Joe Pavelski Officially Retires

[karltonian]

I think it's worth mentioning that Pavelski's struggles and Thornton's are linked. Because for many seasons it was on Pavelski to bury Thornton's passes, and I recall thinking that MANY dimes dished by Thornton simply were not buried and neither player got points because of it. This is not to excuse Thornton's stubbornness to not shoot, in case anyone is going to go there.

 

[tiburon12]

I’m here for some criticisms of Pavelski’s playoff performances, but looking at a player’s track record in games where they were eliminated is very poor analysis. There’s a major selection bias at play here; you’re looking at strictly games their team lost, in series in which their teams were likely outmatched to some degree. (Not to mention it’s just a tiny sample size, and all the playoff games matter.)

Pretty much every player is going to have very bad stats in games they were eliminated. Looking at stats in games where a player’s team was facing elimination (which is what people traditionally refer to when they discuss track record in “elimination games”) suffers from the same issue that their teams are likely outmatched to some degree, but it at least gives the player a fighting chance to put up good stats in the game they win for their team.

As an example, Nikita Kucherov has 1 point in 6 career “elimination games” according to this definition. As another example that will hit even closer to home, Logan Couture has 3 points in 9 career “elimination games.” It’s a very bad definition.

My off hand "analysis" was not about whether he was a playoff performer, it was just to provide an overhead view of his play in "big games". I wasn't going game by game or shift by shift, so obviously it isn't some perfect or complete picture. It certainly didn't need to be called out; it was obviously rudimentary.

Also, Couture had 4 points in the final 2 games in 2016, both "elimination games". So idk what you're talking about with his 3pts

 

[Star Platinum]

I think it's worth mentioning that Pavelski's struggles and Thornton's are linked. Because for many seasons it was on Pavelski to bury Thornton's passes, and I recall thinking that MANY dimes dished by Thornton simply were not buried and neither player got points because of it. This is not to excuse Thornton's stubbornness to not shoot, in case anyone is going to go there.

Damn, and I was gonna go there too.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

My off hand "analysis" was not about whether he was a playoff performer, it was just to provide an overhead view of his play in "big games". I wasn't going game by game or shift by shift, so obviously it isn't some perfect or complete picture. It certainly didn't need to be called out; it was obviously rudimentary.

Also, Couture had 4 points in the final 2 games in 2016, both "elimination games". So idk what you're talking about with his 3pts

He was eliminated twice in 2016?

Yes, i was only using "games in which he was eliminated", and I don't think I hoodwinked by saying it any other way.

 

[tiburon12]

He was eliminated twice in 2016?

Are you intentionally obtuse or did you really only read one paragraph? Literally right below I said I looked at all games they were facing elimination.

In 2016 the Sharks faced elimination twice against the Pens and Couture had 4pts.

You can stay retired from this board man. It's OK.

 

[Bizz]

you could actually make a case that Pavelski, while rising to the challenges of the playoffs, rarely excelled when the stakes got to their highest.

'16 finals is a good example. But let's look further at the 16 years he made the playoffs:

2008 - Not a major team contributor but made his mark in these playoffs, including the game 5 OT winner against Dallas that started his legacy. 0pts in elimination.

2009 - 1pt in the whole series. 0 in elimination

2010 - 2nd "real" playoffs and he's a beast against COL and DET...up until we needed to close out DET where he had 0pts. 2pts against CHI where we were the worse team, 1pt in elimination.

2011 - 10pts in 18 games, but 1pt in critical games 4-7 against DET after going up 3-0. 2pts in elimination.

2012 - 0pts in the entire series. Everyone played bad and we weren't good, but still.

2013 - Big part of sweeping the Canucks with 8pts in 4 games, then goes goalless against the Kings with 4 assists (2 primary). And we all remember him not lifting the puck..... 1 pt in elimination

2014 - 6pts but 0 in the final 3 games when we needed him.

2016 - already stated

2017 - 4pts, 3 coming in the game we won 7-0. No other goals. 0 pts in the final two games, including elimination.

2018 - 5pts in 4 games vs ANA, but only 3 in 6 games against Vegas. Only had points in wins, including that his only goal was an inconsequential 4th goal on the PP in the 3rd on a game we won 4-0. 0 pts in the final two games, including elimination.

2019 - Only 4pts in the 1st round against Vegas (though 2 were garbage time in a game we had already won). Then he got injured so I can't in good faith hold the Blues series against him. Dead during elimination.

2020 - Very streaky, but did score some major goals. Only really disappeared vs vegas, but he showed up in the final. I think this is his best playoffs ever. 0pts in elimination

2021 - Dallas didnt qualify, forgot about that

2022 - 6pts in 7 games, lost to a better team. Another good playoffs for him. 1pt in elimination

2023 - 14pts in 14 games, 4 coming in a game they lost somehow. But only 4 points in the series against Vegas. He did have a sweet OT winner in Game 5 though. 0pts in elimination.

2024 - entirely disappeared 0pts in entire series vs edm.


So, in the 16x he made the playoffs, he was was eliminated every time (obv). But in those 15 elimination games (2019 doesn't count), he only had 5pts TOTAL (or, only had pts in 4 of those). Further, he seemed to really struggle in Teal when his team needed to close out series, with 10, 11, 14 standing out.

I think this is a sobering look at a player we always thought came through for us. In fact, it seems like he repeatedly did not come through when it actually mattered most. His value dropped significantly vs Detroit, LA, and Vegas - 3 teams we played a bunch in his tenure.

my conclusion from all of this is that Pavelski provided some major moments for this franchise and we let that overshadow him not showing up in the most critical games. And I think his excellent twilight play in the bubble finals tricked people into thinking he was this uber-clutch hero when in reality he was just very clutch.

Side note - I think you could also make a similar case about Bergeron being a giant choker, but that's a different summer day.

tl;dr: it's hard to score in the playoffs, especially if you're a below-average skater as Pavelski had been his entire career.

That doesn't and shouldn't diminish his legacy (same goes with Thornton even though the majority of the criticism surrounding him is nonsense).

 

[OrrNumber4]

Are you intentionally obtuse or did you really only read one paragraph? Literally right below I said I looked at all games they were facing elimination.

In 2016 the Sharks faced elimination twice against the Pens and Couture had 4pts.

You can stay retired from this board man. It's OK.

He was using your definition of elimination games (games in which he was eliminated) when talking about Couture; he was doing so to show what a poor metric it is. Then you switched it up using the common definition. It's understandable but your waspish attitude is completely uncalled for! Any spirit of charitability would understand what he was saying. In hindsight, we need a different term to describe that particular definition...maybe eliminated games...

 

[karltonian]

A lot of this criticism is misplaced. The Sharks' struggles late in series is as much the fault of the team makeup as the individual stars. Sharks teams of the DW era tended to have poor depth and that deficiency shows later in series as adjustments are made to neutralize the top lines.

And at least part of the reason for that is the nature of a capped league. Since the Sharks were successful heading into the cap era, our access to generational and or truly superior elite players was limited to free agency or trading. Since we are severely hampered in free agency, it had to just be trades for the most part. That led to top heavy teams without good depth, which was probably DW's major failure, the failure to recognize that superior depth was the way forward rather than trying to compete at the top with tank teams.

 

[tiburon12]

He was using your definition of elimination games (games in which he was eliminated) when talking about Couture; he was doing so to show what a poor metric it is. Then you switched it up using the common definition. It's understandable but your waspish attitude is completely uncalled for! Any spirit of charitability would understand what he was saying. In hindsight, we need a different term to describe that particular definition...maybe eliminated games...

Yes, my "old" definition, which you pointed out needed expanding on, and which I did later in the thread in a giant unmissable post.

For him to willingly ignore that I updated the "analysis" to better illustrate the idea just to passive-aggressively dunk on the concept? The stats guru has nothing more to add to the discussion then reiterating a point that was already corrected while completely missing the point of the exercise?

Because, the whole purpose was to look at his "clutchness" so looking at the games where his team needs him most, I.e. where he would be most clutch, is not selection bias at all.

So, What kind of charity does one need to afford him here? I should have had him on ignore before, I do now.

 

[tiburon12]

tl;dr: it's hard to score in the playoffs, especially if you're a below-average skater as Pavelski had been his entire career.

That doesn't and shouldn't diminish his legacy (same goes with Thornton even though the majority of the criticism surrounding him is nonsense).

It shouldn't diminish his legacy at all and me bringing this up was not to suggest that in the slightest. Some of the pavelski's playoff heroics are some of my greatest sharks memories and forever will be. He was the man and I hope people aren't reading this as an attack.

I just thought it was interesting that he always gets vaulted as some legendary playoff hero when by the numbers he wasn't so legendary. In fact someone like Couture is demonstrably more "clutch".

I was also bored at work and didn't mind spending 20 minutes adding some numbers together and making obviously basic conclusions about them because again, this wasn't to take away from his legacy at all. You can be critical of your Heroes

 

[OrrNumber4]

Sharks teams of the DW era tended to have poor depth and that deficiency shows later in series as adjustments are made to neutralize the top lines.

Can you give examples of teams where the stars were neutralized, but the depth stepped in and saved the day?

Yes, my "old" definition, which you pointed out needed expanding on, and which I did later in the thread in a giant unmissable post.

Actually, I just quibbled with your vocabulary; I didn't criticize the effectiveness of the metho. @JoeThorntonsRooster was the one who did that, and I thought in a very mild and non-confrontational way. He was showing that you points in eliminated games doesn't tell you anything.

For him to willingly ignore that I updated the "analysis" to better illustrate the idea just to passive-aggressively dunk on the concept? The stats guru has nothing more to add to the discussion then reiterating a point that was already corrected while completely missing the point of the exercise?

In your updated analysis, Pavelski's drop in scoring is not as harsh, especially once you take out year one. It's still not good, but it's not a 50% drop like before.

 

[karltonian]

Can you give examples of teams where the stars were neutralized, but the depth stepped in and saved the day?

2016 series vs the penguins. Our top 2 lines actually outscored the Pens' but their 3rd line obliterated the rest of our team.

 

[tiburon12]

Actually, I just quibbled with your vocabulary; I didn't criticize the effectiveness of the metho. @JoeThorntonsRooster was the one who did that, and I thought in a very mild and non-confrontational way. He was showing that you points in eliminated games doesn't tell you anything.

In your updated analysis, Pavelski's drop in scoring is not as harsh, especially once you take out year one. It's still not good, but it's not a 50% drop like before.

Well your responses suggested I expand the scope, which I did. That was the right idea to get a clearer (obviously still not complete) picture.

Jtr was wrong in his conclusion that those points, or lack their of, don't matter because, critically, I was specifically criticizing Pavelski for his play in the absolute biggest moments. Those are games facing elimination and games where eliminating the opponent is possible. Then Jtr incorrectly made a conclusion about Couture instead of using the updated scope of said big games.

This all started because of his total no show in the 2016 cup final, the biggest moment of his career at that point. You and I are, as you say, talking past each other in that sense, as you are looking at his production in these games vs regular season production. I'm interested in his production relative to his reputation.

 

[OrrNumber4]

2016 series vs the penguins. Our top 2 lines actually outscored the Pens' but their 3rd line obliterated the rest of our team.

I think this is a bad example for several reasons.

You are getting "lines" confused with depth. The Sharks stacked their lines; the Penguins spread their talent out. Crosby most often played with Sheary (a very good fourth-liner) and Hornqvist (a 2nd-liner). Malkin was on a line with Rust (fourth-liner) and Kunitz (3rd-liner). Kessel played with Hagelin and Bonino (two third-liners). Their star players lifted the play of the depth players.

Was there room for improvement in the Sharks's team depth? Of course, but in a cap world, you have to be reasonable. Being idealistic, you'd have liked to have added one or two players to that third tier, pushing Tierney and Wingels down (I still think playing DeMelo over Polak would have been a bad idea). But I doubt that moves the needle. Hertl getting injured and Thornton, Pavelski, and Marleau getting completely neutralized was a big obstacle to overcome.

 

[Pavelski2112]

I think this is a bad example for several reasons.

You are getting "lines" confused with depth. The Sharks stacked their lines; the Penguins spread their talent out. Crosby most often played with Sheary (a very good fourth-liner) and Hornqvist (a 2nd-liner). Malkin was on a line with Rust (fourth-liner) and Kunitz (3rd-liner). Kessel played with Hagelin and Bonino (two third-liners). Their star players lifted the play of the depth players.

Was there room for improvement in the Sharks's team depth? Of course, but in a cap world, you have to be reasonable. Being idealistic, you'd have liked to have added one or two players to that third tier, pushing Tierney and Wingels down (I still think playing DeMelo over Polak would have been a bad idea). But I doubt that moves the needle. Hertl getting injured and Thornton, Pavelski, and Marleau getting completely neutralized was a big obstacle to overcome.

The Pens had depth to spread around, plus the complimentary players that worked on those top two lines. That is the definition of depth. Having Phil Kessel on your third line while having two effective top lines is literally that.

 

[hohosaregood]

 

[landshark]

Kurz with a Pavs article

PAYWALL

 

[OrrNumber4]

Didn't know that the Sharks only offered 10 million/2 years. Insulting to Pavelski; no offer would have been better.

 

[Hangemhigh]

I had to sign up to read it. Sad that he is wearing so much ugly green.
Not giving him another contract is what destroyed the Sharks.

 

[TheBigDrunkPanda]

Are you intentionally obtuse or did you really only read one paragraph? Literally right below I said I looked at all games they were facing elimination.

In 2016 the Sharks faced elimination twice against the Pens and Couture had 4pts.

You can stay retired from this board man. It's OK.

Pavelski was typically good to great for about 6-8 games in the first 2 rounds of the playoffs then usually was a non factor after that.

 

[TheBigDrunkPanda]

This thread is kind of funny in that the same people crying about pavelski leaving are the same ones complaining the rebuild didn’t start soon enough Pavelski leaving for term to Dallas over SJ was kind of the catalyst for the rebuild starting

 

[hohosaregood]

This thread is kind of funny in that the same people crying about pavelski leaving are the same ones complaining the rebuild didn’t start soon enough Pavelski leaving for term to Dallas over SJ was kind of the catalyst for the rebuild starting

Yea I've been thinking about this a bit. Do I want the timeline where we still have DW in charge with Pavelski and Burns and Hertl while we're toiling in the bubble. Or do I want this timeline where we agonized for 3 years under DW but we now have Celebrini, Smith, and the deepest prospect pool the team has had in 20 years. Think I'd keep this timeline with a tiny light at the end of a long tunnel.

 

[TheBigDrunkPanda]

Yea I've been thinking about this a bit. Do I want the timeline where we still have DW in charge with Pavelski and Burns and Hertl while we're toiling in the bubble. Or do I want this timeline where we agonized for 3 years under DW but we now have Celebrini, Smith, and the deepest prospect pool the team has had in 20 years. Think I'd keep this timeline with a tiny light at the end of a long tunnel.

I was definitely a hanger on and wanted to see the core get another shot, I think Wilson 2 biggest mistakes that ultimately lead to current day was not getting rid of Jones after the 2019 run and resigning. Vlasic that really cost the sharks Donskoi and Pavelski

 

[Juxtaposer]

This thread is kind of funny in that the same people crying about pavelski leaving are the same ones complaining the rebuild didn’t start soon enough Pavelski leaving for term to Dallas over SJ was kind of the catalyst for the rebuild starting

Yeah, that’s exactly what I meant about Sharks fans really deifying Pavelski to an insane degree. Pavelski leaving didn’t destroy the Sharks, Thornton getting old did. Injuries did. Burns declining did. Pavelski scored 31 points in his first year with Dallas, but yeah, if we’d kept him we’d have made the playoffs for sure instead of being the third worst team in the NHL! Absolutely braindead take.

 

[YUPPY 2 7 10 11]

Doug Wilson Admits Not Re-Signing Joe Pavelski Was A Mistake​

"Sometimes, you can overanalyze things," Wilson told Sheng Peng. "But I, as a GM, with my love for Pavs and realizing how special he was, I look back, I probably should have dismissed historical analysis of contracts for players that age and said screw it."