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)?