Stats for the Marleau and Thornton bashers

[Mafoofoo]

Well hockeyball you may not see them making it past the 2nd round but I see them winning the cup in 17 games. At worst.

 

[Sharksrule04]

I like how when it favours you, you use PPG, but when it doesn't, you use raw stats. Because if you did SHG and GWG/game, Marleau wouldn't look as stellar.

You can say that Marleau has a higher PPG than St.Louis, Williams, and Stamkos, or say he has a lower PPG than Purcell, Heatley, and Martin Straka. That's called framing.

Really? You are going to call someone out for manipulating stats to work in their favor? You and your endless argument against Thornton are the king of cherry picking stats to favor your argument.

Why did anyone even create this thread? The argument has been in several other threads and has been done over and over and over again. Can't we just agree to disagree at this point? It's not like some new stat has been created over the summer or a new playoffs worth of sample size has occurred. Some people think Thornton sucks in the playoffs, others think he is good.

 

[Sharksrule04]

So is Mike Cammalleri. But you are the one that brought up the idea that PPG is everything.

In any case, Thornton's PPG goes from ~1 in the RS to .76 in the playoffs. That is a massive drop off that the Sharks have to account for. When it comes to games 5, 6, and 7 of a series (ie, critical, important, do-or-die games), Joe Thornton is at a .5ppg rate. That is another drop off the Sharks have to account for.

I don't have the stats, because honestly I don't care enough to search for them, but I would think scoring in general is down in the playoff in comparison to the regular season. Teams play a much tighter brand of hockey, and while some players see an overall boost in production, many of those are not top line players and more so guys who are grinders and role players who thrive in a rougher, tighter brand of hockey.

Also you need to realize that your argument is not fact and merely opinion. You provide numbers you like that make a your argument look better and then when someone presents numbers that don't agree with that argument you simply go "no but that is because_____". Your emphasis on games 5-7 is one of the more absurd things I've seen in my lifetime as a sports fan. You are clearly picking things that support your argument while ignoring factors that go into those numbers.

 

[Sharksrule04]

 

[The Nemesis]

We've let you guys go for a while here, but watch the insults and attacks in your posts. It's getting close to flaming and isn't appropriate.

 

[hohosaregood]

Everybody loses in this discussion.

 

[Led Zappa]

Everybody loses in this discussion.

Loser.

 

[hohosaregood]

Loser.

How dare you drag me down to Thornton's level!!

 

[hohosaregood]

There are no winners in the Game of Joes.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

They both suck, franchise sucks, Hasso is lame, DW is stupid, Thorton is tin menz.

 

[weastern bias]

They both suck, franchise sucks, Hasso is lame, DW is stupid, Thorton is tin menz.

The most honest and truthful post in the thread

We should get a locked sticky of just this post, then we won't have to have this thread pop up once a month

 

[Gilligans Island]

The only good thing about this thread is it exists. Otherwise, other threads end up getting cluttered with this tired argument.

 

[richo]

Wanting to trade them, and being able to trade them, are entirely different things.

I am very well aware that they don't want to be traded and thus can not be. That doesn't make me WANT to trade them any less. That also doesn't make me go "Welp, can't trade them, I guess I should be thrilled they are still on the team!" either.

They are not going to win a cup here, and that is a travesty. The Sharks are not going to win a cup this season, or next, and are not likely to re-sign either of them at that point. Even if they do, they will have two aging, declining, players with no one to replace them so a cup is still very unlikely at that point. They should go somewhere else and get a cup ffs, they are both either stubborn or foolish for not reading the writing on the wall and doing so.

I've been mostly keeping my mouth shut because I don't see the point of pissing everyone off by stating that the Sharks have no chance at a cup this season, but they have no chance at a cup this season (barring the sea's parting). Even with the improvements, they just don't have the high-end talent to make a real run yet. They'll make the playoffs, they'll probably even make it to the second round, but I literally can't picture them going farther than that with the roster they have now. It's once a good team, maybe a very good team, but not a great team.

You can keep restating their stat-lines over and over again but it's not going to change the fact that this team as constructed is not going to win a cup and thus them being here is completely pointless. If anything I want them gone because I like them so much.

Dead on!

 

[richo]

Your emphasis on games 5-7 is one of the more absurd things I've seen in my lifetime as a sports fan. You are clearly picking things that support your argument while ignoring factors that go into those numbers.

I disagree. The Sharks have a definite problem in games 5-7 of playoff series. They've been unable to get by many series and those have been the games where they have failed. Thus, stats involving those games are highly relevant for this team.

 

[hohosaregood]

Well hockeyball you may not see them making it past the 2nd round but I see them winning the cup in 17 games. At worst.

You're grossly underestimating them. Cup in 12 wins easily.

 

[SJGoalie32]

There are about 690 active players in the NHL at any one time, and up to 1500 under NHL contract at any one time. The list in question is a pool of players much larger than that but shows only the top 1000 players.

#21 puts a player in the top 2-3% at worst. In reality that puts the player in the top 1%. That is obviously elite and your standard is obviously biased to delusion. It's not a standard at all, it's typical garbage analysis that has no objective backing.

You really can't illustrate your bias any better than for you to dismiss a player being in the top 1% as not elite.

By definition, any player who makes it to the NHL is elite.

Thornton is generally among the best of the best by the regular season measures, and undeniably destined for the Hall of Fame.

But for teams to win Stanley Cups, all but necessitates having someone who is the best of the best of best on your team.

Being the 21st best playoff point producer in the NHL is a wonderful personal accomplishment. But when you once you reach the Conference Semifinal rounds and later, when there are 7 other teams that also all have very good players, including 2 or 3 of the players who score better than JT....THAT is very relevant to the discussion of why he doesn't have a Cup and why the team continually falters in the postseason.

Having the 5th best player (4th best currently active) in the league wins you a lot of games in the regular season. Having the 21st best player in the league will win you some games in the playoffs. But when the season winds down to a playoff battle between a small handful of the best teams in the league, many of whom ALSO employ the best playoff point producers in the league, and your 2 best guys are ranked #21 and #44 while facing opponents with 2, 3, 4 players who are all significantly better offensively.....you are all but guaranteed to go down in flames in the postseason because your most elite players are constantly out-matched and out-performed by players who are even more elite.

With JT the frustration comes because someone who is #5 in the regular season shouldn't be #21 in the postseason. If Thornton was #5 in the playoffs as well, there'd be a lot less criticism of him. But his significant drop-off in production is a major factor in why the Sharks fail every year. Thornton is not the ONLY reason they lose, but his disappearance in production certainly doesn't help.

 

[Led Zappa]

How dare you drag me down to Thornton's level!!

hohosarebad

 

[hohosaregood]

hohosarebad

...
...
...

friendship over.

 

[SJGoalie32]

I don't have the stats, because honestly I don't care enough to search for them, but I would think scoring in general is down in the playoff in comparison to the regular season. Teams play a much tighter brand of hockey, and while some players see an overall boost in production, many of those are not top line players and more so guys who are grinders and role players who thrive in a rougher, tighter brand of hockey.

Over the course of a career (that includes at least 50 games spanning at least 5 seasons), playoff point production has an average of about a 5% drop-off from regular season to postseason.

Obviously you get some individual variations here and there, but by and large the league-wide standard drop-off is only about 5%.

If what you said actually bore out--that top players take a hit to their scoring rate--then ALL top players should be taking (on average) the same hit to their scoring rate. Thornton's drop-off should mirror the drop-offs of Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Kane, Kopitar, Zetterberg, Getzlaf, etc. It doesn't.

I looked up the stats a while back and Thornton had the single biggest rate drop-off of any top 100 player in the last 20+ years. That was a few seasons back, so that doesn't take into account the recent series against the Blues and Kings (or the drop in his regular season production which closes the gap a bit), but he's still near the worst if not the absolute worst in terms of production drop-off.

 

[Led Zappa]

Over the course of a career (that includes at least 50 games spanning at least 5 seasons), playoff point production has an average of about a 5% drop-off from regular season to postseason.

Obviously you get some individual variations here and there, but by and large the league-wide standard drop-off is only about 5%.

If what you said actually bore out--that top players take a hit to their scoring rate--then ALL top players should be taking (on average) the same hit to their scoring rate. Thornton's drop-off should mirror the drop-offs of Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Kane, Kopitar, Zetterberg, Getzlaf, etc. It doesn't.

I looked up the stats a while back and Thornton had the single biggest rate drop-off of any top 100 player in the last 20+ years. That was a few seasons back, so that doesn't take into account the recent series against the Blues and Kings (or the drop in his regular season production which closes the gap a bit), but he's still near the worst if not the absolute worst in terms of production drop-off.

There is virtually no way to get a good representation. Players play on better or worse teams at different points in the curve of their careers and players who have one or two trips to the Cup Finals are almost certainly going to have better numbers simply by the fact that they won more games and the losers are going to have worse numbers in the series they lost whether or not they were a significant reason.

On top of that, all of these numbers come from a very small sample size.

 

[hockeyball]

There is virtually no way to get a good representation. Players play on better or worse teams at different points in the curve of their careers and players who have one or two trips to the Cup Finals are almost certainly going to have better numbers simply by the fact that they won more games and the losers are going to have worse numbers in the series they lost whether or not they were a significant reason.

On top of that, all of these numbers come from a very small sample size.

Sure, but it is pretty consistent with him. As I've explained before, I don't think it's a lack of desire or 'heart' or any of that crap, it's just simply that his game is not well suited to the playoffs. It's not like he's the first one to run into this issue as Oats and Marcel Dion had similar problems. If all you do is pass you are predictable. It just takes a good enough player to predict what you are going to do and stop it. Once you get far enough in the playoffs the likelihood you run into players/teams good enough to do that increases quickly.

The Sharks would be fine if Joe Thornton wasn't their best center. If he was behind a better all around player who the team was built around and running the show, we'd have a cup by now more than likely. The problem is we've built a team around Joe, the players are accustomed to Joe's passes, and when those dry up the scoring comes to a screeching halt. By the time the team adjusts, it's too late and they are out of the playoffs.

I love Joe, and I don't blame him for it, he's gotten us closer to a cup than anyone else has, but I am also fairly certain we will never win won with him as our 1st line center.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Really? You are going to call someone out for manipulating stats to work in their favor? You and your endless argument against Thornton are the king of cherry picking stats to favor your argument.

Accusing someone of cherry-picking is a tired and true trick. A loaded accusation, if you will

I don't have the stats, because honestly I don't care enough to search for them, but I would think scoring in general is down in the playoff in comparison to the regular season. Teams play a much tighter brand of hockey, and while some players see an overall boost in production, many of those are not top line players and more so guys who are grinders and role players who thrive in a rougher, tighter brand of hockey.

As SJgoalie has said, there is about a 5-7% drop from RS production to playoff production.

Also you need to realize that your argument is not fact and merely opinion. You provide numbers you like that make a your argument look better and then when someone presents numbers that don't agree with that argument you simply go "no but that is because_____". Your emphasis on games 5-7 is one of the more absurd things I've seen in my lifetime as a sports fan. You are clearly picking things that support your argument while ignoring factors that go into those numbers.

So explaining why a counter-argument isn't right is somehow wrong? How just comparing PPG between players and declaring them players is wrong? That focusing on possession stats is wrong? That the idea that the Sharks are just woefully unlucky with their 7% shooting percentage, etc., is wrong?

You are literally complaining that I defend my position.

They both suck, franchise sucks, Hasso is lame, DW is stupid, Thorton is tin menz.

Again, if you don't like the discussion, feel free to ignore it.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Sure, but it is pretty consistent with him. As I've explained before, I don't think it's a lack of desire or 'heart' or any of that crap, it's just simply that his game is not well suited to the playoffs. It's not like he's the first one to run into this issue as Oats and Marcel Dion had similar problems. If all you do is pass you are predictable. It just takes a good enough player to predict what you are going to do and stop it. Once you get far enough in the playoffs the likelihood you run into players/teams good enough to do that increases quickly.

The Sharks would be fine if Joe Thornton wasn't their best center. If he was behind a better all around player who the team was built around and running the show, we'd have a cup by now more than likely. The problem is we've built a team around Joe, the players are accustomed to Joe's passes, and when those dry up the scoring comes to a screeching halt. By the time the team adjusts, it's too late and they are out of the playoffs.

I love Joe, and I don't blame him for it, he's gotten us closer to a cup than anyone else has, but I am also fairly certain we will never win won with him as our 1st line center.

I disagree with your last part. Marleau did. haha

I don't really care about the personal stats. The team wins and loses based on the team. The Sharks haven't had the team to match up against the Hawks and the Kings. Why? Because their secondary top players don't match up with those teams. You can certainly put Marleau and Thornton head-to-head with Kane/Toews and Kopitar/Carter or whoever and it's respectable in comparison with regards to the play on the ice. But those guys each play with two other guys on that line and a couple blue liners. The blue line for the Sharks has never compared to the likes of the Kings or Hawks. While Pavs and Couture are certainly comparable in some respects to the other forwards on those two teams, are the other two forwards that complete each of the top two lines comparable to the ones on the Kings and Hawks?

Historically, the answer is no but that is not as big of a concern for me as the blue line has been. They haven't even come close in that regard since the rise of the Hawks and Kings.

 

[Alwalys]

The Sharks would be fine if Joe Thornton wasn't their best center. If he was behind a better all around player who the team was built around and running the show, we'd have a cup by now more than likely. The problem is we've built a team around Joe, the players are accustomed to Joe's passes, and when those dry up the scoring comes to a screeching halt. By the time the team adjusts, it's too late and they are out of the playoffs.

They actually don't dry up. His ability to drive play remains strong in the playoffs, that is an objective fact. They do turn into fewer powerplays when he completely dismantles a defense and other teams have to commit tons of fouls to contain him, because playoff officiating is utter bull****e. But by and large the problem in the playoffs isn't so much with Thornton's play, but with the play of the rest of the team (including often his linemates).

The team has just really never been good enough defensively to go all the way.

By definition, any player who makes it to the NHL is elite.

Thornton is generally among the best of the best by the regular season measures, and undeniably destined for the Hall of Fame.

But for teams to win Stanley Cups, all but necessitates having someone who is the best of the best of best on your team.

Being the 21st best playoff point producer in the NHL is a wonderful personal accomplishment. But when you once you reach the Conference Semifinal rounds and later, when there are 7 other teams that also all have very good players, including 2 or 3 of the players who score better than JT....THAT is very relevant to the discussion of why he doesn't have a Cup and why the team continually falters in the postseason.

Having the 5th best player (4th best currently active) in the league wins you a lot of games in the regular season. Having the 21st best player in the league will win you some games in the playoffs. But when the season winds down to a playoff battle between a small handful of the best teams in the league, many of whom ALSO employ the best playoff point producers in the league, and your 2 best guys are ranked #21 and #44 while facing opponents with 2, 3, 4 players who are all significantly better offensively.....you are all but guaranteed to go down in flames in the postseason because your most elite players are constantly out-matched and out-performed by players who are even more elite.

With JT the frustration comes because someone who is #5 in the regular season shouldn't be #21 in the postseason. If Thornton was #5 in the playoffs as well, there'd be a lot less criticism of him. But his significant drop-off in production is a major factor in why the Sharks fail every year. Thornton is not the ONLY reason they lose, but his disappearance in production certainly doesn't help.

This is just a gigantic false premise. The difference in playoff scoring rate between Thornton and vaunted playoff performers like Toews, Kopitar, and Datsyuk is effectively nonexistent. Thornton upholds his end of the bargain for the most part. It is the rest of the team that falls far short. Defensively the difference is glaring, THAT is the major difference between how the Sharks' stars fare in the playoffs vs other teams'. The Sharks can't keep the puck out of the net, and the major reasons for that are lackluster defense and goaltending.

Thornton, Marleau, Couture AND Pavelski are used as major defensive pieces in the toughest playoff situations late in series. On the Hawks for example, Toews and Hossa play defense, but the Hawks have a stellar defensive 3rd line which allows Kane and Sharp to play protected offensive minutes.

 

[hockeyball]

They actually don't dry up. His ability to drive play remains strong in the playoffs, that is an objective fact. They do turn into fewer powerplays when he completely dismantles a defense and other teams have to commit tons of fouls to contain him, because playoff officiating is utter bull****e. But by and large the problem in the playoffs isn't so much with Thornton's play, but with the play of the rest of the team (including often his linemates).

The team has just really never been good enough defensively to go all the way.

I disagree, his stats are generally pretty decent in the playoffs, but I am specifically talking about the rounds where we are knocked out. Yes, we lost, so stats are going to be worse, but consistently Thornton produces almost nothing in those final games. I did the research last year and I believe thornton had 1 point total in his entire career in elimination games where we lost the series. That's pretty devastating.