Lidstrom Vs. Shore

[nik jr]

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).

blockers were from before the forward pass. i am not sure how long they lasted in the NHL.

HO once quoted an april 20, 1933 globe and mail article which said clancy, ching johnson and hitchman were better defensively.

pitseleh once quoted in NYT frank boucher, who said hitchman and sylvio mantha were tougher to beat than shore. i don't know when boucher said it.


i quoted above frank selke who said that clancy was not a defensive bulwark like shore, so there is some difference of opinion, as is still common in discussions of defensive play.

 

[arrbez]

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.

As a general stat, I think it makes a difference to look at peak dominance vs. and entire career (although we'll see how much difference it makes when looking at these two).

Paul Coffey, for instance, was utterly dominant at his peak. But he only has a 17 point lead over the next defenseman during the span of his career (Bourque), and that's because Bourque was able to play well for longer, not because he was anywhere as good offensively at their peaks. If Bourque had been born 10 years earlier or later, Coffey's lead over 2nd place would have been much bigger. They just happened to enter and exit the league at the exact same time.

So by my count, Shore's best scoring finishes over his competitors look like this:

1929: 26%
1935: 26%
1933: 25%
1931: 24%
1928+1932: tied


Lidstrom's best finishes over his competition:

2000: 17%
2006: 12%
2008: 6%
1998: 3%

Unless I'm missing something, it looks like the stats on the front page were wrong. It seems that Lidstrom led defensemen in scoring 4 times, not 5. While Shore did it 6 times instead of 5 (though two were ties).


But at any rate, I think we still have to give it to Shore over Lidstrom offensively. As I say, the career vs. opponents stat is a bit misleading, as it's more a tribute to Lidstrom's longevity than to the fact that he was significantly better than a guy like Gonchar at their peaks. Single-season dominance is the way to go here, especially when dealing with two players with sensational longevity relative to their era. The closest guy to Lidstrom in terms of games played over his career is Niedermayer, who, despite popular belief, was rarely an elite offensive guy compared to his peers. The only other notable guys who come within 400 games of him are Blake and Pronger, and I wouldn't say either of those guys were consistently great offensively. It's probably telling that the guy in second place over the course of Lidstrom's career is still Brian Leetch, with 500 fewer games played. While Shore's career probably overlapped with fewer notable defensemen, he did play most of it against a legitimately great offensive defender in King Clancy.

 

[JackSlater]

I was wondering this in the Lidstrom Harvey thread. Lidstrom seems to be clearly superior defensively, as he was the clear best defensive player of his era while Shore was just among the best. Shore seems to have been the better offensive player relative to competition, but considering his weaker competition and how close their results actually are... Lidstrom has quite a strong case to be considered more or less Shore's offensive equal. That doesn't even take into account Shore's penalty issues, which are not as bad as they are often made out to be but are still detrimental to the team. Also, I suspect that Shore may have had his offensive and defensive peaks at different times, which is something that can't really be said for 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.

Lidstrom's competition for greatest player in the world was clearly stronger than Shore's (possible exception during the 2002-2004 period) and he was possibly hurt in this discussion by the continued strength of Detroit.

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.

To be honest I found Lidstrom to be mediocre that year, at least compared to his own lofty standards. His offence wasn not exceptional and defensively he wasn't as outstanding as he would be the next season and in the seasons following the lockout. Mediocre Lidstrom could certainly be the best player in the NHL in a weak year like 2002, but I thought Iginla was better that year. If playoffs are included then Lidstrom's case certainly looks better, but that would be the case for anyone whose team makes the finals.

 

[arrbez]

Lidstrom's competition for greatest player in the world was clearly stronger than Shore's (possible exception during the 2002-2004 period) and he was possibly hurt in this discussion by the continued strength of Detroit.

Probably in terms of depth, but individually I think you could stack Howie Morenz up against anyone post-90's.

 

[MXD]

Probably in terms of depth, but individually I think you could stack Howie Morenz up against anyone post-90's.

And even then, Bill Cook was quite good as far as depth in concerned.

 

[Reds4Life]

Probably in terms of depth, but individually I think you could stack Howie Morenz up against anyone post-90's.

Seriously? Morenz is so overrated it's not even funny.

 

[arrbez]

Seriously? Morenz is so overrated it's not even funny.

Well, he won 3 Hart trophies, set scoring records, and is widely regarded as the best hockey player of the first half of the 20th Century...

 

[Reds4Life]

Well, he won 3 Hart trophies, set scoring records, and is widely regarded as the best hockey player of the first half of the 20th Century...

How much of his greatness is the product of the legend surrounding him; and his unfortunate death?
I have a hard time believing he was better than Jagr, Yzerman, Sakic, Forsberg, Fedorov or Lindros based on newspaper articles.

 

[arrbez]

How much of his greatness is the product of the legend surrounding him; and his unfortunate death?
I have a hard time believing he was better than Jagr, Yzerman, Sakic, Forsberg, Fedorov or Lindros based on newspaper articles.

Well they didn't go back in time and give him Hart trophies and scoring titles just because he died. Why is it so hard to believe that he was an all-time great?

 

[MXD]

How much of his greatness is the product of the legend surrounding him; and his unfortunate death?
I have a hard time believing he was better than Jagr, Yzerman, Sakic, Forsberg, Fedorov or Lindros based on newspaper articles.

According to my calculations, he was alive when he won the Hart.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's off topic, but I don't think season-by-season stats do Howie Morenz's dominance justice. In a low scoring era, 30 and 44 game seasons aren't necessarily complete sample sizes to draw a real conclusion IMO.

Look at it this way, during Morenz's peak (1924-25 to 1931-32, Morenz absolutely blew the competition away.

Points:

Howie Morenz 325
Nels Stewart 253
Aurele Joliat 246 (Morenz' linemate)
Bill Cook 233
Frank Boucher 225

Points-per game

Howie Morenz 1.01
Charlie Conacher 1.01 (entirely after the forward pass was allowed in 1930, so not comparing the same thing. 1930-32 Morenz averaged 1.15 to 1.12 for Conacher)
Cooney Weiland 0.88 (also entirely post-forward pass)
Bill Cook 0.88
Nels Stewart 0.88

Goals

Howie Morenz 218
Nels Stewart 185
Bill Cook 159
Aurele Joliat 148
Billy Burch 110

Goals per game

Charlie Conacher 0.71
Howie Morenz 0.68
Nels Stewart 0.64
Bill Cook 0.60
Cooney Weiland 0.53

Morenz is also 2nd to Frank Boucher in assists during the time frame.

The only player even close to him offensively during his peak was Nels Stewart, noted for being entirely one-dimensional, while Morenz was said to do everything on the ice.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Shore was regarded as a very good defensive player, but he wasn't the best in his era. Lidstrom was almost certainly the best defensive blueliner over the past fifteen years (Pronger too inconsistent and undisciplined, and Stevens playing for only half that span). To quote myself from another thread:

Eddie Shore was not even regarded as the best defensive player of his era. Although he was known as a good offensive player, even during his absolute peak (1933), contemporaries thought that there were several other defensemen in the league who were superior defensively (ie King Clancy, Lionel Hitchman, Ching Johnson). Source: Globe & Mail, April 20, 1933.

I don't want to put too much stock into a single quote from a newspaper, but I place emphasis on it because it's:

1) the opinion of someone who actually watched him play (as opposed to a book written years or decades later, which tends to include a lot of praise and very little criticism of any player)

2) it's in the middle of his first Hart year (so it's not like I'm cherry-picking a negative quote from before or after his prime)

3) he was already established as a star (so it's likely that the journalist would be fairly familiar with Shore's strengths and weaknesses)

Offensively, if you remove the 1940 season (Shore was 37 and played just 14 games), we get the following:

Player|Games|Points
Eddie Shore|536|276
King Clancy|456|219
Lionel Conacher|465|172
Georges Mantha|440|170
Hap Day|519|164

I've removed Baldy Nortcott, who played both D and LW. From what I can tell he was primarily a forward:

1) he broke into the NHL on a scoring line with Ward and Trottier (link)

2) he was the first-team all-star LW in 1933 (his only year as an all-star)

3) he was described as "a big scrappy winger who also saw some action on defense" (link)

I don't know exactly how many games he played as a forward, but it sounds like it was at least half - so he's not a fair comparable to Shore.

This means that Shore was the highest-scoring defenseman of his era by a 26% margin, and over 60% ahead of third place.

In fairness to Lidstrom, he had a higher margin over second place, maintained his margin over a longer period of time, and over a larger talent pool.

I think that a lot of people rank Shore's offense highly because he was an offensive catalyst (initiating plays, rushing up the ice, etc.) to a greater extent than all but a few defensemen in history.

====

I've argued at length that Harvey was superior to Shore in every conceivable way (aside from Hart trophies and evilness). I don't think it's fair to dismiss all the people who watched Shore who said that he was, at worst, the second best player of his era, but it doesn't hurt to reconsider our rankings.

 

[JackSlater]

Probably in terms of depth, but individually I think you could stack Howie Morenz up against anyone post-90's.

I would agree with that, although Morenz was only in his prime for the early portion of Shore's dominance. I was basing my statement on the number of elite players from the two eras. Morenz, Conacher, Boucher and as already mentioned Cook were all elite level players for a good portion of Shore's prime.

 

[Regal]

Shore was regarded as a very good defensive player, but he wasn't the best in his era. Lidstrom was almost certainly the best defensive blueliner over the past fifteen years (Pronger too inconsistent and undisciplined, and Stevens playing for only half that span)

I know you brought it up as referencing this because of the OP, but I think it's a weak argument to say that someone who's known as the best defensive player of their era is better than someone who's not. There's so much that goes into the "era" argument, most of which has to do with how players' careers line up. I mean, if we're simply looking at all the years of Lidstrom's career, he's naturally at an advantage having played in all of them. Shore is as well, obviously, but again, we can get back into the competition argument. Clancy, Johnson and Hitchman all seem to overlap Shore's career better than any great defensive players did to Lidstrom's. While Lidstrom is obviously great defensively, I think his dominance as a defense player has been build up as other great defensive players have kind of fallen off. When Stevens and Hatcher, Bourque and Chelios were still performing at high levels, along with Pronger around the time of his Hart trophy, there was far less agreement that Lidstrom was the best defensive player. It was only after those guys retired and no one really came around to take their place that Lidstrom started to really become known as the clear-cut best defensively. While I think this is still telling, and gives Lidstrom the edge, I'm not sure if it's a massive edge.

This means that Shore was the highest-scoring defenseman of his era by a 26% margin, and over 60% ahead of third place.

In fairness to Lidstrom, he had a higher margin over second place, maintained his margin over a longer period of time, and over a larger talent pool.

I think that a lot of people rank Shore's offense highly because he was an offensive catalyst (initiating plays, rushing up the ice, etc.) to a greater extent than all but a few defensemen in history.

Again, I think the era become a bit of a problem when comparing sheer numbers, as how careers overlap can be a problem. I would suggest PPG numbers would be more accurate, but again, smaller sample sizes can then be a problem, as well as game changes within their careers (the forward pass for Shore as well as yearly fluctuations, and a higher scoring era, followed by the DPE, followed by the 'new' NHL for Lidstrom). I think Arrbez's look at how Shore dominated the scoring on a yearly basis is much more telling. Shore's prime was certainly shorter, but then, careers tended to be shorter during that era, so in comparison he wouldn't be that far behind.

I also tend to think the last sentence is overlooked when strictly looking at point totals. Shore was always talked about as a huge offensive catalyst, whereas Lidstrom is more of a guy who makes the great first pass, jumps into the play when he sees an openings, and runs the powerplay. While that's fantastic, and he's been on the best PP quarterbacks out there, I think his even strength offensive game is not nearly as dynamic. While I don't think team scoring affects star players as much as some people do, I think it can certainly affect defensemen, and I have my doubts that Lidstrom would score as much if he was on a team with less offensive weapons.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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

I'll take Bourque over Lidstrom offensively but the gap isn't as great as the difference in the defensive play of Lidstrom.

The thing about Shore, and I agree that it's very hard comparing a guy from that era, is his 3 Harts and to me that gives him too high a placement like the other 3 Hart guy Clarke.

Another large problem in evaluating Shore is the fact that the NHL did not have 100% of the best players available playing in the league at the time.

The league was still shaky during Shore's time (and even he did not play in the NHL during his entire prime years) and community teams were able to keep some of the top players until WW2 along with other leagues competing for top players like the WHL.

His 3 harts should come with a huge asterisk and I feel we will never have all the necessary information to evaluate him fairly.

A top 10 guy quite likely but not sure about his top 3 status if we investigate the state of the NHL during the years he played in it (or the years played before and after the NHL).

 

[arrbez]

Just to nitpick, it's 4 Harts

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just to nitpick, it's 4 Harts

All 4 of them after the last western league folded.

 

[JackSlater]

The thing about Shore, and I agree that it's very hard comparing a guy from that era, is his 3 Harts and to me that gives him too high a placement like the other 3 Hart guy Clarke.

I think the cases are pretty different. Clarke won two of his Harts over Orr and clearly was not the best player in the NHL those seasons. As far as I know Shore was winning his Harts due to being judged as the best player in the league.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

I don't recall that being the case at all in 2002, which basically a four person race between Iginla, Roy, Theodore, and Burke. The only other players I heard a peep about in the press were Sundin at mid-season and Shanahan and Francis towards the end. Chelios, in fact, was a lot of people's picks for being the best defenseman in the league, so I think you may be mis-attributing Lidstrom's status as the "glue guy." The only publication I remember siding with your argument was The Hockey News' prediction for 2002-03, and even then, they had Peter Forsberg (who had just skipped basically all of 2001-02) as their #2, so I wouldn't say it was based upon merit as opposed to unfulfilled conjecture.

For my money, Lidstrom's best chance at a Hart was 1999-2000 or 2005-06, and quite frankly, his best wasn't good enough to get consideration in the form of a nomination.

 

[Fredrik_71]

I don't recall that being the case at all in 2002, which basically a four person race between Iginla, Roy, Theodore, and Burke. The only other players I heard a peep about in the press were Sundin at mid-season and Shanahan and Francis towards the end. Chelios, in fact, was a lot of people's picks for being the best defenseman in the league, so I think you may be mis-attributing Lidstrom's status as the "glue guy." The only publication I remember siding with your argument was The Hockey News' prediction for 2002-03, and even then, they had Peter Forsberg (who had just skipped basically all of 2001-02) as their #2, so I wouldn't say it was based upon merit as opposed to unfulfilled conjecture.

For my money, Lidstrom's best chance at a Hart was 1999-2000 or 2005-06, and quite frankly, his best wasn't good enough to get consideration in the form of a nomination.

When the Noris was introduced the chance for a d-man to get the Hart was slim to none. Pronger is the exception to the rule. I think the Norris is a good thing because d-men gets less recognition and their skills are harder to measure. Points wins you the Hart.

/Cheers

 

[Rhiessan71]

The thing that always causes me pause about Shore is that he played almost his entire career when D-men couldn't even make a forward pass.

It's tough to determine whether that should hold him back or propel him forward, there's an argument for each and I have trouble residing on a conclusion.

 

[Reds4Life]

According to my calculations, he was alive when he won the Hart.

Well, you've got to be a great mathematician then.

 

[lazerbullet]

I think Lidstrom was the best player in the league when Crosby won Hart.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The thing that always causes me pause about Shore is that he played almost his entire career when D-men couldn't even make a forward pass.

It's tough to determine whether that should hold him back or propel him forward, there's an argument for each and I have trouble residing on a conclusion.

The forward pass was allowed in in all 3 zones in 1929-30 and Shore won all 4 of his Harts after that time. (The pass wasn't allowed between zones until 43-44).

 

[arrbez]

The thing that always causes me pause about Shore is that he played almost his entire career when D-men couldn't even make a forward pass.

I think the modern forward passing rules were pretty much in place by 1930, weren't they? That rule change is generally seen as the cause of the massive scoring blip that took place in 1930, where Cooney Weiland demolished Morenz's scoring record.

At any rate, Shore played the majority of his career (including his 4 Hart seasons) after 1930.