Trade and Question: What is the Change in Value for a Multi-Cat Player Positional Shift?

[squirrel]

Hey Everyone

Im looking at a trade that raised a question about positional value in my head and i wanted to get your thoughts on it. First, the trade:

Dynasty league - 16 teams, Rosters of 38, keep 31. Start 12F 6D 2G. (G,A,Pts,+/-, PIM, PPP, SHP, GAA, SV%, SO)

I was offered Byfuglien in a straight up trade for Brent Burns because im now short a Forward (with Burns shifted back to D) and have surplus D. By all accounts, Byfuglien will play exclusively as a forward this year.

GP G A PTS +/- PIM Shots PPG PPA
- Byfuglien : 78 20 36 56 -20 86 256 8 18
- B.Burns : 69 22 26 48 26 34 245 2 9

My question is this. Their stats are pretty similar (Buff ranks a little bit better in our setup), their age is the same (both 29). Normally, all things being equal, i'd value the D man more highly than the F (especially without counting hits or blocked shots). But when you're dealing with multi-category players, is there much change in value when they get shifted positions? IE Are Buff and Burns worth 2X more as a D than as a F, and therefore i'd be best passing on this deal? Or does the rarity of mult-cat players nullify the drop in value when they get shifted to a less valuable position?

Appreciate your thoughts on this!

Assumptions:
- I know Burns has no guarantee he'll repeat the same stats from the blue line, but with Boyle gone i don't see a significant drop next year
- Byfuglien also has a weight/injury/motivation history with a preference for playing D that scares me as well. but let's assume he stays motivated as a Forward.

[ztking]

It's all about replacement level players. So depending on how your cats are scored , I'd look at how many points the average D or RW gets and compare it to Buff/Burns. Or how big the gap is between a FA RW and D. If a replacement player on RW vs your RW guy is noticeably worse than the replacement player on D vs your D guy then obviously you choose the RW.

[squirrel]

I agree, but the issue with Multi-cat is there are so few of them, that replacement level players arent necessarily statisically releveant.

[ztking]

Oh I'm not saying user another dual position guy if that's what you mean, but look at the replacement for the position of both guys. So if you choose Buff look at the RW and if you choose Burns look at the D and RW replacement for them.

[petegreg21]

If I'm understanding this properly, it's more about multi positional eligibility more than multi cat. The biggest value with these guys has been the D/RW eligibility.

From Buff we were able to get extra blocks from our RW (similar to having FOW from the wing)
From Burns: we got extra scoring in our D position.

I'm a Buff owner, so this link has been very helpful when assessing what to expect going forward.

His scoring was at the same clip which is good, so in your league I think Byfuglien sees a very negligible change in value.

Burns, I'd peg at 37-43 points from the blue line, but going back to his D days before, I'd expect a big dip in SOG and historically he's been average in +/- so I won't bank on his +26 either.

Personally I'd take Byfuglien in this one, especially if you're down a forward.

[havanablast21]

If I'm understanding this properly, it's more about multi positional eligibility more than multi cat. The biggest value with these guys has been the D/RW eligibility.

From Buff you were able to get extra blocks from your RW (similar to having FOW from the wing)
From Burns: You got extra scoring in your D position.

I'm a Buff owner, so this link has been very helpful when assessing what to expect going forward.

His scoring was at the same clip which is good, so in your league I think Byfuglien sees a very negligible change in value.

Burns, I'd peg at 37-43 points from the blue line, but going back to his D days before, I'd expect a big dip in SOG and historically he's been average in +/- so I won't bank on his +26 either.

Personally I'd take Byfuglien in this one, especially if you're down a forward.

Agree with Petegreg here! I like Buffy despite the weight concerns!

[squirrel]

Appreciate your analysis here, but i do mean multi-cat and not multi-position, so I guess im not expressing this very clearly. Sorry! Let me try again.

In our league, none of our categories reward multi-position players (typically FOW, Blocks, and to a lesser degree, hits). We dont count them. Our positions are F/D/G. That also eliminates most multi position benefit.

Let's assume we're points only. Now, you're right that the benefit with Burns was having him fill a D Slot with 60pt/82 game pace while he actually played forward. Following ftkings advice, a 50pt dman has a much higher replacement value (more difficult to replace) than a 50pt forward. Equally, Byfuglien, if he moves to F full time, becomes less valuable because a 55-60pt forward is far more common than a 55-60pt dman.

Academically speaking, the question is once we factor in multi-category bonuses (Byfuglien adds above replacement SOG and PIM), does it matter less what position they are playing? IE Byfuglien, while more valuable as a RW-D, is still almost as valuable as a pure F because of the peripherals he brings?

From an academic standpoint, it would be interesting if it was true. Mostly because, it would tell me that multi-cat players hold their value better than ones who only supply 1-2 stats, regardless of position. Now this has one very large assumption - that Burns can maintain the same stats with a shift to the back end. But for the sake of argument, im saying yes (though the guys at leftwinglock say no - http://www.leftwinglock.com/articles...of-Brent-Burns)

Now realistically speaking, this means so little in real life since the number of position changes in the NHL are so minimal there isn't enough statistical data to actually calculate meaningful value (other than a straight up comparison of position replacement). The reason i ask is as you have interpreted - does this shift in positions make a trade of Burns for Byfuglien still worthwhile, without factoring in team needs? Replacement analysis would say that this is a bad trade. Burns is worth a higher replacement value than Byfuglien. But because of the mult-cats Byfuglien brings (and continues to bring as a FWD - thanks for that link petergreg!), that this trade is fairly even and thus worth doing?

Based on everyone's feedback, it seems like Byfuglien is the preferred asset, injuries, weight, motivation, and team (the greatest indicator influence on +/-) aside I appreciate the input!