But if Hasek was square to a shooter and made 5 difficult saves in a game look easy wouldn't people not think he had a better game than if he made 5 saves look incredible. I don't think it would be a conscious overrating. More like him making saves look incredible, making him look better than if he made the saves look ordinary.
No, I don't think this is the case, and I'll tell you why: I think the side arguing for Dominik Hasek as the greatest goaltender of all-time has increased in numbers since both Roy's retirement and Hasek's initial retirement. From what I can tell, there are far more people arguing for Hasek as #1 now than there were in 2002-2004, and I think the reason for this is because people are arguing more with raw numbers and
less with visual preference.
I don't think that Hasek, while spectacular visually, gains as much from looking outside the numbers as a Patrick Roy (leadership), a Grant Fuhr (clutch play), or a Martin Brodeur (puck control). Added to that, Patrick Roy is losing GP-based NHL records by the handful as time goes by. It reminds me of the near-universal media opinion that Patrick Roy (from 1997-2000) was seizing the #1 goalie position from Terry Sawchuk
specifically. Once Sawchuk's high-water mark was broken, not only did Patrick Roy trend upwards in public opinion, but Sawchuk seemingly trended downward behind Jacques Plante. I believe we are seeing that same effect take place now with the stock in Roy's legend going down - not just in comparison to the man breaking his records, but with Hasek as well.
I am curious as to what effect the media's opinion on these goaltenders has on people. Granted there are guys like Scott Burnside who will flip-flop on who is the best, but for all the 1st Team All-Star selections and Hart Trophies they've given him (which are often a large element of the Hasek argument), Hasek hasn't really been the media darling when it comes to them naming the #1 goalie. Do we believe that to be an over-reliance on GP-based statistics?
The reason I ask is because after 2003-04 when THN did its Great Debates issue (just three seasons removed from Hasek's 6th 1st Team selection and two seasons removed from Hasek's Stanley Cup), Roy was named the best by a 41 writer panel by a large margin:
Roy (19)
Hasek (7)
Sawchuk (5)
Plante (3)
Brodeur (2)
Dryden (2)
Hall (2)
Tretiak (1)
What is it that makes us entrust the PHWA with All-Star selections and Hart selections but not with the cumulation of multiple years in recent history when they're
so decisive? I certainly don't always agree with the PHWA, but it seems unusual for some people to defer to the two Hart trophies but ignore the fact that the people who awarded those trophies largely did not feel Hasek was the best of his generation.