Gladwell: Age Bias in Hockey

What's interesting is that many of the most recent #1 selections in the NHL draft are "late birthdays", i.e. kids born Sept 15 or later.

2008 - John Tavares (September 20) or Victor Hedman (December 18)
2007 - Pat Kane - November
2004 - Alexander Ovechkin - September 17
2003 - Marc-Andre Fleury - November 28. Eric Staal, the #2 pick, is also a late birthday
2000 - Rick DiPietro - September 19

 

With Hedman, or any of the European skaters, would the structure for age-group hockey as far as cut-off dates be different than in North America?

 

Particularly if you consider organized youth sports for, umm, non-humans. The first railbird who used actual birthdate as a factor in handicapping 2-year-olds is not available for comment.

 

Good question, and one to which I do not have the answer.

 

Sirs, Madames,

Throughout Europe, east and Scandinavia, birth year (calendar) is the criterion. In short hand, it's always, say, 90s, 91s, 92s.

I think Gladwell's (Barnwall's or whatever's) argument falls apart the higher up you go. If you're talking about the top one, two or three percent, the birth year is at best irrelevant to birth-month bias and in fact might even favour players born late in the year. The best way to measure that top 1 percent--which might be up for dispute in broad strokes--is to look at your top ten picks and maybe even your top five in draft years. At that point the argument falls apart.

Gladwell's using Med Hat is incredibly weak. Canadian junior tryouts are a better measure than MH. It was 21-17 first six months versus July on. Two players born in January. Two in September, ditto Oct, Nov.

It might have effect on the very lower ranks of age-group hockey--I'm sure that it does. But the idea that birth month eliminates hockey genius in the way Gladwell describes is laughable. He makes it sound like a Nov birthdate is like writing lefthanded and wanting to be a MLB second baseman.

(Bonus points: Who's the best known truly lefthanded (not left-hand hitting, but left handed, signs autographs with his left hand, in MLB history?)

o-<

 

When my daughter first started swimming, the coach was all excited that her birthday was in June, because June 1 is the cutoff date, so she was one of the oldest kids.

Of course, she turned out to be a terrible swimmer (relatively speaking), but she's got a great birthday

 

We used to see this problem all the time in youth soccer, which used a Sept. 1 birth date as the cutoff for the next year in establishing roster for select teams. However, the Olympic Development Program used the calendar year. As a result, the "oldest" kids in youth soccer (Sept-Dec) were now the youngest and a grade behind in school than their competitors. They were often overlooked by coaches in the 11-14 age groups because the older kids were bigger, stronger, faster. Those differences don't tend to blur until the high school years.

 

FoF,

I agree that for the very top talents -- the top 1% -- birth month is irrelevant. Talent, mixed with copious practice, overcomes any other advantage. But what about for the NHL plugger? The third-liner who bounces from team to team and from the minors to the NHL; is birth month an advantage for the lesser players? I think Gladwell and Barnwall would argue that a player of that caliber born in January is more likely to get advantages at a younger age than a player born in November.

 

Your Holiness,

Not irrelevant per se. If you look at the composition of hockey's top 1, 2, 3 percent, what would pass for genius talents in other fields, Mensa or whatever, in fact the reverse is true. Over the last five drafts or so there is an usual number genius talents born in late months than early. Not that the late seasons are equal to the early seasons--no, the late seasons outstrip the Jan-Aprs. It's sorta like saying a vegetarian can't be a physicist, except for Einstein (and maybe Richard Feynmann). Or the weather's too crappy and ice time is so hard to get that Halifax will never produce another NHLer beside Sidney Crosby. The arguments that Gladwell makes -- re Bill Gates, the Beatles, what-have-you -- is, roughly, circumstance/opportunity/environment are under-rated when one speaks of giftedness. It might be true -- somewhere. The example he cites (especually with Med Hat) doesn't hold up.

o-<

 

Within hockey, those top guys are the genius level. But compared to the rest of Canada and the northern United States, any guy who is playing in the NHL is a genius-level hockey player.

 

You still have not explained why the number of players in the NHL born in Jan/ Feb / March outnumber those born in Oct/Nov/ Dec by over 100 players.

 

Mr 70,

That's not my concern or interest. I'm saying that in the top 2 or 3 percent among players the age-bias is not eliminated but in fact reversed. If a avg 10-year-old born in Nov is at a disadvantage playing against early-month 10-year-olds then Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin/Kane etc benefited as a late-born 10-year-old playing against 11- or even 12-year-olds--benefited even more than an early-month 10-year-old would have if he too played up.

o-<