Lidstrom Vs. Shore

[RabbinsDuck]

I had posted this earlier but thought I would focus more on just Shore and Lidstrom.

I went into this more on the main board than I did here -- but I believe Harvey/Shore/Bourque/Lidstrom are a lot closer than many give credit for.

Lidstrom gets slaughtered for his lack of competition, but Shore and Harvey have so far been exempt from this same argument versus Bourque. I think it is clear Bourque faced more higher end competition than any of these guys, and that needs to be considered - w/o exempting the old guys.

I rate these guys in the following way:

Defensively
1) Harvey
2) Lidstrom
3) Bourque
4) Shore

Offensively
1) Bourque
2) Shore
3) Lidstrom
4) Harvey

Playoffs
1) Harvey
2) Lidstrom
3) Shore
4) Bourque

The category I studied least is playoffs - I am confident Lidstrom is better than Bourque in the playoffs and Harvey is better than Shore, but have not made as much of an attempt to compare the younger guys to the older guys.

It is no secret award voting favors offense, even for defenseman, which helps explain Shore's and Bourque's advantage in year-by-year voting, but I argue actual defense from a defenseman is more valuable than offense. I believe voting over the years (with a few noted exceptions (ie. Langway)) has favored offense over defense by a ratio of 70 to 30. Whereas I view the true measure of a defenseman should be closer to 60-40 favoring actual defense.

So I give more weight to the top defensive defenseman of their era - Harvey and Lidstrom.
Do Shore's and Bourque's offensive advantage make up the ground?

This is an ongoing process for me, but I am strongly beginning to believe Shore has long been overrated. Perhaps he should be 5th behind Bourque and Lidstrom? He certainly does not have their ability to remain elite for as long as they have. He gets slaughtered by at least Lidstrom in the playoffs, and defensively - and Bourque might beat him all-around as well. The competition argument certainly does not favor a Pre-original 6 player versus the 80s and especially into the 00s.

But it seems like sacrilege to suggest Bourque and Lidstrom might be better than Shore.... Just curious if anyone else thinks I am doing more than grasping at straws here.

I'm ready to rank them:
2) Harvey
3) Bourque
4) Lidstrom
5) Shore

With a razor-thin margin, followed by Potvin and Kelly.

It was brought up that Lidstrom might be better than Shore offensively (and Bourque ahead of Shore in the playoffs), so I thought I would take more of a look at it.

Offensively, versus other defensemen they have placed the following:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 9, 10 = Shore
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, 8 = Lidstrom

Wow. Virtually identical, and Lidstrom will probably finish in the top 10 again this year. Factoring in the competition pool from the 20s/30s vs. The 90s/00s and I think this is a pretty clear win for Lidstrom.

Where I thought Shore would run away with it was his dominance over his peers, or his percentage scoring on top of the next best. It's not hard to believe a pre-Original 6, 3-time Hart winning player is going to dominate his peers to a much greater degree offensively than a defense-first defenseman from the 90s/00s. I was prepared with a lot of arguments to explain why Shore was more dominant over his peers in the eay NHL vs. Lidstrom today.

Well, I was more than surprised that lidstrom killed Shore. Both players had a long career relative to their peers so should do well here but from 92-today, Lidstrom has a 34% point advantage over the next closest defenseman, while from 27-40 Shore had a 16% edge.

There's no question, Lidstrom was better offensively.

So Lidstrom was better offensively, defensively and in the playoffs vs. Shore.
The only reason to have Shore ahead is his Harts... But that was before the Norris was awarded and defensemen fared much better in Hart voting.

Factor in Lidstrom's incredible constitution and his incredible value at not putting his team short-handed, and I think the difference between these two is close, but very clear: Lidstrom was the better defenseman.

What argument is there for Shore over Lidstrom (and by default, Bourque)?

Click to read more...

 

[Derick*]

More like Eddie Bore.

...sorry.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Good work.

Anecdotally, Shore was considered the star player of his team on a season-by-season basis, while Lidstrom has had to share the spotlight with Yzerman, Fedorov, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg on a season-by-season basis on his own team.

I just think of stories of Shore rushing the puck up the ice, creating offense for his team in a way that Lidstrom rarely does. So maybe Shore was more of an offensive catalyst for the team? What do Shore and Lidstrom's respective numbers look like compared to their (forward) teammates?

I also think that maybe Shore was more involved offensively at even strength. We don't have the numbers for Shore, but what percentage of Lidstrom's offense comes on the PP vs. other defensemen?

I basically just asked you to do a bunch of number crunching I don't feel like doing.

 

[arrbez]

I'm surprised Shore's dominance over his peers is that low as well. Are you sure you're not factoring in players who played both F/D? There were a lot of those back then.

Then again, I've never really looked into Eddie Shore's stats relative to his peers, so maybe I just assumed he was more dominant offensively than he actually was.

Also, which of them had the greatest instances of single-season dominance over their peers? It's probably a more telling stat than career numbers, as they depend a lot on how much overlap these guys had with other great offensive players.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I'm surprised Shore's dominance over his peers is that low as well. Are you sure you're not factoring in players who played both F/D? There were a lot of those back then.

Then again, I've never really looked into Eddie Shore's stats relative to his peers, so maybe I just assumed he was more dominant offensively than he actually was.

Also, which of them had the greatest instances of single-season dominance over their peers? It's probably a more telling stat than career numbers, as they depend a lot on how much overlap these guys had with other great offensive players.

It was Babe Northcutt behind Shore. Not sure if he ever played forward.
I assume Shore has a higher offensive peak, but I also assumed Shore would kill Lidstrom over their careers.

I hope to have time to look more into what you and TDMM brought up - though I don't think it will make that much of a difference.

 

[CHGoalie27]

has anyone seen shore play?

me neither. don't dare try and compare them by numbers 5 eras apart.

/thread.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

has anyone seen shore play?

me neither. don't dare try and compare them by numbers 5 eras apart.

/thread.

Apparently this forum is not for you.
/Adios

 

[ozzie]

I sort of agree, how many people actually saw him play. He becomes more of a legend as time passes, because most people go on word of mouth. With a lack of good footage, its difficult to compare.

But we have plenty of footage of Orr, Bourque, Lidstrom, Potvin and Coffey.

I really don't think we can seriously compare anyone from that era to this era. I have enough trouble watching the pylons from the 80's and that was my favouriate era.

 

[canucks4ever]

Doug Harvey is legit, he's known to be a defensive wizard and a great powerplay qb. However, I am starting to question how good shore really is. His hart trophies were a product of the times, he wouldn't sniff a hart anytime between 1980-1996. Defensemen that can't carry lidstrom's skates won harts in that era. Eddie Shore has always been described as good defensively, no one has labelled him as the best defensive player of his own era, let alone all time. A great player, but ranking him above bourque seems a bit strange when bourque is likely better offensively and defensively.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Doug Harvey is legit, he's known to be a defensive wizard and a great powerplay qb. However, I am starting to question how good shore really is. His hart trophies were a product of the times, he wouldn't sniff a hart anytime between 1980-1996. Defensemen that can't carry lidstrom's skates won harts in that era. Eddie Shore has always been described as good defensively, no one has labelled him as the best defensive player of his own era, let alone all time. A great player, but ranking him above bourque seems a bit strange when bourque is likely better offensively and defensively.

This is THE thing that slowly changed my mind on Eddie Shore, who I now have under Bourque and out of the Top-10. Lionel Hitchman, his D-partner for numerous years, was widely regarded as the better defensive defenseman of the two.

 

[jkrx]

When I was younger I often heard fron non-boston fans that both Kelly and Harvey was better than Shore. However lots of bias could be involved as Shore wasn't really liked outside of his own team. I also remember hearing people saying that Clancy was a better defense man than Shore.

 

[nik jr]

i get the impression from reading various things that shore was one of the greatest players in history to watch.

in the intangibles sticky, i posted from a mid-'30s poll that shore was voted best box office attraction in the NHL by a wide margin, ahead of TML, NYR, morenz, etc.

all the things fans generally like about hockey: speed, skill, physicality, brutality, etc, shore had in abundance.


shore had problems with penalties (which were blamed for boston's losses in '27 and '36), and was probably widely hated by opposing fans.

EDIT: but i just read that in shore's 1st game back from suspension in '34, he was consistently cheered by the NY crowd of 16000, during warmups, during the game, and after he got up after taking a big hit. shore played 48 minutes in the game.

It was Babe Northcutt behind Shore. Not sure if he ever played forward.
I assume Shore has a higher offensive peak, but I also assumed Shore would kill Lidstrom over their careers.

I hope to have time to look more into what you and TDMM brought up - though I don't think it will make that much of a difference.

baldy northcott was a LW who sometimes played D.

babe siebert was a LW who played D for his last 4 seasons, possibly more.

some others such as ebbie goodfellow and georges mantha were sometimes F's and sometimes D.


via hockey-reference.com, d-man scoring '27-'39

shore: 276 (.5 points per game)
clancy: 219 (.48)
l conacher: 172 (.37)
hap day: 164 (.32)
horner: 142 (.31)
s mantha: 129 (.28)
seibert: 128 (.36)
heller: 106 (.31)
wentworth: 103 (.19)


context is important, since scoring changed much during that period. very low scoring in the '20s, then high scoring in '30, when the forward pass was legalized, then moderate.

shore's scoring did not change much during that period, though.



pnep once posted the top 5 d-men in scoring for every season.

shore's rankings
'27: 3rd
'28: 1st
'29: 1st
'30: 2nd
'31: 1st
'32: 1st
'33: 1st
'34: suspended
'35: 1st
'36: 4th
'37: --
'38: --
'39: 5th
'40: --


maybe i should get shore in the all time draft so i will read a lot more about him.

This is THE thing that slowly changed my mind on Eddie Shore, who I now have under Bourque and out of the Top-10. Lionel Hitchman, his D-partner for numerous years, was widely regarded as the better defensive defenseman of the two.

in king clancy's autobiography, he describes shore (i think in multiple places) as a great defensive player, one of the best ever.

i don't think he mentions hitchman.

EDIT: best i could find was frank selke talking about clancy.

he said that "clancy was not a defensive bulwark like shore, day, mantha or gerard".

 

[neelysbiggestfan]

I had posted this earlier but thought I would focus more on just Shore and Lidstrom.



It was brought up that Lidstrom might be better than Shore offensively (and Bourque ahead of Shore in the playoffs), so I thought I would take more of a look at it.

Offensively, versus other defensemen they have placed the following:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 9, 10 = Shore
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, 8 = Lidstrom

Wow. Virtually identical, and Lidstrom will probably finish in the top 10 again this year. Factoring in the competition pool from the 20s/30s vs. The 90s/00s and I think this is a pretty clear win for Lidstrom.

Where I thought Shore would run away with it was his dominance over his peers, or his percentage scoring on top of the next best. It's not hard to believe a pre-Original 6, 3-time Hart winning player is going to dominate his peers to a much greater degree offensively than a defense-first defenseman from the 90s/00s. I was prepared with a lot of arguments to explain why Shore was more dominant over his peers in the eay NHL vs. Lidstrom today.

Well, I was more than surprised that lidstrom killed Shore. Both players had a long career relative to their peers so should do well here but from 92-today, Lidstrom has a 34% point advantage over the next closest defenseman, while from 27-40 Shore had a 16% edge.

There's no question, Lidstrom was better offensively.

So Lidstrom was better offensively, defensively and in the playoffs vs. Shore.
The only reason to have Shore ahead is his Harts... But that was before the Norris was awarded and defensemen fared much better in Hart voting.

Factor in Lidstrom's incredible constitution and his incredible value at not putting his team short-handed, and I think the difference between these two is close, but very clear: Lidstrom was the better defenseman.

What argument is there for Shore over Lidstrom (and by default, Bourque)?

On what planet is Lidstrom better than Ray Bourque offensively?? (Or in any aspect of the game for that matter). Not even close.

 

[lextune]

Shore was a phenomenon.

You didn't have to know a single thing about hockey see with your own eyes that he was the best player on the ice.

Utterly dominant in whatever way was called for on any given night.

Not taking anything away from Lidstrom who I love watching, but you need a certain level of "hockey smarts" to fully appreciate how great he is.

Read into it what you will, just thought I'd add these demonstrable facts to the debate.

For me the Top D remain:
Orr
Shore
Harvey
Bourque
Lidstrom
Potvin



EDIT:
Here is a link to an older post of mine on the subject of the "phenomenon" of Shore:

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=17516637&postcount=809

 

[lextune]

On what planet is Lidstrom better than Ray Bourque offensively??

One can make the "slightly better defensively" argument, but offensively it is not even close.

Bourque towers over Lidstrom offensively.

 

[neelysbiggestfan]

One can make the "slightly better defensively" argument, but offensively it is not even close.

Bourque towers over Lidstrom offensively.

I just think people forget how great Bourque was.
While with the Bruins He NEVER had a team that was nearly as good as Lidstroms.
He was the ENTIRE team for many years - he was a force in the playoffs too.

 

[lextune]

What argument is there for Shore over Lidstrom?

There are lots of them....

...the most succinct of which might be this:

Shore was for a time the greatest player in the world. A height Lidstrom, brilliant play aside, has never achieved.

 

[BraveCanadian]

On what planet is Lidstrom better than Ray Bourque offensively?? (Or in any aspect of the game for that matter). Not even close.

Obviously you're a Bruins homer but I'll bite.

Compared to peers Lidstrom is way out in front. Per game I'd still say that Bourque edges Lidstrom offensively if for no other reason than his shot, though.

I won't bother responding to the rest of the nonsense in your statement.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There are lots of them....

...the most succinct of which might be this:

Shore was for a time the greatest player in the world. A height Lidstrom, brilliant play aside, has never achieved.

That's definitely a good argument for Shore. But the counterargument, is that even if Lidstrom never achieved that status on a seasonal basis, he's practically the consensus player of the last decade. And the competition on a seasonal basis is definitely much higher for Lidstrom than Shore.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is THE thing that slowly changed my mind on Eddie Shore, who I now have under Bourque and out of the Top-10. Lionel Hitchman, his D-partner for numerous years, was widely regarded as the better defensive defenseman of the two.

Right. I've seen a handful of defensemen of the era who were described as "even harder to get around than Shore."

Considering Lidstrom is basically tied with Devils-era Scott Stevens as the best defensive defenseman I've ever seen*, if Lidstrom's offense can be categorized as close to Shores's (and I'm not convinced of that yet), it seems I almost have to rank Lidstrom ahead of Shore... as crazy as that sounds.

*And it isn't just me obviously, Lidstrom is almost universally considered the best defensive player of his era.

 

[nik jr]

i think differences in the game complicate considerations of d-men from the period.

some players, like hitchman, were called blockers, and had the job of more or less standing in position and keeping opponents, often solo rushers, from getting through.

big, slow players were probably not really at much of a disadvantage at this, but would probably not be as good in other eras.


i once read an old article in which lester patrick predicted that blockers would become obsolete.

 

[Epsilon]

That's definitely a good argument for Shore. But the counterargument, is that even if Lidstrom never achieved that status on a seasonal basis, he's practically the consensus player of the last decade. And the competition on a seasonal basis is definitely much higher for Lidstrom than Shore.

I think a strong argument can be made that Lidstrom was the best overall player in the NHL in 2001-02, especially if playoffs are included into the overall season. I still think he should have merited Hart trophy consideration that year, considering how he was the foundation and glue guy on the best team in the NHL, and how the Hart voting that year was all over the place: Theodore getting votes for "most valuable player to his team", Iginla getting votes for "best performer even though it didn't amount to anything", etc.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

i think differences in the game complicate considerations of d-men from the period.

some players, like hitchman, were called blockers, and had the job of more or less standing in position and keeping opponents, often solo rushers, from getting through.

big, slow players were probably not really at much of a disadvantage at this, but would probably not be as good in other eras.


i once read an old article in which lester patrick predicted that blockers would become obsolete.

I thought the "blocker" was from the pre-forward pass era? Hitchman played both before and after the forward pass was allowed (I have no idea when the quote about him being even harder to get around than Shore originated).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think a strong argument can be made that Lidstrom was the best overall player in the NHL in 2001-02, especially if playoffs are included into the overall season. I still think he should have merited Hart trophy consideration that year, considering how he was the foundation and glue guy on the best team in the NHL, and how the Hart voting that year was all over the place: Theodore getting votes for "most valuable player to his team", Iginla getting votes for "best performer even though it didn't amount to anything", etc.

Good point.

I guess they had just given their token Hart recognition to a defenseman two years earlier (Pronger's win), so they didn't feel the need to look to defense again.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

On what planet is Lidstrom better than Ray Bourque offensively?? (Or in any aspect of the game for that matter). Not even close.

I never claimed that - only looking at Shore and Lidstrom.