How to become more highly regarded than Eddie Shore?

[Ziostilon]

The NHL are currently filled with young upcoming defenseman.

the likes of Erik Johnson, Drew Doughty, Tyler Myers, Hedman

Eddie Shore however, is on many people's top 5 if not top 10 list in defenseman ranking all-time.

With the drastic difference between eras. One of the most notable would be the speed of the game. Not just foot speed, the speed at which you make decisions during the game.

Clearly no d-man has gone close from the past 20 years in their prime to overtake Shore. With the exception of Lidstrom coming close.

What would a defenseman today have to do, in order to overtake Eddie Shore's spot on the all-time list?

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I would say be the undisputed best player in the league at any position over a period of a decade, both over the decade as a whole, but also on a season-by-season basis.

There is a good case that Lidstrom was the best player on average over the last decade, but it's not undisputed. And he was rarely, if ever, the best overall player on a season-by-season basis.

 

[Blades of Glory]

I would say be the undisputed best player in the league at any position over a period of a decade, both over the decade as a whole, but also on a season-by-season basis.

There is a good case that Lidstrom was the best player on average over the last decade, but it's not undisputed. And he was rarely, if ever, the best overall player on a season-by-season basis.

Basically, you describe Bobby Orr. And that's about it, although I do have Doug Harvey over Shore by a tiny margin. But Orr is the only defenseman clearly better than Shore, and even then, it's not by THAT much.

I can't believe how lucky Boston has gotten with defenseman. Orr, Shore and Bourque? Are you ****ing kidding me? Three of the top four defenseman of all-time.

 

[Ziostilon]

im not sure if you can still be undisputed the better player than your peers now

the talent level in the league has risen so much from just 20, 30 years ago

to quote someone from the Name some ridiculous debates you have had with friends thread:

Keep your friends. Chicks dig smart guys, and these guys make you look smarter.

Its much easier to look good when the sample size which you are comparing with are pretty below par.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Basically, you describe Bobby Orr. And that's about it, although I do have Doug Harvey over Shore by a tiny margin. But Orr is the only defenseman clearly better than Shore, and even then, it's not by THAT much.

I can't believe how lucky Boston has gotten with defenseman. Orr, Shore and Bourque? Are you ****ing kidding me? Three of the top four defenseman of all-time.

I don't think you have to be as good as Bobby Orr. The guy wouldn't have to win Art Rosses from defense. But he'd probably have to come pretty close.

 

[Blades of Glory]

Well, the reason I do have Harvey ranked over Shore is that Harvey played his career directly against Maurice Richard, Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull, and Jean Beliveau, and he routinely finished behind them in Hart voting. It's safe to say that competition alone is the reason why Doug Harvey didn't win at least one Hart Trophy.

I don't think you have to be as good as Bobby Orr. The guy wouldn't have to win Art Rosses from defense. But he'd probably have to come pretty close.

Oh, I don't think he has to be as good as Orr. Nobody is ever going to win those types of Art Rosses from defense again. But Orr was the last defenseman to be the undisputed best player in the league for an entire decade, which is what we agree needs to happen for someone to be more highly regarded than Shore.

 

[seventieslord]

Shore is really top-3 on everyone's list... isn't he?

 

[Big Phil]

It might shock the casual observer that Shore won more Hart Trophies than Orr. In fact only Howe and Gretzky have ever won more. That's scary when you think of it, considering you would have to think based on his style of play that Shore wouldn't have been the most popular guy with the media and may not have gotten any extra points for that.

I think a defenseman has to win at least one Hart to get compared. We aren't talking Chris Pronger either who won a Hart when he was young and then had injuries and inconsistent seasons afterwards. I'm talking about a Hart winner who continually is the best defenseman in the game for a decade, occasionally peaking as the best player.

Its the only way that'll happen. Also people talk about how much better the NHL is nowadays and how much more difficult it is to stand above your peers. Hogwash. If you just simply watch the likes of Ovechkin or Crosby and sometimes when he wants to Malkin, than I think there is a clear cut discrepancy between the three of them and the rest of the NHL. The cream always rises to the top.

Hey, maybe Drew Doughty will play at a high level for 15-20 years, can't wait to find out.

 

[JackSlater]

For a player to be considered definitely better than Shore I would imagine they would have to win multiple Hart trophies and best him in longevity. I would think that something like 2 Hart trophies, 10 first team all star finishes and 5 second team all star finishes.

For a player to be considered equal to Shore I would expect them to pull in roughly the same all star team finishes as those mentioned above while frequently finishing in the top 5 in Hart trophy voting. It's not reasonable to expect a defenceman to win 4 Hart trophies like Shore did since defencemen rarely receive the consideration for the trophy that they once did, so I would consider several very high finishes to be basically the equivalent. If the defenceman was playing in a relatively weak era for great players, like the early 2000's, I would then expect them to win at least 1 Hart to be Shore's equal.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I'm not sure if it has to be undisputed, the talent pool is much wider now.

But yeah, a defenceman needs a legitimate claim that on both peak and career value, he is his generation's best player.

 

[unknown33]

Having a career like Ray Bourque does it for me.

 

[jkrx]

Both Lidstrom and Bourque are up there. I usually dont like comparing players when there is a such huge gap between their time periods. Thats why I mostly rank in bulks. Top 5 and so on.

 

[pluppe]

im not sure if you can still be undisputed the better player than your peers now

the talent level in the league has risen so much from just 20, 30 years ago

to quote someone from the Name some ridiculous debates you have had with friends thread:


Its much easier to look good when the sample size which you are comparing with are pretty below par.

It might shock the casual observer that Shore won more Hart Trophies than Orr. In fact only Howe and Gretzky have ever won more. That's scary when you think of it, considering you would have to think based on his style of play that Shore wouldn't have been the most popular guy with the media and may not have gotten any extra points for that.

I think a defenseman has to win at least one Hart to get compared. We aren't talking Chris Pronger either who won a Hart when he was young and then had injuries and inconsistent seasons afterwards. I'm talking about a Hart winner who continually is the best defenseman in the game for a decade, occasionally peaking as the best player.

Its the only way that'll happen. Also people talk about how much better the NHL is nowadays and how much more difficult it is to stand above your peers. Hogwash. If you just simply watch the likes of Ovechkin or Crosby and sometimes when he wants to Malkin, than I think there is a clear cut discrepancy between the three of them and the rest of the NHL. The cream always rises to the top.

Hey, maybe Drew Doughty will play at a high level for 15-20 years, can't wait to find out.

I agree with Big Phil here. I find it a bit strange because my thinking tells me that there ought to be harder to dominate today in most sports and yet we see over and over that it´s not the case.

Phelps, Bolt, Federer, Woods, Sörenstam, Schumacher. I would guess Manning if you are American. Or Jordan.

My thinking tells me that they shouldn´t be able to dominate like they do in this day and age. And yet they do. Lemieux wasn´t that long ago. So yes, it seems possible, no matter talent level.

And if you look at Sid and Ovie, as great as they are, is it really that hard to imagine somebody better than them. And thats while agreeing that they are clearly better than the rest.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Big Phil said it well, Hart Trophy voting is going to play a huge role if that debate ever arises. A blueliner winning multiple Harts is so rare that it would naturally vault him into the top tier.

Even if he never won, being a very consistent finalist might be enough to start the debate.

 

[The Kingslayer]

I cant help but laugh when I hear Eddie Shores name Madagascar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[canucks4ever]

He won his hart trophies when it was common for d-men to recieve votes for it, different era. Bourque already beat him in longevity and his 1987 and 1990 seasons were both hart caliber anyways. Shore wouldnt win any hart trophies from 1980-1994.

 

[MXD]

I would say be the undisputed best player in the league at any position over a period of a decade, both over the decade as a whole, but also on a season-by-season basis.

There is a good case that Lidstrom was the best player on average over the last decade, but it's not undisputed. And he was rarely, if ever, the best overall player on a season-by-season basis.

I wouldn't say he was the undisputed best player on a season-by-season basis. Might have won more Harts, but he really only won a plurality of them, when awarding Harts to D-Men was a rather common occurence (as opposed to today).

A D-Men winning 6 Norris in 10 years would probably be really, really close to Shore.

But would still be behind Doug Harvey. Unless there's a Red Kelly (in other words, terrific competition).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I wouldn't say he was the undisputed best player on a season-by-season basis. Might have won more Harts, but he really only won a plurality of them, when awarding Harts to D-Men was a rather common occurence (as opposed to today).

A D-Men winning 6 Norris in 10 years would probably be really, really close to Shore.

But would still be behind Doug Harvey. Unless there's a Red Kelly (in other words, terrific competition).

Oh, I didn't mean every season. I meant some of them.

6 Norrises in 10 years would be really close to Shore...

Nicklas Lidstrom has 6 in 8 years, or 6 in 7 available seasons. Due to the lockout. What does that make him?

 

[MXD]

Oh, I didn't mean every season. I meant some of them.

6 Norrises in 10 years would be really close to Shore...

Nicklas Lidstrom has 6 in 8 years, or 6 in 7 available seasons. Due to the lockout. What does that make him?

Not only there were no Kelly, but there were no Gadsby as well.

 

[jkrx]

Seriously... Lidstrom has proven he is one of the best of all time... I wouldnt even care if there werent a "Kelly" or a "Gadsby" in the league.

When Shore dominated the league there were no Orr so Shore must be punished for that. Ridiculous.

We couuld also add Shores bad playoff stats and Lidstroms excellence in playoffs.

 

[Reds4Life]

Shore played in an era with goalies that were pylons, no fitness training whatsoever, no video coach, he basically played a different game. You cannot adjust for 82 games long season, so much travel and modern hockey. Shore simply cannot be objectively compared to Lidstrom, Potvin, or Bourque.

 

[JackSlater]

Seriously... Lidstrom has proven he is one of the best of all time... I wouldnt even care if there werent a "Kelly" or a "Gadsby" in the league.

When Shore dominated the league there were no Orr so Shore must be punished for that. Ridiculous.

We couuld also add Shores bad playoff stats and Lidstroms excellence in playoffs.

Not to say that Lidstrom isn't one of the greatest defencemen of all time, but he did play in a weak era for his position. If he had faced stronger competition and won 3 Norris trophies instead of 6, while playing the exact same calibre of hockey, his reputation would surely not be as great as it currently is. Shore also faced weak competition from other defencemen for first all star team positions, but he was also widely considered the best player in the NHL for years, which is something that Lidstrom cannot claim.

 

[seventieslord]

Shore played in an era with goalies that were pylons, no fitness training whatsoever, no video coach, he basically played a different game. You cannot adjust for 82 games long season, so much travel and modern hockey. Shore simply cannot be objectively compared to Lidstrom, Potvin, or Bourque.

Sure he can. It's called comparing one player's dominance of his peers to that of another player. You've been in the ATD a few times, I'm not sure why right now you're claiming that players across eras can't be compared...

 

[jkrx]

Not to say that Lidstrom isn't one of the greatest defencemen of all time, but he did play in a weak era for his position. If he had faced stronger competition and won 3 Norris trophies instead of 6, while playing the exact same calibre of hockey, his reputation would surely not be as great as it currently is. Shore also faced weak competition from other defencemen for first all star team positions, but he was also widely considered the best player in the NHL for years, which is something that Lidstrom cannot claim.

Shore also didnt play in the Sakic, Yzerman, Gretzky, Messier, Forsberg, Hull, Bourque, Chelios, Leetch, Coffey, Lindros, Hasek, Roy, Jagr, Ovechkin, Crosby era.

 

[unknown33]

Sure he can. It's called comparing one player's dominance of his peers to that of another player.

Do you agree that Shore's peers (and Lidström's too) are rather weak compared to the competition Harvey and Bourque had to face?

As Morenz declined in the mid30s there were no other Top30 alltime players in the league.
In Shore's Hart years the only runner-ups that might be called all-time greats were Charlie Conacher and Bill Cook.