It bothers me that some people call him overrated and point to his stats this year.
While he's far from being overrated, some other people deem it acceptable to write pieces and start threads about Wins, which is an obvious team stat and is only being attributed to goalies on account of an historical anomaly. Fucale has certainly a hand in his team's Wins, but in the era of advanced stats, not to mention sophisticated defensive systems, it is all the more absurd to continue drawing up individual records on the basis of team stats.
If one were to continue to develop a model based on the varying contributory aspects by all the players on a team, then certainly, it would make a lot more sense. A little like the "win shares" model devised by Bill James in 2002, for baseball, with the understanding that allowances would have to be made for a team sport like hockey where it is more difficult to isolate individual statistics than it is for baseball:
It takes a Sabremetric approach to evaluating the contribution of individual players to their teams' overall performance, and focuses primarily on the many formulae involved in computing the final number of win shares accumulated, as well as presenting many lists of players ranked in various ways using the rating.
A recent piece looking at historical performances of NHL goalies, stated:
Rankings involving goalies from previous decades have relied on team results and reputations forged by storytellers.
Seems to me that cherrypicking a team stat like Wins in an attempt to associate Fucale to some "record" does him a disservice more than anything else. Especially in a tighter-wound team sport like hockey, the continued association of team stats to individual players is just perpetuating the type of storytelling that makes for great anecdotes, not individual records.