Someone else seems to have taken an interest, and I have to admit that I enjoyed their first piece:
http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2014/2/7/5388600/department-of-hoakey-analytics-usa-goalies
An interesting article, but I disagree with much of it. The author's premise is, essentially, hockey teams in a short tournament like the Olympics want consistent goalies. My problem with this is two-fold.
First, the crux of their analysis (a weighted-average probability table) is based on arbitrary assumptions; small tweaks to the assumptions could change their conclusions. It would have been more interesting and informative if they actually calculated the probabilities (empirically, a goalie performance with a save percentage in each third (or quarter, or decile, etc) corresponds to an X% probability of the team winning).
Second (this is an observation by the great basketball analyst Dean Oliver, whose observations can sometimes be linked to hockey), variance is generally unfavourable
when you're already the favourite. Variance is very much a good thing for the underdog.
For example, on average, the 1977 Montreal Canadiens are likely to steamroll their opponents - they just want a steady, consistent goalie who won't blow the game for them. If Dryden stops 92% of the shots he faces, with a low level of variance, the team's high-powered offense and smothering defense will allow the Canadiens to win frequently. If Dryden was inconsistent (and alternated between Hasek-like performances and terrible performances), the variance would increase and the Habs would be less successful. In other words: it doesn't matter much if Dryden stopped 92% or 96% or 100% of the shots he faced - his team gave him so much offensive support and he saw so few shots that the incremental benefit of those extra saves is small. The benefit from his Hasek-like performances would be minimal, but clearly it would cost his team games (even a team as strong as the dynasty Canadiens) if he started allowing 5+ goals on a regular basis.
Similarly, a bad team (underdog) wants an inconsistent goalie. The team is likely to lose; a consistent goalie should result in consistent loses. An inconsistent goalie could turn some of those loses into wins (even if the team struggles to score, if the goalie sometimes records a shutout, he assures his team at least one point). Sure, he'll have awful performances too, but the team was likely to lose in the first place. Losing a blowout is no worse in the standings than losing a by two goals (those perhaps there's long-term psychological impact?) In other words: instead of consistently losing by 1-2 goals, some of those losses will turn into narrow wins (benefit in the standings), and some of those will turn into blowout losses (no worse than they were before) - and the team's in a better position overall.
My subjective perception is that Luongo is an inconsistent goalie - when he's on, he's almost unbeatable, but he's had a lot of terrible games as well. Assuming Team Canada is the favourite heading into the Olympics, perhaps Price is a better option (almost the same save percentage over the past three years and, subjectively, I feel he's more consistent). An underdog team would want an inconsistent goalie (with a high level of play obviously) and hope they go on a "JS Giguere in 2003" type of run.
====
Note 1: I haven't verified any of this empirically in the context of hockey. Oliver proved this in the context of basketball, and I think the same reasoning applies. I may look into this in the future (though if sometimes wants to look at it first, go for it).
Note 2: I'm not saying that Dryden was merely a consistent goalie; the most important things is that he was an excellent goalie. But being consistently excellent made him a more valuable fit for the Canadiens than a goalie with the same save percentage (same level of excellence), with less consistency.
Note 3: not interested in getting into a heated debate about Luongo vs Price. Those are subjective observations and if someone can show me that Luongo is the more consistent of the two, empirically, then I'll change my mind. Of course, more than just save percentage and consistency need to be taken into account, but they are two important factors.