Is Joe Thornton a hall-of-famer?

[inthewings]

You also didn't look to answer the question. Your opinion is baseless.

You're coming off as really defensive here. People make the same point he made all the time, about different players. It often is disappointing to watch all-time greats continue on as a shell of their former self.

I'm a baseball fan and my memory of Albert Pujols has absolutely been tarnished by watching him flail away for half a decade after he was any use.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I voted yes before I commented. What else was I supposed to do?

Are you good?

You're coming off as really defensive here. People make the same point he made all the time, about different players. It often is disappointing to watch all-time greats continue on as a shell of their former self.

I'm a baseball fan and my memory of Albert Pujols has absolutely been tarnished by watching him flail away for half a decade after he was any use.

These are responses that people have when they can't actually back up what they said with anything. Again, what evidence is there that these legacies are tarnished? How do you want to quantify that in any meaningful way? How is it relevant to a Hall of Fame discussion? It's not about being defensive. It's about challenging this baseless assertion and asking for something that supports what you're saying. These responses don't exactly help you in this regard because you're dodging the question and trying to flip it into some personal issue when it's not.

 

[sparxx87]

These are responses that people have when they can't actually back up what they said with anything. Again, what evidence is there that these legacies are tarnished? How do you want to quantify that in any meaningful way? How is it relevant to a Hall of Fame discussion? It's not about being defensive. It's about challenging this baseless assertion and asking for something that supports what you're saying. These responses don't exactly help you in this regard because you're dodging the question and trying to flip it into some personal issue when it's not.

You’re trying to turn art into science and it can’t be done.

...all the best on your quest, though.

 

[inthewings]

These are responses that people have when they can't actually back up what they said with anything. Again, what evidence is there that these legacies are tarnished? How do you want to quantify that in any meaningful way? How is it relevant to a Hall of Fame discussion? It's not about being defensive. It's about challenging this baseless assertion and asking for something that supports what you're saying. These responses don't exactly help you in this regard because you're dodging the question and trying to flip it into some personal issue when it's not.

This isn’t an academic debate. People are telling you their personal experiences. You can do with them what you will, but you can’t argue them lol.

 

[King Karl]

Maybe it's because I've never seen my team win a cup, but I've never understood why lifting Lord Stanley is such an important prerequisite to some for induction into the hall of fame. There is so much luck involved with building a championship contending team; and particularly in today's world where high end players don't tend to move around much beyond the occasional free agency sweepstakes - sometimes you just never get the chance.

 

[BlueBull]

This might be the worst poll I've seen in a long time.

Scratch that, This is the worst Poll question I've seen, like, ever.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

You’re trying to turn art into science and it can’t be done.

...all the best on your quest, though.

There's nothing art about this. Hall of fame is based on tangible credentials. Your assertion is a vague opinion that is unsubstantiated.

This isn’t an academic debate. People are telling you their personal experiences. You can do with them what you will, but you can’t argue them lol.

What does personal experience have to do with using a perceived tarnished legacy based on hanging on too long as an argument against a Hall of fame candidate? No, it's just a bad opinion that is irrelevant to the topic and then a poor way of defending that point rather than just conceding it like you should.

 

[jetsforever]

Very easily

 

[inthewings]

There's nothing art about this. Hall of fame is based on tangible credentials. Your assertion is a vague opinion that is unsubstantiated.



What does personal experience have to do with using a perceived tarnished legacy based on hanging on too long as an argument against a Hall of fame candidate? No, it's just a bad opinion that is irrelevant to the topic and then a poor way of defending that point rather than just conceding it like you should.

It wasn't offered as an argument against Thornton being inducted into the HoF. The poster you originally took issue with commented tangentially that he wished Thornton had retired earlier, and then when pushed to clarify made the clarification that he thinks Thornton is indeed a HoFer. It should have ended there, but you got your feeling very hurt and here we are.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

It wasn't offered as an argument against Thornton being inducted into the HoF. The poster you originally took issue with commented tangentially that he wished Thornton had retired earlier, and then when pushed to clarify made the clarification that he thinks Thornton is indeed a HoFer. It should have ended there, but you got your feeling very hurt and here we are.

So it's an irrelevant point to the thread. It's still a completely baseless opinion but at least you copped to it. To me it seems like you're the one with the hurt feelings since you felt the need to white knight the poster and his point instead of just taking the back and forth for what it is...a discussion...and not some silly debate tactic to distract from the points. It's pretty blatantly dishonest of you.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

In the modern NHL I think the standard for the playoff success part of the equation should be re-evaluated. Maybe getting to the finals?

It's just so much harder to get there & win because of the salary cap/competitive balance, aswell as the sheer number of teams.

Basically I do believe a lack of playoff success could be a knock on someone's HOF case, but the bar for playoff success shouldnt be cup or nothing anymore.

 

[inthewings]

So it's an irrelevant point to the thread. It's still a completely baseless opinion but at least you copped to it. To me it seems like you're the one with the hurt feelings since you felt the need to white knight the poster and his point instead of just taking the back and forth for what it is...a discussion...and not some silly debate tactic to distract from the points. It's pretty blatantly dishonest of you.

1. I don't consider a commentary on one's perception of Thornton's legacy as irrelevant to a thread on Thornton's HoF chances. It isn't directly answering the question, but... that's the entire point of discussion forums. Especially in a thread like this were the clear answer is just 'yes - he's a HoFer'.

2. It's not a 'baseless opinion'. I'm not even sure what that means in this context. I mentioned earlier that I remember Albert Pujols as a shell of his former self because of his last 5-6 years in LA (and I might even mention it a thread on his HoF chances if one existed, with no implication that he isn't a HoFer!). That's not right or wrong, and it can't be baseless - it's just my own perception.

3. I agree that I am white knighting for this guy, but that's just because I found it annoying that you responded to some guy's benign comment on his own perception of Thornton's legacy with a bunch of pseudo-intellectual buzzwords in a weird ham-fisted callout. He wasn't even arguing a position - there was nothing to argue!

I'm also self-aware enough to realize that I'm now being annoying, and that absolutely nobody except you and me are even remotely interested in this stupid argument, so I'll leave you the last word and bow out.

 

[sparxx87]

It wasn't offered as an argument against Thornton being inducted into the HoF. The poster you originally took issue with commented tangentially that he wished Thornton had retired earlier, and then when pushed to clarify made the clarification that he thinks Thornton is indeed a HoFer. It should have ended there, but you got your feeling very hurt and here we are.

Only reason I thought I was worth noting was because it’s particularly true with Thornton moving from SJ to Toronto. For many fans on the East coast that haven’t seen as much, they haven’t gotten a very accurate depiction of Joe Thornton.

As a fan of Thornton it’s been disappointing to watch and even more disappointing to read some of what’s being said.

Like one of the greats looking like a punch-drunk boxer.

 

[Sheppy]

Seriously?

 

[Video Nasty]

He could have retired 10 seasons ago and he was a lock.

Now he's 7th all-time in assists, 14th all-time in points, and 6th all-time in games played.

If he plays a full normal season in 2021-2022, he could be 6th, 12th, and 3rd respectively in those categories.

A surefire and deserving first ballot induction.

Winning a Cup or not doesn't really matter to me depending on circumstance. It matters even less when the player we're discussing is probably not a top 50 forward all-time.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

1. I don't consider a commentary on one's perception of Thornton's legacy as irrelevant to a thread on Thornton's HoF chances. It isn't directly answering the question, but... that's the entire point of discussion forums. Especially in a thread like this were the clear answer is just 'yes - he's a HoFer'.

2. It's not a 'baseless opinion'. I'm not even sure what that means in this context. I mentioned earlier that I remember Albert Pujols as a shell of his former self because of his last 5-6 years in LA (and I might even mention it a thread on his HoF chances if one existed, with no implication that he isn't a HoFer!). That's not right or wrong, and it can't be baseless - it's just my own perception.

3. I agree that I am white knighting for this guy, but that's just because I found it annoying that you responded to some guy's benign comment on his own perception of Thornton's legacy with a bunch of pseudo-intellectual buzzwords in a weird ham-fisted callout. He wasn't even arguing a position - there was nothing to argue!

I'm also self-aware enough to realize that I'm now being annoying, and that absolutely nobody except you and me are even remotely interested in this stupid argument, so I'll leave you the last word and bow out.

It's to point out that the shell/tarnishing point is meaningless to the topic. And yes, it's baseless because by your own admission, it's not backed by anything. Yes, opinions and perceptions can be baseless.

 

[North Cole]

So it's an irrelevant point to the thread. It's still a completely baseless opinion but at least you copped to it. To me it seems like you're the one with the hurt feelings since you felt the need to white knight the poster and his point instead of just taking the back and forth for what it is...a discussion...and not some silly debate tactic to distract from the points. It's pretty blatantly dishonest of you.

If it's an irrelevant point to the thread, why are you dragging it around for 3 pages? The guy said people that didn't watch his prime will have their memory be a old lesser-Thornton rather than the HOF version that torched the league, but conceded that the HOF doesn't give a damn so it has no bearing on his induction. His claim is actually not that unsubstantiated, look around HF every year and you can see recency bias in full effect which occasionally turns into revisionist history.

An example of this phenomenon is the recent Crosby/McDavid discussions. McDavid - 20/21 vs. Crosby 10/11
Crosby in 10/11 was not as proficient at D than Crosby in his b2b cup runs or Crosby today even, but people carry back what he is now on the defensive side of the puck like he did this his whole career.

So if that interjection is "white knighting" rather than a continuance of 'discussion' you claim your having, can we call your posts "beating a dead horse" rather than a discussion too?

Where's Spiny to lock this thread for being lopsided, when you need him.

 

[Elvs]

I'm surprised so many people voted yes.

The answer is obviously no. Joe Thornton is not currently a Hall of Famer.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

If it's an irrelevant point to the thread, why are you dragging it around for 3 pages? The guy said people that didn't watch his prime will have their memory be a old lesser-Thornton rather than the HOF version that torched the league, but conceded that the HOF doesn't give a damn so it has no bearing on his induction. His claim is actually not that unsubstantiated, look around HF every year and you can see recency bias in full effect which occasionally turns into revisionist history.

An example of this phenomenon is the recent Crosby/McDavid discussions. McDavid - 20/21 vs. Crosby 10/11
Crosby in 10/11 was not as proficient at D than Crosby in his b2b cup runs or Crosby today even, but people carry back what he is now on the defensive side of the puck like he did this his whole career.

So if that interjection is "white knighting" rather than a continuance of 'discussion' you claim your having, can we call your posts "beating a dead horse" rather than a discussion too?

Where's Spiny to lock this thread for being lopsided, when you need him.

Because they were defending it as if it was. Pretty easy.

 

[Ace of Hades]

As much as I dislike him, he's in unfortunately.

 

[DomBarr]

yes the 1st day he is eligible.

 

[DomBarr]

I mean, Shanahan and Sundin were first ballot guys.

I will raise you a Kevin Lowe can get in

 

[koyvoo]

spiny norman must still be sleeping

 

[CanadienShark]

He's a lock.

 

[JaegerDice]

1st ballot.

Not having a cup hurts his legacy a bit (sorry, it's just the truth), but he's done more than enough as an individual and internationally to be a lock.