it tougher for a player to acquire a universal reputation like Thornton has.

I agree with finchster in that he is has justly earned the label of a point collector. He may be the best point collector of them all, but he's still just that. It's tough for me to get behind those types when it comes to HOF induction.

Combined with the post by DS there are a number of interesting points to be examined.

Unlike other point collectors - Gartner, Dino C, Thornton has the ability to elevate linemates - pre knee injury Cheechoo being a prime example.

Defensive strengths. You mention Jean Ratelle. Interesting comparison, certain career curve and offensive similarities. Ratelle was not a perimeter player like Thornton but most important of all Ratelle had a much more responsible defensive game. In the playoffs you see rookies or inexperienced players take advantage of Thornton's lack of defense.

Useless ice. Keep watching the Colorado series and you see Thornton getting frustrated and drifting into his useless ice habits. Beginning to see Spezza doing the same thing. Ratelle never played this way. Playing in the useless ice areas gives a false impression of puck control. On a power play it is the equivalent of killing the penalty for the other team.

 

[Big Phil]

Jean Ratelle might be the best comparable, and in fairness, nobody complains about his induction. He had some decent playoff performances with Boston later in his career as well though. For those that remember, was Ratelle well known as a playoff disappointment back during his playing days and when he was inducted?

I believe he was, yes. The 1972 Rangers made the finals with him injured if that tells you anything. Ratelle though was able to redeem himself later in his career, and yeah no one should debate his HHOF worth

I agree with finchster in that he is has justly earned the label of a point collector. He may be the best point collector of them all, but he's still just that. It's tough for me to get behind those types when it comes to HOF induction

Not sure I agree with this one. A point collector is someone who I feel is able to put up good numbers without the substance or even style. In other words, a player with a good batting average but not a lot of RBIs. Or a player that brings little else to the table. I think of Nicholls, Turgeon and Marc Savard or Olli Jokinen for example.

I don't think of Thornton. For starters a point collector doesn't win the Hart trophy. Secondly, San Jose was a mess before he arrived in November of 2005. There aren't a lot of players that could make Jonathan Cheechoo a 56 goal scorer and lead the NHL. Thornton's numbers have cooled off a bit but there was a span in his career when it was assumed he would put up games with 3 assists and no one batted an eyelash. He made everyone around him better, and to an extent still does.

Thornton has his knocks - oh boy does he - he is a playoff choker, he looks lazy on the ice at times and he practically has a no-shoot clause in his contract. But it is still hard to ignore the contributions he has made to his teams

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Not sure I agree with this one. A point collector is someone who I feel is able to put up good numbers without the substance or even style. In other words, a player with a good batting average but not a lot of RBIs. Or a player that brings little else to the table. I think of Nicholls, Turgeon and Marc Savard or Olli Jokinen for example.

What else does Thornton bring to the table? C1958 pointed out elevating his linemates (in the regular season), and that's about all I can think of. No physical play, no intensity, nothing stellar defensively, no leadership by the looks of things...?

Useless ice. Keep watching the Colorado series and you see Thornton getting frustrated and drifting into his useless ice habits. Beginning to see Spezza doing the same thing. Ratelle never played this way. Playing in the useless ice areas gives a false impression of puck control. On a power play it is the equivalent of killing the penalty for the other team.

On the subject of controlling useless ice, this was obvious with most of the San Jose team in last night's game. They had the puck the whole game and had a huge shot total, but few great scoring chances (at least in the last half of the game, didn't see that much of the first half). The Avalanche conceded the perimeter, but wouldn't allow much penetration to the scoring areas.

 

[Canadiens1958]

What else does Thornton bring to the table? C1958 pointed out elevating his linemates (in the regular season), and that's about all I can think of. No physical play, no intensity, nothing stellar defensively, no leadership by the looks of things...?



On the subject of controlling useless ice, this was obvious with most of the San Jose team in last night's game. They had the puck the whole game and had a huge shot total, but few great scoring chances (at least in the last half of the game, didn't see that much of the first half). The Avalanche conceded the perimeter, but wouldn't allow much penetration to the scoring areas.

Useless ice becomes contagious. Danger is that it provides a false sense of control and makes teams vulnerable to the counter attack. This is what happened to San Jose against Anaheim last year.

The other interesting aspect is that the SV% of the opposing goalie looks fantastic but it has to be examined within the proper context.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Find me one retired player with a Hart record near that who is not in the Hall of fame?

Lindros. Only guy I can think of who was as dominant, if not moreso, in a short span who isn't in the Hall.

Of course, I think we all know Eric would be in the Hall of Fame had it not been for his injuries.

I think Thornton is a Hall of Famer regardless of his issues. The guy is only 30. I think we should have this discussion 7 or so years from now. By that time we are probably looking at four or five more top-10 scoring finishes and over 1000 assists

Any guy who can make Jonathan Cheechoo a 50-goal scorer deserves his own wing in the HHOF, let along a standard induction.

 

[finchster]

As with Marcel Dionne, just too many regular season accomplishments to ignore despite a bad to mediocre playoff record.

I would argue that Dionne's playoff record is head and shoulders above Thornton by age 30. Every year but one, Dionne's teams lost to a higher seed in the playoffs and his team was a part of one of the biggest upsets in history, the Kings against the Oilers in 82. One out of seven playoffs the Kings were upset and they pulled off one huge upset.

Thornton's teams have lost to lower seeds seven out of ten playoffs, once was a Buffalo Boston series and they were tied in points (Boston had the tie breaker in wins), so six out of ten. The difference between the quality of teams they have played on is huge, I don't think you can consider them equals or similar because of that. Granted winning a playoff series is a team effort, but I believe it illustrates that Dionne was far less a choker than Thornton is.

If Dionne in the playoffs is considered mediocre, Thornton's playoff record is substantially worse at this point in their careers.

 

[seventieslord]

Of course, I think we all know Eric would be in the Hall of Fame had it not been for his injuries.

Getting to the point where he is eligible would help his chances, too...

 

[Czech Your Math]

As far as playoffs, Thornton is definitely among the weakest.

His adjusted playoff ppg production is similar to Selanne or Dionne, who both played on much weaker teams for most of their careers and also scored more goals.

He's a bit behind the first half of Yzerman's playoff career, although again Yzerman scored more goals and played on weaker teams. If you gave Thornton a "free pass" for his two no-show playoff series (first 0 in 6 gms, injured 0 in 7 gms) then he would be about equal to in playoff ppg to Yzerman thru 1995.

A couple of other stars with unusually low adjusted playoff ppg would be Lindsay, Anderson, and Savard. Lindsay had a couple weak playoffs to start his career and had other elements to his game. Anderson was a part of Oilers' dynasty and had some weak playoffs late in his career, although his induction was still controversial. Savard had some very good playoffs and some weak ones late in his career, and was still about 10% higher than the others discussed (similar to Yzerman thru '95). Kariya is another who was on the weaker side, but he had a rather limited sample of 46 games, and almost half were during SC Finals run for very low scoring team.

Regardless, Thornton will be in the HOF.

 

[Jumptheshark]

I don't think thornton is a hall of famer right now. While he is a point a game man, it is over 60% assists. Thornton has 295 goals, if he retired today, he does not get in. He has scored more then 30 goals only 3 times, never cracked 40. IF he cracks the 400 goal line then he will get in

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Getting to the point where he is eligible would help his chances, too...

I meant one day.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The Hart record is the clincher.

Find me one retired player with a Hart record near that who is not in the Hall of fame?

Again, this is an unnecessarily narrow definition for HoF credentials.

Do you think Jose Theodore will be inducted? Martin St. Louis? Even Eric Lindros? By the time Thornton becomes eligible, there will be 3 contemporary Hart winners who are either not going to be inducted or will be very borderline and controversial. So the Hart is far from a "clincher" for him. In fact I would say that if not for that Hart, we wouldn't be having this conversation because the rest of his resume' is clearly insufficient.

Thornton has certainly racked up a lot of points over his career, but those are primarily assists on juggernaut teams in Boston and San Jose. Over the span of his career he's 2nd in points, but 25th in goals behind guys like Miro Satan, Ryan Smyth and Milan Hejduk. That smells strongly of "point collector". Adam Oates had a similar profile and he is still on the outside looking in, with pretty much the same set of weaknesses as Thornton.

So if Thornton's case is built entirely around points and the lone Hart, it's demonstrably just not good enough so far. He is going to have to build that career point total and do something to lead a team in the playoffs.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Again, this is an unnecessarily narrow definition for HoF credentials.

Do you think Jose Theodore will be inducted? Martin St. Louis? Even Eric Lindros? By the time Thornton becomes eligible, there will be 3 contemporary Hart winners who are either not going to be inducted or will be very borderline and controversial. So the Hart is far from a "clincher" for him. In fact I would say that if not for that Hart, we wouldn't be having this conversation because the rest of his resume' is clearly insufficient.

Thornton has certainly racked up a lot of points over his career, but those are primarily assists on juggernaut teams in Boston and San Jose. Over the span of his career he's 2nd in points, but 25th in goals behind guys like Miro Satan, Ryan Smyth and Milan Hejduk. That smells strongly of "point collector". Adam Oates had a similar profile and he is still on the outside looking in, with pretty much the same set of weaknesses as Thornton.

So if Thornton's case is built entirely around points and the lone Hart, it's demonstrably just not good enough so far. He is going to have to build that career point total and do something to lead a team in the playoffs.

He said Hart record was the clincher, not Hart win. None of the guys you mentioned have two additional top 5 finishes and two more top 10 finishes in Hart voting outside of the year they actually won.

 

[tarheelhockey]

He said Hart record was the clincher, not Hart win. None of the guys you mentioned have two additional top 5 finishes and two more top 10 finishes in Hart voting outside of the year they actually won.

Other than the time he won it (becoming the only Hart winner to be chased out of town during his winning season), he has never even been a finalist. Are we really going to consider a 6th-place and 9th-place finish HoF-worthy?

Especially if you take it into context and look at the company he was keeping.

When Thornton finished 9th in '09, Zdeno Chara finished 8th.
When he finished 6th in '08, Evgeni Nabokov finished 7th.
When he finished 5th in '07, Vincent Lecavalier finished 4th.
When he finished 14th in '04, Andrew Raycroft finished 13th.
When he finished 4th in '03, Todd Bertuzzi finished 5th.

That's not exactly a list of Hall of Famers. In this era, it's hard to take a non-finalist season seriously as a HoF credential.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Other than the time he won it (becoming the only Hart winner to be chased out of town during his winning season), he has never even been a finalist. Are we really going to consider a 6th-place and 9th-place finish HoF-worthy?

Especially if you take it into context and look at the company he was keeping.

When Thornton finished 9th in '09, Zdeno Chara finished 8th.
When he finished 6th in '08, Evgeni Nabokov finished 7th.
When he finished 5th in '07, Vincent Lecavalier finished 4th.
When he finished 14th in '04, Andrew Raycroft finished 13th.
When he finished 4th in '03, Todd Bertuzzi finished 5th.

That's not exactly a list of Hall of Famers. In this era, it's hard to take a non-finalist season seriously as a HoF credential.

I can understand if you don't want to put much weight on anything below a 5th place finish, but finishing top 5 multiple times is very noteworthy. Here is a list of the only players to finish top 5 in Hart voting 3 times or more...

Gordie Howe
Wayne Gretzky
Jean Beliveau
Bobby Hull
Mario Lemieux
Bobby Orr
Jaromir Jagr
Martin Brodeur
Guy Lafleur
Bobby Clarke
Phil Esposito
Dominik Hasek
Stan Mikita
Bryan Trottier
Maurice Richard
Ray Bourque
Doug Harvey
Glenn Hall
Andy Bathgate
Ted Kennedy
Red Kelly
Patrick Roy
Terry Sawchuk
Mark Messier
Jarome Iginla
Milt Schmidt
Brett Hull
Joe Thornton
Marcel Dionne
Tony Esposito
Ken Dryden
Rod Langway
Doug Gilmour
Markus Naslund
Teemu Selanne
Brad Park
Alex Ovechkin (if he finishes top 5 this year)

There is no one on this list that also has a win that isn't a sure-fire HOFer

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

I would argue that Dionne's playoff record is head and shoulders above Thornton by age 30. Every year but one, Dionne's teams lost to a higher seed in the playoffs and his team was a part of one of the biggest upsets in history, the Kings against the Oilers in 82. One out of seven playoffs the Kings were upset and they pulled off one huge upset.

Thornton's teams have lost to lower seeds seven out of ten playoffs, once was a Buffalo Boston series and they were tied in points (Boston had the tie breaker in wins), so six out of ten. The difference between the quality of teams they have played on is huge, I don't think you can consider them equals or similar because of that. Granted winning a playoff series is a team effort, but I believe it illustrates that Dionne was far less a choker than Thornton is.

If Dionne in the playoffs is considered mediocre, Thornton's playoff record is substantially worse at this point in their careers.

So basically we're arguing crappy and crappier. Neither guy ever elevated their play in the playoffs and for the most part played at a lower level in the playoffs than in the regular season. Even in 82, Dionne didn't do anything special.

 

[tarheelhockey]

There is no one on this list that also has a win that isn't a sure-fire HOFer

That's true, but again we could have argued a few years ago that a Hart trophy automatically meant HOF induction. Then came Jose Theodore.

I don't buy into the "automatic lock" concept, especially not when it's based on something like Hart voting during the mid-00s. Thornton's prime came during a period when there were no bona-fide superstar skaters in the league (post-prime Jagr and pre-Crosby/Ovie), and the Hart voting was obviously erratic during that period. If that small window during his prime, and a few distinguished-but-not-incredible assist totals on elite teams, is the basis of the entire argument for his induction, I'm sticking to my guns that he still has something left to accomplish before we can call him Hall-worthy.

 

[finchster]

So basically we're arguing crappy and crappier. Neither guy ever elevated their play in the playoffs and for the most part played at a lower level in the playoffs than in the regular season. Even in 82, Dionne didn't do anything special.

Yes, but what I am saying is when you factor in who they played for, Dionne's poor playoff performance is more understandable than Thornton's and superior because of it.

 

[seventieslord]

- Lindros should not be a controversial HHOF selection. He should be going straight in this fall.

- If you don't want to consider those lower hart finishes as anything special simply because of what other names were next to him, that is unnecessarily nitpicky. If being 13th-14th in Hart voting is so easy, why didn't Raycroft do it again? Where are Lecavalier's other top-10 finishes? What about Chara? Nabokov? Bertuzzi?

Doing it once isn't anything special. Doing it over and over and over again is.

 

[tarheelhockey]

- Lindros should not be a controversial HHOF selection.

He already is.

- If you don't want to consider those lower hart finishes as anything special simply because of what other names were next to him, that is unnecessarily nitpicky.

I was just using the other names to illustrate what sort of company he was in during those seasons. Elite, yes, but not Hall of Fame caliber.

And I must admit, I didn't do a great job of making the point. It's not just that a 9th-place finish put him in good-but-not-amazing company. It's also got to do with the context of comparing his competition against past Hart fields.

In 1977, the 8th-9th-10th Hart candidates were Ratelle, Sittler and Potvin.
In 1987, they were Yzerman, Messier and Francis.
In 1997, they were Roy, Lindros and Tkachuk.
Last year, they were Chara, Thornton and Luongo.

When Thornton won it, the rest of the top 5 was a well-past-his-prime Jagr, followed by Kiprusoff, Staal and Alfredsson. In that group, only Jagr and Alfie look like surefire HoF'ers and they aren't exactly Lemieux and Gretzky.

It's the combination of middling finishes and lack of competition which makes me question the historic value of Thornton's Hart record. Since the arrival of post-lockout elite talent, it has come to appear that he was only a top-3 player during a brief, transitional period when the league at a low ebb in household names.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Again, this is an unnecessarily narrow definition for HoF credentials.

Do you think Jose Theodore will be inducted? Martin St. Louis? Even Eric Lindros? By the time Thornton becomes eligible, there will be 3 contemporary Hart winners who are either not going to be inducted or will be very borderline and controversial. So the Hart is far from a "clincher" for him. In fact I would say that if not for that Hart, we wouldn't be having this conversation because the rest of his resume' is clearly insufficient.

Thornton has certainly racked up a lot of points over his career, but those are primarily assists on juggernaut teams in Boston and San Jose. Over the span of his career he's 2nd in points, but 25th in goals behind guys like Miro Satan, Ryan Smyth and Milan Hejduk. That smells strongly of "point collector". Adam Oates had a similar profile and he is still on the outside looking in, with pretty much the same set of weaknesses as Thornton.

So if Thornton's case is built entirely around points and the lone Hart, it's demonstrably just not good enough so far. He is going to have to build that career point total and do something to lead a team in the playoffs.

Yes, I do expect Eric Lindros to be inducted before Thornton retires. Lindros is elligible for the first time this year, and while I doubt he's a first ballot guy, he'll probably get in before Thornton retires.

And Martin St. Louis is a borderline HOFer now, and will likely be "probably" at minimum by the time he retires.

I think your HOF criteria is a lot stricter than the actual criteria used by the committee.

Jose Theodore will obviously not see a single yes vote.

 

[tarheelhockey]

By the time Thornton becomes eligible, there will be 3 contemporary Hart winners who are either not going to be inducted or will be very borderline and controversial.

St. Louis is the former, Lindros the latter.

Again, not trying to start side topics. The point is simply that Thornton has at least 3 contemporaries who won the Hart and are not a first-ballot "lock" for the HoF.

 

[Big Phil]

What else does Thornton bring to the table? C1958 pointed out elevating his linemates (in the regular season), and that's about all I can think of. No physical play, no intensity, nothing stellar defensively, no leadership by the looks of things...?

Good question. I think you pretty much answered it though. Making players around you insanely better is "bringing something to the table". We are talking regular season of course. Also singlehandidly changing the fortunes of a team in a season (2005-'06 Sharks) into contenders. Can't say that about Nicholls or Turgeon.

 

[snaggle toof]

That's true, but again we could have argued a few years ago that a Hart trophy automatically meant HOF induction. Then came Jose Theodore.

I don't buy into the "automatic lock" concept, especially not when it's based on something like Hart voting during the mid-00s. Thornton's prime came during a period when there were no bona-fide superstar skaters in the league (post-prime Jagr and pre-Crosby/Ovie), and the Hart voting was obviously erratic during that period. If that small window during his prime, and a few distinguished-but-not-incredible assist totals on elite teams, is the basis of the entire argument for his induction, I'm sticking to my guns that he still has something left to accomplish before we can call him Hall-worthy.

I would consider 96 assists in one season pretty incredible. Thats the highest total since the 1992 season. The only players to put up more assists in a single season are Gretzky(11 times), Lemieux(twice) Oates(once) and Orr(once). 96 assists is the 16th best assist season in the history of the NHL. Not to mention he followed it up with another 90+ assist season. Plus the Sharks that season can hardly be considered elite, they finished fifth in the confrence, and were out of playoff position at the time they traded for Thornton.

Now I wouldn't go so far as to say he is a first ballot guy, or even a lock, but I do think he gets in with what he has done already.