Joe Thornton becomes the best playmaking Joe of all time

[1OApick]

Aki Berg is the highest scoring Aki of all time. Aki of the year-award winner. And multiple Aki Cup winner. GOAT

 

[Alwalys]

I personally believe that JT is indeed a better passer than Sakic. But Sakic was my favorite player because of his wicked wrist-shots and his filthy back-handers. In that department Jumbo Joe cant even sniff Sakic's jockstrap.

i sometimes wonder how good of a goalscorer thornton could have been had he decided to focus on that rather than playmaking. guy is not known at all for goalscoring but he is actually a really good shooter. he actually has a higher career shooting % than sakic! his top 3 shooting seasons were better than sakic's top 3.

It's been a while but people forget thornton used to be considered the best player in the world. as good as sakic was, he was never in that conversation in his career.

 

[Its a Trap]

Guys. Seriously. Knock it off. If you have real conversations in a mulletman thread they’re just going to reproduce.

 

[authentic]

I'm not disputing it. I got to watch Sakic when I was a kid, but I was a kid. I didn't analyze the game, and I don't remember anything clearly from then. Like I said, I just thought the premise was pretty bad and the title was more clickbait.

I guess you could say there are much better ways to argue Thornton was the better playmaker. Even if he retired 5 years ago I would consider him the better playmaker quite easily.

 

[Ceremony]

How is this guy still allowed to make threads?

We need something to liven the place up.

Mulletman raises an interesting point. What is the best name in NHL history? Would Gretzky and Maki beat Thornton and Sakic in 2 on 2?

 

[authentic]

i sometimes wonder how good of a goalscorer thornton could have been had he decided to focus on that rather than playmaking. guy is not known at all for goalscoring but he is actually a really good shooter. he actually has a higher career shooting % than sakic! his top 3 shooting seasons were better than sakic's top 3.

It's been a while but people forget thornton used to be considered the best player in the world. as good as sakic was, he was never in that conversation in his career.

2001 ring a bell? Also, Lol at using shooting % to measure goal scoring ability. Yeah he could've scored more if he shot more, as would anyone logically (but then his shooting % would also drop), but he did not shoot the puck nearly as well as Sakic in any way, not close at all. Joe Sakic was clearly a better player, peak, prime, career, regular season, playoffs.

 

[Mikeshane]

I'm going to celebrate by thinking about how Dirty Joe has 0 Stanley Cups.

Seeing a picture of 90's Colorado and Detroit I'm gonna go ahead and call this the thread about unlikable things in hockey.

 

[Bizz]

I'm going to celebrate by thinking about how Dirty Joe has 0 Stanley Cups.

Seeing a picture of 90's Colorado and Detroit I'm gonna go ahead and call this the thread about unlikable things in hockey.

why hello there, Mike O'Connell.

 

[mja]

We need something to liven the place up.

Mulletman raises an interesting point. What is the best name in NHL history? Would Gretzky and Maki beat Thornton and Sakic in 2 on 2?

Why stop there? What's the best starting line-up by first name? For my money, I'm going Robert/Roberto/Rob/Bob/Bobby.

Hull Clarke Bauer

Orr Blake

Luongo

Gimme the cup!

 

[Super Hans]

Real debate should be Sakic's hairstyle vs. Thornton's beard in a "Most Likely To Be Seen In A Soup Kitchen On Thanksgiving" competition.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I honestly think I'd put Thornton on Sakic's tier, slight edge to Sakic if I had to pick.

I think Thornton gets a bit underrated at times - he hasn't had the great team success, but I think people put too much stock on team success when comparing individual players. He also played in perhaps the lowest scoring 18 season period you could get, playing his first 7 years in the dead puck era. Only a couple of those seasons were really "moderately high scoring" years (seasons ending in 2006, 2007, 2009) and even then those 3 years were under 3 goals per team per game. Quick math suggests the league average GF/GP was around 2.7-2.8 across his entire career. Compare that to Sakic, who played the first 9 years of his career in a much higher scoring era - where scoring averaged ~3.4 goals per team per game before Thornton was even in the league. League scoring with Thornton and without Sakic? Like 2.75 GF/GP.

Thornton was without a doubt the better playmaker, Sakic obviously the better shooter and goalscorer. Sakic's career numbers are indisputably better, but between 2000 - 2007, Thornton was the better producer. I know Sakic was getting up there in age, but the last year of that comparison he still potted 100 points. That period also includes Thornton's 20-22 year old seasons where he had yet to break out, but it's really the only period where you can make a "fair" comparison.

A lot of people see Thornton as a playoff choker, but 123p in 154gp (ignoring his 18 year old season where he hardly played) is pretty good production, especially considering his shooting percentage was only around 8% vs his career average of 13%. Also consider his relative lack of offensive support during those runs (compared to what Sakic had to work with). But still, Sakic's playoff performances were just beat worthy, and are what put him over the top for me.

 

[Alwalys]

2001 ring a bell?

Yeah that was the year Lemieux came back and scored 1.77 PPG.

Also, Lol at using shooting % to measure goal scoring ability. Yeah he could've scored more if he shot more, as would anyone logically (but then his shooting % would also drop), but he did not shoot the puck nearly as well as Sakic in any way, not close at all. Joe Sakic was clearly a better player, peak, prime, career, regular season, playoffs.

Shooting rate and shooting percentage are not causally linked once you get into statistically valid samples. Thornton also literally uses a stick designed for passing and not shooting so he is deliberately reducing his shooting ability. It's hard to compare the two because they are physically so different but Sakic tends to look more dynamic and dramatic because he is smaller, but Thornton's size belies the quality of his shots in terms of accuracy, velocity, everything that matters. Thornton can snipe corners with the best of them. Of course accuracy helps passing too.

I dispute that Sakic was a significantly better player peak, prime, career or regular season, but he was better in the playoffs. Guy had the clutch gene. His trophy case though was helped by the makeup of the teams he played on. Thornton never had a Forsberg, let alone a Roy.

For the record I'm a big Sakic fan and was a bit of an Avs fan during his prime.

 

[authentic]

Yeah that was the year Lemieux came back and scored 1.77 PPG.



Shooting rate and shooting percentage are not causally linked once you get into statistically valid samples. Thornton also literally uses a stick designed for passing and not shooting so he is deliberately reducing his shooting ability. It's hard to compare the two because they are physically so different but Sakic tends to look more dynamic and dramatic because he is smaller, but Thornton's size belies the quality of his shots in terms of accuracy, velocity, everything that matters. Thornton can snipe corners with the best of them. Of course accuracy helps passing too.

I dispute that Sakic was a significantly better player peak, prime, career or regular season, but he was better in the playoffs. Guy had the clutch gene. His trophy case though was helped by the makeup of the teams he played on. Thornton never had a Forsberg, let alone a Roy.

For the record I'm a big Sakic fan and was a bit of an Avs fan during his prime.

I mean clearly as in I don't see a real argument for Thornton if looking at it objectively, by no means was it by a significant amount though. I also think he is underrated due to team success, but he also has not had dominating playoff performances himself. Having watched a large amount of his playoff games since he came to San Jose he truly did not look like he did the regular season most of the time, and the stats back that up as well as he was consistently under a point per game in the playoffs and didn't go above that once. For a player of his caliber that is underwhelming, especially in comparison to Sakic.

Also in regards to Lemieux that season, his linemate Jagr scored more points during his 43 game comeback. Sakic was truly the best player in the world that season, the playoffs were just the icing on the cake.

 

[Combat Koala]

Guys. Seriously. Knock it off. If you have real conversations in a mulletman thread they’re just going to reproduce.

Mulletman threads are refreshing despite the lack of logic or a valid point. I'll rather read these threads than the constant "is player x generational?", "laine vs matthews", "top 10 best at x" -threads. At least these threads are fun.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

So wait. We're supposed to talk about how Joe Thornton is the "best playmaking Joe of all time," but we're supposed to dismiss how Joe Sakic reached 1016th assists in 89 fewer games just so we can talk about how one guy is the better of two Joes?

Man...

So we're just going to pretend era-adjusted scoring doesn't exist?

 

[Groo]

I personally believe that JT is indeed a better passer than Sakic. But Sakic was my favorite player because of his wicked wrist-shots and his filthy back-handers. In that department Jumbo Joe cant even sniff Sakic's jockstrap.

It's utter crap to bring up sniffing jockstraps about players of that caliber

 

[Ivan13]

i sometimes wonder how good of a goalscorer thornton could have been had he decided to focus on that rather than playmaking. guy is not known at all for goalscoring but he is actually a really good shooter. he actually has a higher career shooting % than sakic! his top 3 shooting seasons were better than sakic's top 3.

It's been a while but people forget thornton used to be considered the best player in the world. as good as sakic was, he was never in that conversation in his career.

Sure as hell helps when you only shoot from within 2 feet from the net. And yeah, Sakic totally never was in conversation as the best player in the world

The stuff you'll read here.

 

[ThirdManIn]

So we're just going to pretend era-adjusted scoring doesn't exist?

I've been over what my point is in that post, so I'm not taking the bait for this argument.

 

[sr edler]

How is this guy still allowed to make threads?

Best hit and run threads on the board. Topics are usually suspect milestones of washed up star players.

 

[hohosaregood]

basically this generation's Andreychuk.

 

[SenzZen]

Tough to argue with that, Mulletman!

I’d also suggest that Sakic’s ability and notoriety as a sniper eliminates him from being considered a playmaker.

I’ll be sleeping soundly tonight!

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Oh let joe have his moment. The other joe has a lot more to be proud of in his career than the highest assisting joe

jojo will also probably become the highest assisting #19 of all time if he plays another year after this. but he's still, what, the 5th greatest #19 of all time at best?

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

I've been over what my point is in that post, so I'm not taking the bait for this argument.

And I'm countering your point. You brought up games it took to get there but didn't bring up other factors such as era and adjusted-scoring. If you don't want to have a discussion what you say, that's fine, but don't act like I'm trolling you.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Thornton was already recognized as a better playmaker than Sakic.

That said, Thornton’s about half the goal scorer.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Oh let joe have his moment. The other joe has a lot more to be proud of in his career than the highest assisting joe

Other than Sakic playing on much better pre-cap teams that won cups, their individual achievements are both very good.