Pages

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Baltimore Blizzards

In NHL09, if you create a player, he automatically goes into the Free Agent roster. If you create a team, you can build it out of players from any team. However, if you want to use your created team in a season or dynasty, you must replace another team. But, any players you created stay in the Free Agent roster. So, even though a created player is on your team, there is another copy of him as a free agent, who then gets sucked into playing on other teams.

So, I'm in year 2 of a dynasty using the Baltimore Blizzards (who replaced the Anaheim Ducks). Nearly all of the players on the team are also on other teams. I was wondering how much of an advantage playing on the Baltimore Blizzards must be to each player, as the Blizzards are in fact the best team in town. I am only 23 games into the second year. (BTW, we were eliminated from the playoffs last year in the first round by Vancouver, whose goalie is awfully familiar....)

First I gathered all the stats...

# Name Other Team G (BBZ) G (Other) A (BBZ) A (Other) PTS (BBZ) PTS (Other) PIMS (BBZ) PIMS (Other) +/- (BBZ) +/- (Other) Hits (BBZ) Hits (Other)
9 T. Regan NYI 35 13 21 11 45 24 36 4 51 19 148 60
11 K. Brooks NYI 19 9 24 18 43 27 15 0 51 19 52 36
13 D. Miller LA 3 1 26 13 29 14 26 19 53 -6 152 20
14 S. Marasinghe BUF 0 0 6 7 6 7 27 21 4 -11 34 48
25 M. Phelps MTL 4 23 4 10 8 3 4 13 12 6 21 18
26 A. El-Zeftawy NAS 3 5 26 10 29 15 48 36 49 -3 105 72
27 M. Regan CBJ 0 1 9 12 9 13 42 63 21 -9 73 105
38 A. Goldberger FLA 2 4 4 15 7 19 0 9 4 6 23 55
42 J. Jones CBJ 5 5 5 19 10 24 2 0 12 -2 21 50
48 M. Ibach EDM 1 5 3 7 4 12 4 6 5 5 8 18
49 C. Ebadi MTL 4 2 6 6 10 8 12 7 8 -3 49 42
51 A. Glaros FLA 6 14 4 9 10 23 8 6 8 14 27 14
64 B. Twomey CAR 13 15 18 12 31 27 14 8 46 4 51 49
69 D. Houser FLA 2 9 6 17 8 26 15 7 10 11 39 57
76 M. Clise BOS 5 4 3 2 8 6 16 13 8 -6 9 8
90 R. Cobbinz MIN 1 2 9 10 10 12 5 9 7 4 51 23


# Name Other Team GP (BBZ) GP (Other) GAA (BBZ) GAA (Other) W (BBZ) W (Other) L (BBZ) L (Other) SV% (BBZ) SV% (Other) SO (BBZ) SO (Other)
0 T. Reganen VAN 17 19 2.16 2.59 11 7 5 12 0.876 0.909 1 0


Then I took the Baltimore Blizzards stat for each player and subtracted the other team's stat for each player....

# Name Other Team ΔG ΔA ΔPTS ΔPIMS Δ+/- ΔHits
9 T. Regan NYI 22 10 21 32 32 88
11 K. Brooks NYI 10 6 16 15 32 16
13 D. Miller LA 2 13 15 7 59 132
14 S. Marasinghe BUF 0 -1 -1 6 15 -14
25 M. Phelps MTL -19 -6 5 -9 6 3
26 A. El-Zeftawy NAS -2 16 14 12 52 33
27 M. Regan CBJ -1 -3 -4 -21 30 -32
38 A. Goldberger FLA -2 -11 -12 -9 -2 -32
42 J. Jones CBJ 0 -14 -14 2 14 -29
48 M. Ibach EDM -4 -4 -8 -2 0 -10
49 C. Ebadi MTL 2 0 2 5 11 7
51 A. Glaros FLA -8 -5 -13 2 -6 13
64 B. Twomey CAR -2 6 4 6 42 2
69 D. Houser FLA -7 -11 -18 8 -1 -18
76 M. Clise BOS 1 1 2 3 14 1
90 R. Cobbinz MIN -1 -1 -2 -4 3 28


# Name Other Team ΔGP ΔGAA ΔW ΔL ΔSV% ΔSO
0 T. Reganen VAN -2 -0.43 4 -7 -0.033 1



So, here's my analysis thus far in the season....

Defensive players (Miller, Marasinghe, El-Zeftawy, M. Regan, Houser, Cobbinz) generally have much better +/-'s on the Blizzards, and of course, a lot more penalties. Baltimore's top line (El-Zeftawy & Miller) gets many many more hits and assists in Baltimore. I expected this to be the trend across the board. I'm surprised.

Forwards are pretty much all over the place. However, the +/- is usually better, and there's probably more penalties to be had on the Blizzards.

As for star goalie Timo Reganen, he wins a lot more on the Blizzards, but his save percentage isn't as high. He lets in fewer goals on the Blizzards and wins more, but he's also facing fewer shots.

Players that are better off on the Baltimore Blizzards:
In all areas, the following players had higher numbers on the Blizz: D. Miller, T. Regan, K. Brooks, and M. Clise.

I was expecting all the stats to be more clear cut than this. I'll probably revisit this when the season ends.... But after the playoffs, it doesn't matter which team players would have been better off statistically on, as long as Baltimore wins the Cup, hon.

No comments:

Post a Comment