Gladwell: Age Bias in Hockey

obviously you suffer from reading comprehension problems.

I was not referring to jr but since you brought that up Gladwell never layed claim to coming up with theory on his own. He clearly credits Roger Barnwell.

Funny how you cannucks get so pissy when discussing hockey

I was referring to this article apparently written by sj member:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/juniors/2008/12/01/joyce_column_numbers/

 

My most humble and deepest apologies, boom.

And we only get pissy when confronted by morons. But that happens a lot when you're around.

 

Do tell me - in what way did I confront you on this thread.

I thought it would make for interesting discussion but you and JR always seem to want to turn every hockey thread into an argument - unless of course you started the thread.

 

Poor boom. What a victim.

 

Boom, I wasn't trying to start an argument.

I was saying that a lot of the media are reporting this part of Gladwell's book as news when , in fact, it's very, very old stuff.

And our very own F0F makes a valid argument.

When you look at the really exceptional players at the minor hockey league level, they're all playing one or two (the maximum) age groups up . The birth month is irrelevant and in fact may be a plus.

So, for a John Tavares-like player (who was born in September, btw)--, when he was 10 (Atom), he was likely outplaying kids in Peewee (12 years old)

 

Gladwell's argument likely applies in every youth sport.

Swimmers stress over aging up because they'll suddenly go from being the oldest and probably the biggest and strongest in the group, to the youngest. The best soccer players play up with older kids.

I think that's why Little League baseball rules set the birthdate cutoff at July 31 for quite a while. It's since been moved to April 30. Softball is still based on calendar year.

http://www.littleleague.org/Assets/forms_pubs/AgeChartBB_text_09.pdf
http://www.littleleague.org/Assets/forms_pubs/AgeChartSB_text_09.pdf

 

A big complaint against Gladwell - with many of his stories and books - is that he takes theories that have been out there forever, and claims them as his own and people think he came up with them, from the stuff in Blink to Tipping Point, etc. He faces that criticism pretty head-on, I think, by always acknowledging that he takes academic work but repackages it for the general public. Here's a section in a recent New York magazine profile of him.

My favorite story of his lately was the one last year on how criminal profiling is basically bogus. That's here:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/12/071112fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all

Here's the passage in New York:

 

I did not realize that was FOF but he does make a valid point on elite players jumping age groups.

Still the overall numbers are interesting to ponder.

Whatever the sport - if the age requirements work out that you are one of older kids you have an advantage most of time.

 

When boys age up from 11-12 to 13-14 it's hard. The elite swimmers can catch up quickly, but the rest need more time.

 

Fall B Day can be an advantage if sport is by grade as opposed to age.

Given the choice many parents will opt to start their child one year later in school, making them one of older kids in grade.

 

Back when I was lugging a Northland around there were kids my age who were a year behind me in school. Some of the parents made no bones about the reason.

 

Happens in most age-group sports. You'll be hard-pressed to find a really good pro player born in Nov. or Dec. There are a few - but they're really, really good. Chris Evert. Monica Seles. James Blake. Not many.

Again, a kid born in January or Feb. has nearly a year up on a kid born the same year, potentially playing in the same cateogry, but born in Nov. or Dec.