I would say that wins is the best stat we have to reflect timeliness of goaltending, and maybe even, to a lesser extent, quality of goals against.
Goaltenders should not be measured in saves, saves don't win games. You can't get enough saves to exchange them for one less goal against or anything. There's no exchange rate. Goals against lose games.
In my experience as player, and more so, coach, nothing affects a bench more (positively or negatively, either direction) than a bad goal against. Nothing is more deflating. You give up one early, you're chasing the whole game. You give up one late, you lose the game. Bad goals, more than regular goals against, more than highlight goals for, more than great saves, big hits, a fight...nothing has more emotional effect on a game than a bad goal against.
This was my rail against Tim Thomas in the past, it's the only case that can really be made against Hasek in the playoffs...you even look at his last goal in Buffalo, the Kasparaitis wrist shot from the top of the circle that just wafts past him in game 7, in overtime, at home, against a player of Kasparaitis' caliber...that can't go in. And even if he made 70 saves in regulation to help the game get into overtime, that goal can't go...
Patrick Lalime is another one, Roman Cechmanek is another recent example...you can finish with 10 shutouts in the regular season, you can stop 93% of your shots, but if in a big spot, when advanced scouting is on to your tendencies, players are learning what it is you do over the course of seven straight games, if you can't adapt, you're going to get found out pretty quick and a lot of bad goals are going in...
Martin Brodeur, naturally, had a long career and therefore bad goals happen from time to time...but he never made it a habit...he was highly adaptable, maybe the most intelligent goaltender I've ever seen, best rebound control I've ever seen (which is worth its weight in gold). See, the higher you go, the more predictable the game becomes as a coach and a player. Random noise in games dissipates as you get higher. Martin Brodeur's rebound control and stickhandling is what made the Devils system work as well as it did. Normally it's the goalie that's the product of the system, but you have to evaluate the talent behind the system still to get an accurate look about who is the cart and who is the horse (see: this current defensive Montreal team...Carey Price, cool as a cucumber, great rebound control, predictable game for his defensemen...not out all over the place, not making poor plays out of the net, rebounds are tidy...now, you get these two-bit schlubs that come in there, yeah, in small doses, you can insulate them and they'll get a high save pct. [didn't Condon lead the league in save pct. earlier this season or some such?] but over time, poor talent gets found out, insulation breaks down, the unpredictable nature of this goaltender(s) technical abilities causes too much randomness to account for...
This wasn't the case with Brodeur, Brodeur was always on point (ya know, sans the retirement year of course). No stop, drop and hope...no rebound regurgitation...didn't let in bad goals up high because he just dropped at the slightest flinch of a wrist...you really can't ask for a better prototype for a goaltender. Athletic, intelligent, great with the stick, can play from his knees, play well from standup, used different styles as save selections instead of pure style (like Roy with his butterfly, Hasek with his acrobatic style, etc.).
Probably not a more complete goalie has come along since, what, Plante? Certainly none in my time.
You can't hitch your wagon entirely save pct. and pretend like its not system-dependent like GAA and wins are...you can't assume every shot is created equal every night. Is there a better metric? Perhaps not yet. But that doesn't excuse limping along with it as a crutch, nor does it excuse undermining one of the best to ever play the game. That is gross misunderstanding of the game and the position.
