I'm not calling out anyone.
I just think it's a bit off to talk in absolutes when we've never seen Shore play a season... I don't think it's much of a question that there are more high-talent players than there were 70 years ago.
Shore might have been better than Lidstrom or Lidstrom might be better than Shore was, even compared to their peers.
Lidstrom not only won 5 Norris trophies but also finished runner-up ... what... 3 or 4 times - at least two of which he could/should have won.
And Shore won 4 Hart trophies. And I've never seen him play.
Awards can always be disputed. And most of the time they are. Why Pronger got it in 2000 and not Jagr, why Theodore not Iginla in 2002 (both Jagr and iginla won the Paersson awards in those years), etc etc etc.
I can't judge based on 4 awards Shore won. It's not like Lidstrom couldn't fill out a room with him hardware.
I don't think there's a NA bias, but I do think people tend to rely to much on nostalgia and most of all, I just think talking in absolutes in cases such as this is ridiculous.
Lidstrom >> Shore or SHore >> Lidstrom, I don't care. There simply isn't comparing them.
Unless there's someone here born in 1910 who'll take into account the changes to the game and level of competition, any comparison can be brushed aside.
1) If you can't compair, then why discuss threads about player comparison?
2)There is a big difference between Best Defenceman and MVP. Lidstrom has proven to be notably better than his defensive peers. Shore proved to be notably better than all other hockey players. This is overcomming the bias that Hart is voted on by the media, and Shore was a ****ing *******, so, logically, voters outside of Boston wouldn't be voting for him for any reason other than him earning it.
Based on my understanding, he gained the most all-star team votes, the defacto Norris trophy, 7 times over 10 seasons, his 1st four years there were no all-star teams.
Looking at those four years.
26-27-3rd in scoring amongst d-men, 2nd in league in PiM.
27-28-3rd in scoring amongst d-men, 1st in league in PiM.
28-29-1st in scoring amongst d-men, 3rd in PiM.
29-30-2nd in scoring amongst d-men, 3rd in PiM.
So another it is within the realm of possibility that he wins another Norris.
3) There are more higher talented players now, but they are also more teams. There were, on average, 8.786 teams during Shore's career, 27.4 during Lidstrom's career. Thusly, while we all accept that there is more talent now, is there 3.119 times more talent now? That is debateable. Keeping in mind, that while, for a long while many talented players opted out of pro-hockey because other careers were more profitable, Shore played primarily during the Great Depression, where, for most of the population, there wasn't the oppertunity to get a better job than pro-hockey. Which explains why it has one of the lowest standard deviations of production of any era in history, if not the lowest. So while there might be 3-4 times the talent now than there was in the 20's or 40's, the same is probably not true of the 30's.
4) If differences in era and the difficulty accounting for them means a zero time Hart winner could be better than a 4 time Hart winner, then, would you accept that Ching Johnson, Sylvio Mantha or Lionel Conacher could possibly be better than Lidstrom? You haven't seen them play, therefore, it is logically possible that the late 20's early 30's were a golden age of defensive brilliance and the 5th best is clearly better than the best now.
The problem with Lidstrom is not that he's European, it's that he's playing today. Lots of people here have a huge nostalgic bias toward past players.
1) Nostalgia cannot occur unless it was experienced. While I could be biassed, I cannot be nostalgic about the 1930's.
2) People say this, but there is no evidence what-so-ever of a history bias on anything but a case by case basis. In most, if not all, discussions about all-time greats, there is a huge bias towards the modern.
3) There is in some circles an original 6 bias, but, there is absolutly no pre-O6 bias. Most people don't even know who Frank Nighbor or Eddie Gerard are, let alone that they were once concidered some of the all-time best.
Hockey is a sport and fandom that has a tendancy to canabalize the past, not idiolize it.
The only people who say this are those who have a glaring modern bias. What is your basis for saying this other than disagreeing with opinions of those who aren't ignorant of the past?