Stats for the Marleau and Thornton bashers

[OrrNumber4]

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.

That is a fair point, looking at the blueline discrepancy (although the Sharks in 2010 had a deep blueline, and in 2013 it wasn't too bad); they lack the high-end talent especially. Mind you, a lot of times the Sharks top players have draw a weaker pairing; Thornton didn't square off against Doughty in 2014, IIRC.

But it isn't like JT and Marleau have only failed against top-tier teams. They've failed against lesser competition.

 

[dwood16]

More typical poor analysis, they are great playoff producers as well.

Thornton sits at #21, with an almost identical playoff PPG to Datsyuk, Toews, and Kopitar. Thornton is 6th on the playoff assists/game list.

Marleau sits at #44 in playoff PPG and is ahead of the likes of Marty St Louis, Justin Williams and Steve Stamkos. Marleau is 14th in playoff goals/game and tied for 2nd in playoff GWG. He is also tied for 1st in playoff SHG.

They are elite playoff producers.

It doesn't matter how many points you score in the playoffs. What matters is not getting outscored by the players you are matched up against in the playoffs. It doesn't matter if Marleau scored 6 points in a series if his line was outscored by 3 or 4 goals.

They both have had huge struggles against elite talent in the playoffs. First it was the Red Wings top guys making Marleau look like a kid out there. Then it was Perry and the Ducks making Thornton look bad. Then Kopitar made them both look like ****. Thornton didn't start looking decent till they took away top line matchup duties from him for the most part. Couture has been drawing the top lines the past few years against the elite forwards. And he's faired better than both of them.

 

[Alwalys]

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.

Do you think his play explains that? Personally I see him all over the ****ing ice in elimination games. That not translating to points is a reason why we get eliminated, but this is chicken-egg. I don't think I can name an elimination game where I thought Thornton had a terrible game. The rest of the team not so much. He's often the only person that seems to be able to do anything.

It doesn't matter how many points you score in the playoffs. What matters is not getting outscored by the players you are matched up against in the playoffs. It doesn't matter if Marleau scored 6 points in a series if his line was outscored by 3 or 4 goals.

They both have had huge struggles against elite talent in the playoffs. First it was the Red Wings top guys making Marleau look like a kid out there. Then it was Perry and the Ducks making Thornton look bad. Then Kopitar made them both look like ****. Thornton didn't start looking decent till they took away top line matchup duties from him for the most part. Couture has been drawing the top lines the past few years against the elite forwards. And he's faired better than both of them.

A large part of the reason for this is the lack of adequate defensive options on lower lines to be tasked with playing defense against the elite talents. The Sharks elites are tasked with heavy defense AND still somehow scoring. It would be wonderful if we could give even one of our studs 70+% O-zone starts like Kane gets.

 

[Alwalys]

But it isn't like JT and Marleau have only failed against top-tier teams. They've failed against lesser competition.

They have

2014: Lost to the Cup champs
2013: Lost to the 2nd best team in the league and a higher seed
2012: Lost to the 1st seed
2011: Lost to the Presidents trophy winners and Cup runners-up
2010: Lost to the Cup champs
2009: Lost to the 8th seed, lesser competition, however both were injured
2008: Lost to the 5th seed, lesser competition
2007: Lost to the 1st seed
2006: Lost to the Cup runners-up

So that's 2/9 or really just 1/9 that both Marleau and Thornton can be said to have failed against truly lesser competition.

 

[The Nemesis]

Alright everyone, last chance:


The next time someone makes a backhanded insulting comment, fires a shot at another poster, or generally behaves outside of the site's rules on flaming and inappropriate conduct this thread will be locked. It's a topic that's been beaten to death and never come anywhere close to an agreeable resolution (nor do I think it ever will). It's been tolerated for an umpteenth rehashing because we're in the deadiest part of a rather dead back half of the off-season and there's not much else to do but rehash old debates. But if people are going to continue to prove that they cannot engage in the debate without resorting to name-calling, personal mocking, or snide and aggressive condescension, there's not much choice but to hit the lock button and be done with it. We're not interested in babysitting a thread that offers practically zero useful, new contribution to the board.


tl;dr: keep it clean. Consider this the last fair warning, otherwise the thread is being locked.


Also if you find yourself habitually unable to interact with another poster without resorting to inappropriate posts, consider putting that poster on your ignore list. That's what it's there for: to help you avoid confrontation with posters you absolutely cannot coexist with. And telling other people to put you on ignore is probably a sign that maybe you should take the first step.


The only other alternative is a moderator-triggered "Forced" Ignore. It is functionally just like you putting a poster on the ignore list yourself, except that you cannot remove said poster from the list and see their posts again on your own. Rather, a forced ignore requires moderator intervention again to be lifted. We'd rather not impose that on anyone unless they are unwilling to drop the feud themselves.


Thanks everyone.

 

[OrrNumber4]

They have

2014: Lost to the Cup champs
2013: Lost to the 2nd best team in the league and a higher seed
2012: Lost to the 1st seed
2011: Lost to the Presidents trophy winners and Cup runners-up
2010: Lost to the Cup champs
2009: Lost to the 8th seed, lesser competition, however both were injured
2008: Lost to the 5th seed, lesser competition
2007: Lost to the 1st seed
2006: Lost to the Cup runners-up

So that's 2/9 or really just 1/9 that both Marleau and Thornton can be said to have failed against truly lesser competition.

Again, it all depends on your framing.:

2014: Lost to the Cup champs The Sharks were the higher seed and had a 3-0 series lead.
2013: Lost to the 2nd best team in the league and a higher seed That is fair
2012: Lost to the 1st seed That's fair, although San Jose had much stronger forwards.
2011: Lost to the Presidents trophy winners and Cup runners-up That's fair, though by default VAN was the runner up
2010: Lost to the Cup champsTrue
2009: Lost to the 8th seed, lesser competition, however both were injured. This is a very lame excuse. People play injured all the time.
2008: Lost to the 5th seed, lesser competition
2007: Lost to the 1st seed. That is fair
2006: Lost to the Cup runners-up. Sure, but Edmonton was the 8th seed. The Sharks had a 2-0 series lead that they squandered. The fact that Edmonton managed to beat Anaheim and Detroit is a credit to them but also a fault on those teams. No team could solve Roloson...

Ultimately, you are stuck in a pickle. You can't continue to insist that JT and Marleau are elite/cream of the crop, while saying that 8/9 times they lost to superior competition, implying there is a lot of superior competition out there.

Moreover, you must look at the specific competition that JT and Marleau faced. Against Edmonton, JT squared off against Jared Stoll/Pronger while Marleau was up against crap/crap. Again Chicago, Marleau and Thornton faced off against Dave Bolland backed by Keith/Seabrook. Against Vancouver, JT and Marleau were absolutely DESTROYED by Sedin backed by Edler. Against 2013-14 Kings, Thornton mostly faced Carter and Doughty. And in all these matchups, Thornton and Marleau have had great linemates. They've certainly never had a premier Norris-quality D-man with them, but they've often had players like Boyle, Vlasic, and Blake on the backend.

 

[Alwalys]

Ultimately, you are stuck in a pickle. You can't continue to insist that JT and Marleau are elite/cream of the crop, while saying that 8/9 times they lost to superior competition, implying there is a lot of superior competition out there.

You sure can, easily, as I have been repeatedly. The objective record shows that the two players in question perform among the elite players of the league while facing significantly harder deployment than other elite players, because the TEAM was not as good as the other teams they faced. The opposing TEAMS were superior, and a couple of elite players do not change that.

The problem is when you don't recognize that the opposing TEAMS were superior but the Sharks did lot lack individual elite talent or play. They lacked the TEAM construction to place the TEAM in a position to succeed. This is mostly a question of DEFENSE which is extremely difficult to build to an elite level without high draft picks.

 

[OrrNumber4]

You sure can, easily, as I have been repeatedly. The objective record shows that the two players in question perform among the elite players of the league

Except that they don't. Thornton is #21 in PPG (and #5 in the RS) and Marleau is #44. As SJgoalie says, if that is elite, then what are players who are top 10 or top 5? Super-mega-ultra elite?

Plus, a lot of those players, especially around Thornton, like Anze Kopitar and Toews, have been better defensively for a longer period of time than Thornton.

while facing significantly harder deployment than other elite players

Toews gets his team's hardest matchups (at least according to Chicago fans). Kopitar get his team's hardest matchups. Same for Datsyuk, or Bergeron.

If you look at zone starts, Thornton is about par-for-the-course relative to other star players in the league, and that is not including T-Macs preference to have Thornton take defensive-zone starts (or Quenville's preference to have Toews take offensive zone starts).

Plus, Thornton is blessed with some of the best teammates. Marleau the same if you look at other players in his position.

The problem is when you don't recognize that the opposing TEAMS were superior but the Sharks did lack individual elite talent or play. They lacked the TEAM construction to place the TEAM in a position to succeed. This is mostly a question of DEFENSE which is extremely difficult to build to an elite level without high draft picks.

Dave Bolland is hard deployment? Jared Stoll is hard deployment? Even Jeff Carter, is hard deployment?

I feel like some fans want this perfect scenario where JT will have two superstars on his wing, with two studs on defense behind him, vs. an injured ECHL fourth line. That's not going to happen. If JT gets Marleau and Heatley on his wings, backed by Murray and Boyle, he needs to flatten a matchup of Bolland, even if Bolland is backed by Keith. If he gets the opportunity to face Jeff Carter, he needs to take advantage of that.

Think about what a player like Kopitar did in 2014. With Gaborik and Brown on his wings, without being tied to Doughty, he owned many of his matchups, including against the Sharks.

You can always say that Marleau had to "drag" Nieto on his line, and Stuart/Demers/Braun were uninspiring..but Marleau and Couture were both outplayed by Nieto. You have to set higher standards when other players around the league are achieving a lot more with a lot less.

Lastly, I will add that the Sharks primary issues the past 5+ years has been SCORING. The Sharks have had one of the premier offensive d-men in the league during that time in Dan Boyle. Thornton has had Dan Boyle with him on the PP, and often as his linemate. He's had wingers like Marleau, Heatley, Cheechoo, Guerin, Bell, Setoguchi, Pavelski, and Burns. The only time he has ever remotely had to drag "crap" around come the playoffs was with TJ Galiardi and the few times Ben Eager played on his wing.

 

[hohosaregood]

Yes, Bolland and Stoll are absolutely better defensively than Thornton is offensively. All they have to do is suppress his options to pass and they've done enough to stop Thornton. Can we just call at least that a resolved point.

Yes, Marleau's old now. He's slowed down, his shot generation has slowed down, his accuracy has gotten worse, and his mental defensive game is down too. I remember the ****** pokecheck and positioning he had this season where he got absolutely toyed with. I wouldn't be surprised that Nieto's(who's an absolute stud in the making) getting dragged down by Marleau.

Y'all got to be more creative with your arguments. It's getting boring.

 

[hockeyball]

You sure can, easily, as I have been repeatedly. The objective record shows that the two players in question perform among the elite players of the league while facing significantly harder deployment than other elite players, because the TEAM was not as good as the other teams they faced. The opposing TEAMS were superior, and a couple of elite players do not change that.

The problem is when you don't recognize that the opposing TEAMS were superior but the Sharks did lot lack individual elite talent or play. They lacked the TEAM construction to place the TEAM in a position to succeed. This is mostly a question of DEFENSE which is extremely difficult to build to an elite level without high draft picks.

Both are true. The Sharks were not as goof of a team, and Marleau and Thornton did not produce when it mattered. Both are problems, blaming it on any one thing is short sighted.

 

[Mafoofoo]

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

Marleau eats like 5 bowls of Chicken Parm every game. Based on CPPG you see that it'd be impossible to win in 12. They need those extra 5 games to account for the EMS (extra Marinara sauce) constant.


Plus I don't like the way Thornton buys ice cream in los gatos. He does it all polite and **** going "thanks have a nice day". I mean. Who the **** does he think he is? A choker. That's who.

 

[hohosaregood]

Marleau eats like 5 bowls of Chicken Parm every game. Based on CPPG you see that it'd be impossible to win in 12. They need those extra 5 games to account for the EMS (extra Marinara sauce) constant.


Plus I don't like the way Thornton buys ice cream in los gatos. He does it all polite and **** going "thanks have a nice day". I mean. Who the **** does he think he is? A choker. That's who.

But you don't take into account the fact that in the last 5 years, Marleau's CPPG has increased by A LOT when he was in the playoffs. Even just a compound measurement of CPPG with EMS would be enough to win in less than 12.

On Thornton, you gotta get your facts straight. He doesn't just buy "ice cream"(you plebe), he always buys gelato. You also clearly can't recognize sarcasm if you think his "thanks have a nice day" isn't soaking in it. That's a dominant alpha winner right there who treats non-winners with the disdain they deserve.

 

[Alwalys]

Both are true. The Sharks were not as goof of a team, and Marleau and Thornton did not produce when it mattered. Both are problems, blaming it on any one thing is short sighted.

The two things are related, that's the whole point. The team not being good enough has caused the elite players to be deployed less favorably than they would have been if the team was constructed better. And that has impacted their production.

Again players higher on the list generally get FAR more favorable offensive deployments, either because their team depth is better or to the detriment of the team's success. Pat Kane is the most glaring example, getting an insane 60-70% O-zone starts.

 

[Mafoofoo]

But you don't take into account the fact that in the last 5 years, Marleau's CPPG has increased by A LOT when he was in the playoffs. Even just a compound measurement of CPPG with EMS would be enough to win in less than 12.

On Thornton, you gotta get your facts straight. He doesn't just buy "ice cream"(you plebe), he always buys gelato. You also clearly can't recognize sarcasm if you think his "thanks have a nice day" isn't soaking in it. That's a dominant alpha winner right there who treats non-winners with the disdain they deserve.

As usual you like only state stats that help you out and never mention the ones that clearly show you're wrong. While yes his CPPG has increased a ton in the playoffs even taking into account EMS, it drops to almost 4th line levels when he goes up against teams top lines who bring the grated cheese. Look at Toews for example, even with a GSA of 6 tubs added to his CPPG and EMS he still puts up huge numbers.

As for Thornton he goes to baskin Robbins of Los gatos instead of dolce for his icy treats. Only losers who haven't achieved anything in the league go there.

 

[OrrNumber4]

They actually don't dry up. His ability to drive play remains strong in the playoffs, that is an objective fact.

Only if you consider possession stats as the end-all-be-all of driving play, secondary to actual scoring.

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.

Are you really going with the "blame the official route"? The idea that other teams are committing tons of uncalled fouls on Thornton....is laughable. Even if you don't like playoff officiating, it has been this way for 50+ years. At some point the players have to adjust their game to that fact.

Moreover, the Sharks's powerplay is about 25% less effective come the playoffs. Thornton and Marleau are huge cogs in that machine; Thornton especially. How do you explain that drop?

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.

Except that

1) It isn't. JT's ppg rate is .76 vs. ~.85 for those other players
2) JT gets more ice time
3) JT scores way fewer goals
4) JT gets more PP points
5) In certain situations, JT's production is far worse. Like, outside of the first round, or against top-tier teams, or in games 5-7 of a series.

Thornton upholds his end of the bargain for the most part.

Except that his scoring drops from 1.0ppg in the RS to .76 in the playoffs. He's not holding his end of the bargain, relative to his RS contributions.

The Sharks can't keep the puck out of the net, and the major reasons for that are lackluster defense and goaltending.

Except that the Sharks's main issue the past half-decade+ has been SCORING.
The statistics even bear this out. The Sharks have generally gotten league-average goaltending (if not slightly better) come the playoffs. Their SA/game is virtually the same. But their offense has a shooting percentage well below average. Their goals/game rate vs. the RS craters by more than 15%.

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.

Prior to 2010, Thornton, and to a lesser extent, Marleau, did get protected minutes. They didn't handle them very well. And even now, Couture, Pavelski, and Marleau tend to get the brunt of the defensive minutes.

 

[hohosaregood]

As usual you like only state stats that help you out and never mention the ones that clearly show you're wrong. While yes his CPPG has increased a ton in the playoffs even taking into account EMS, it drops to almost 4th line levels when he goes up against teams top lines who bring the grated cheese. Look at Toews for example, even with a GSA of 6 tubs added to his CPPG and EMS he still puts up huge numbers.

As for Thornton he goes to baskin Robbins of Los gatos instead of dolce for his icy treats. Only losers who haven't achieved anything in the league go there.

You vastly overrate the importance of GSA as usual. GSA doesn't add anything unless you use it in the right context. What really matters is the number of tabasco squirts. TBS is probably the most accurate representation of fire and you continue to ignore it. Marleau's got more TBS and EMS in his left eyebrow than Toews has in his whole face.

****, I don't care where Thorton gets his ice cream, as long as he does it with arrogance of an alpha male.

 

[Mafoofoo]

You vastly overrate the importance of GSA as usual. GSA doesn't add anything unless you use it in the right context. What really matters is the number of tabasco squirts. TBS is probably the most accurate representation of fire and you continue to ignore it. Marleau's got more TBS and EMS in his left eyebrow than Toews has in his whole face.

****, I don't care where Thorton gets his ice cream, as long as he does it with arrogance of an alpha male.

TBS is an old and outdated stat that used to matter back when everyone used spaghetti noodles. With the modern day substitute of Penne pasta TBS has almost no meaning in today's game. And if you're gonna use outdated and irrelevant stats we may as well consider the green tea vs ice time percentage in which Marleau comes up pathetically short.


You should care since every cup winner in the past 6 years has never set foot in a Baskin Robbins.

 

[hockeyball]

Except that

1) It isn't. JT's ppg rate is .76 vs. ~.85 for those other players
2) JT gets more ice time
3) JT scores way fewer goals
4) JT gets more PP points
5) In certain situations, JT's production is far worse. Like, outside of the first round, or against top-tier teams, or in games 5-7 of a series.



Except that his scoring drops from 1.0ppg in the RS to .76 in the playoffs. He's not holding his end of the bargain, relative to his RS contributions.

I agree, this is a huge issue, not because .76 isn't good (it's pretty good) but because of the drop off. The team is accustomed to Joe producing at a certain rate and when that takes a dive the whole teams follows suit. It's another aspect of the team being built around a player who's play style is not as effective in the playoffs. As Joe goes, the team goes, and until that's fixed the Sharks will not get a cup.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

That is a fair point, looking at the blueline discrepancy (although the Sharks in 2010 had a deep blueline, and in 2013 it wasn't too bad); they lack the high-end talent especially. Mind you, a lot of times the Sharks top players have draw a weaker pairing; Thornton didn't square off against Doughty in 2014, IIRC.

But it isn't like JT and Marleau have only failed against top-tier teams. They've failed against lesser competition.

Yeah but if it wasn't Thornton, it was Marleau so pick your poison. You can't lump them together when it comes to the competition angle because for the most part, they were tasked with different things.

Also, the lesser competition is really, as you like to put it lately, how you frame it. The Edmonton series, where the Sharks were a basement team before they got Thornton, was an Oilers team that was 4 points lower than the Sharks in the standings. I'd hardly classify them as lesser competition. Lesser team in the standings doesn't really equate to lesser competition. The Stars that they lost to, the only reason the Sharks had that separation from them was a 20 game run in March after getting Campbell. Before that, they were right there with the Stars in terms of the standings. But again, separation in the standings has never meant that there was separation between the teams on the ice. The two teams were completely even head-to-head that year. As for Anaheim, it's hard to argue 1-8 but Anaheim had three bona fide hall of famers on that roster and possibly five with Perry and Getzlaf yet we're supposed to have the arrogance to say that they're lesser competition?

We all accept that playoff hockey is different so why are we using regular season stats to determine what is and what isn't lesser competition these days? This isn't pre-lockout where the difference in teams even in the playoffs from 1-8 was noticeable.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Yeah but if it wasn't Thornton, it was Marleau so pick your poison. You can't lump them together when it comes to the competition angle because for the most part, they were tasked with different things.

Well, between 2009 and 2011, they weren't (for the most part).

Also, the lesser competition is really, as you like to put it lately, how you frame it. The Edmonton series, where the Sharks were a basement team before they got Thornton, was an Oilers team that was 4 points lower than the Sharks in the standings.

The Sharks also had the best record in the league after acquiring Thornton. Consensus at the time was that the Sharks would destroy Edmonton. They even had the 2-0 series lead, to boot.

Its not simply the standings; look at the makeup of the team. They had Pronger on defense, but their best forward was Ales Hemsky.

The Stars that they lost to, the only reason the Sharks had that separation from them was a 20 game run in March after getting Campbell.

Though it was the Sharks team with Campbell that played the Stars. Again, the Sharks were the heavy favourite to win the series.

As for Anaheim, it's hard to argue 1-8 but Anaheim had three bona fide hall of famers on that roster and possibly five with Perry and Getzlaf yet we're supposed to have the arrogance to say that they're lesser competition?

That's true (though the Sharks also had three bonafide HOFers plus Marleau and Boyle). For me, this is the 1 vs. 8 argument, and the fact that the Sharks were again the heavy favourite to win the series.

Heading into a series, the Sharks have never won unless they were the favourite to win. They've often lost when being considered the heavy favourite, as well.

 

[Mafoofoo]

Wait other than Thornton and an old past his prime Blake who was the other hall of famer?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Well, between 2009 and 2011, they weren't (for the most part).



The Sharks also had the best record in the league after acquiring Thornton. Consensus at the time was that the Sharks would destroy Edmonton. They even had the 2-0 series lead, to boot.

Its not simply the standings; look at the makeup of the team. They had Pronger on defense, but their best forward was Ales Hemsky.



Though it was the Sharks team with Campbell that played the Stars. Again, the Sharks were the heavy favourite to win the series.



That's true (though the Sharks also had three bonafide HOFers plus Marleau and Boyle). For me, this is the 1 vs. 8 argument, and the fact that the Sharks were again the heavy favourite to win the series.

Heading into a series, the Sharks have never won unless they were the favourite to win. They've often lost when being considered the heavy favourite, as well.

The times they were together, I can't really say that they lost to someone they shouldn't have. The Ducks series, the 3 hall of famers the Sharks had were Rob Blake past his prime, Jeremy Roenick who was so far past his prime he was in the bottom six, and Jumbo. Everyone on Anaheim's side was still a significant player on that team and not a role player. And I'll give you Rob Blake as being their equal in that year but not JR. Roenick was a shell of his former self and the comparable to him in this context for the Ducks is Teemu who was still much better at that point than JR was. And I think it's revisionist history to say that the Sharks were the heavy favorite to win that series. The favorite? Yes. Heavy? No that wasn't the case then and isn't now. Everyone knew going into that series that the Ducks were not a prototypical 8 seed. The core of that team was still mostly the same that won the Cup two seasons prior.

It's also a load of crap that they've never won a series where they weren't the favorite. They were not favorites to beat Nashville in either season and they were not favorites to beat Vancouver when they were the six seed. They have often been in the favorites situation because they're a good regular season team.

As for Edmonton when you say look at the team, do the same for the Sharks. The Oilers had Pronger. The Sharks had...Scott Hannan? Kyle McLaren? Brad Stuart? It's not a contest here.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Wait other than Thornton and an old past his prime Blake who was the other hall of famer?

He's counting Roenick.

 

[Mafoofoo]

Oh pfft Roenick was a bottom 6 player. Not even close to the 50 goal beast he used to be. No way was he one of the reasons that team was supposed to be so stacked.

 

[Alwalys]

I agree, this is a huge issue, not because .76 isn't good (it's pretty good) but because of the drop off. The team is accustomed to Joe producing at a certain rate and when that takes a dive the whole teams follows suit. It's another aspect of the team being built around a player who's play style is not as effective in the playoffs. As Joe goes, the team goes, and until that's fixed the Sharks will not get a cup.

It's not .76 unless you include the his earliest seasons and the dead puck era. The beauty of the metric the OP posted is it's last 10 years, which this year coincides with the end of the dead puck era, which is a much more representative sample. As the metric shows he has been putting up playoff numbers essentially identical to Datsyuk, Toews, and Kopitar.

http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/seasons/last-10-nhl-seasons-players-stats.html
http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/seasons/last-10-nhl-seasons-players-playoff-stats.html

There are several highly touted playoff performers with dropoffs similar or more than Thornton, including Cup winners.

All of this points to the team being the major issue, which it is. Defensive deployment is a major cause of reduction in Thornton's offense. The one recent postseason he got favorable deployment in the playoffs he went PPG. It was the shortest postseason run in Sharks history. Which proves that simply getting better playoff numbers from the superstar doesn't translate to TEAM success.