RabbinsDuck
Registered User
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)?
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)?
Last edited: