That, ultimately, might not be the true point of Brodeur is a Fraud, but it is something that must be said nonetheless. You don't threaten all-time records in wins and shutouts just because you have a good team in front of you.
The tricky part, though, is assessing any player in any sport compared to other players of similar greatness in different eras. Hockey is one of the truest team sports and is also a very diverse game from generation to generation.
For years, goalies could not even go down to the ice to stop a puck. The Bobby Orr era brought about a difficult time for tenders, but the Wayne Gretzky just about nuked GAA and save percentage stats.
Then, of course, there was the Dead Puck Era. A time in which the 100-point fire hydrants of the Eighties were replaced by goalies being outfitted like tanks producing once-unthinkable sub-2.00 GAA seasons.
Patrick Roy won a Cup in both eras. Martin Brodeur enjoyed his prime years in the no-score years. Some say Roy was better; some say Dominik Hasek was better than both.
But beyond his peers, how do you really compare Brodeur to ... Jacques Plante? To Georges Vezina? To Ken Dryden?
The John Hollingers of the world think that you can adjust stats to tell you anything, but the problem is that these players weren't worried about micro managing save percentages. Is it fair to say that (throwing out the steroid talk for a moment) Barry Bonds was, cleanly or not, a better home run hitter than Babe Ruth? Bonds hit more homers, but Ruth out-homered opposing teams in his day. Relatively speaking, Ruth was Gretzky-like. Incomparable. But can you say he's a better dinger-man than Bonds? It's futile.
Brodeur's career, to me, is quite a lot like Emmitt Smith's. Both players were among the best in their position in their primes. Both were seemingly indestructible compared to their peers, allowing them to amass staggering numbers. And both were, at least slightly, damned by the fact that they played along with Hall of Fame teammates and lacked the artfulness of their best counterparts. They even share the similar quality of owning three championship rings.
Brodeur is to Smith as Dominik Hasek is to Barry Sanders.
(Although Brodeur probably butchers English less often than Smith, even if it might be his second language.)
Right now, people are trotting out "but he got his stats beefed up by SO wins!" and that's fine. It's relevant. But he's 36 years old. If he plays 4-6 years, he could add 100 to 150 wins to his totals. Will that make him the best goalie of all-time?
Some will probably say yes, others will turn red faced and scream "No!"; there is simply no way to truly know. Ultimately, it's subjective: once the stats melt away it's all about nostalgia, rooting interest, what games you get to see and stylistic preferences.
How about, instead of grinding your teeth fighting for or against Brodeur, you just enjoy being alive to see records being broken? After all, it may take a few generations to break Marty's records. Might as well make THE BEST of it.