Hasek is weird because his stats would have gone counter to what he looked like doing them. Hasek was probably hard to watch if you were a goalie coach or scout. He made saves, but it didn't make any sense.
But looking a little closer makes me nervous. Hasek turned out to be surprisingly good. I think Lehner has the potential to become surprisingly bad.
Hasek, while implementing a completely unorthodox style, was actually out-of-this-world good at the basic parameters I outlined in a previous post. His recovery time was off the charts, his ability to freeze the puck was elite, and his ability to locate the puck in a scramble was outstanding. He read plays as well as any goaltender, and this accounted for him being able to make those ridiculous saves.
Just because he looked so unorthodox doesn't change the fact that those fundamentals were so sound. There's a lot more "science" in analyzing goaltenders than some realize, and by "science," I do not mean simple stats! (sv%, gga, ect. The analytics Randall just posted, however, are quite illustrative)
But if he could fix something that seems so easy to fix, like hugging the post, couldn't he just as easily turn into something surprisingly good?
The problem is, hugging the post isn't the problem, but rather, a symptom of the problem. The problem is his questionable balance when he goes down and his ability to recover. He wasn't hugging the post in the 2nd NYR goal because he had already committed, and couldn't adjust/recover.
Edited by erickompositör72, 03 January 2018 - 02:22 PM.