Didn't want to get this thread started again but then I checked the ages of 21 CA, 2010, RHP, PG rating - 9 or above, who had committed to a 4 year school. The average birthdate should be 5/1/92. The average birthdate was 1 or 2/92. 7 of the 21 were born before the 12/1/91 cutoff date. None, that's right none, were born after 8/16/92. In other words a RHP who is born after August and isn't held back is at a serious, serious disadvantage when it comes to recruiting.
Went through the top 500 draft prospects for 2010 as determined by PGX. Of approximately 200 HS players with ages listed in the top 500 there were only 4 whose birthdates were after 8/92 and none of them was in the top 250. The average HS player in the top 500 was born in 1991. The advantage is clearly overwhelming and from these numbers it is pretty clear that talent alone isn't enough to overcome the age difference for most players since they are competing with players with similar talent who are a year older.
The percentage all 2010's born after 8/92 is probably about the same 2% you found on PGX.(4 out of 200)
Let's see fillsfan. California has more kids than any other state and the start date for California is 12/1. That means that about 25% (September, October, November) of CA 2010s are born after 8/92. There are also other states with similar start dates. It is pretty reasonable to assume that about 15% of 2010's nationwide are born after that. One thing we can be certain of is that it is nowhere near 2%. Of course when you consider the top 250 prospects the ratio is inifinite as there are none born after 8/92.
Nice try. Next time use a purely emotional argument. That's the most effective way to argue against facts. In fact the most popular approach seems to be agreeing that there's a disadvantage based on age and then going on to say that it doesn't matter --- Why not? Because, that's why!
Nice try. Next time use a purely emotional argument. That's the most effective way to argue against facts. In fact the most popular approach seems to be agreeing that there's a disadvantage based on age and then going on to say that it doesn't matter --- Why not? Because, that's why!
New Jersey's and many other eastern states have cut off dates to start school of 9/30. In this area I would bet no more than 2-4% of all 2010's are born after August.
CADad, since you have posted 12 out of the last 26 and 4 of the last five posts in this thread it would seem to me it is far more emotional to you than any other poster. I haven't even thought of this thread until you were compelled to keep it alive with your weekly update.
CADad, since you have posted 12 out of the last 26 and 4 of the last five posts in this thread it would seem to me it is far more emotional to you than any other poster. I haven't even thought of this thread until you were compelled to keep it alive with your weekly update.
First you note facts that are correct, twist them slightly (1 month is over 8% so it is going to be less than 8% among ballplayers but nowhere close to 2% even in your area.) but were already taken into account within what I posted, then you make a purely emotional argument. Nicely done.
There's a difference between being emotional about a topic and making emotional vs. factual arguments.
There's a difference between being emotional about a topic and making emotional vs. factual arguments.
Take it easy!! I don't know where you come up with emotional theme here. You have kept this thread alive for the past month or so. I could really care less about the whole thing. But, I get my of 2-4% from my estimate that of the 8% born after 8/92 in our school system most are held back. Leaving 2-4%
You said. "There are also other states with similar start dates. It is pretty reasonable to assume that about 15% of 2010's nationwide are born after that. One thing we can be certain of is that it is nowhere near 2%."
Then you argue about your "facts". When did assumptions become facts?
Have fun arguing with yourself. I'll go back to skipping over this thread when I see your name as the last poster.
You said. "There are also other states with similar start dates. It is pretty reasonable to assume that about 15% of 2010's nationwide are born after that. One thing we can be certain of is that it is nowhere near 2%."
Then you argue about your "facts". When did assumptions become facts?
Have fun arguing with yourself. I'll go back to skipping over this thread when I see your name as the last poster.
I am just jumping in here and have not read all the previous posts so sorry if the content here is redundant. Those interested in this topic should read the book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. This will give you a clear understanding of the relationship between early birthdays and baseball success for a given recruiting year. The book uses data compiled from jr hockey leagues and finds the same thing - those born Sept-Jan are far more successful than those born after Feb 1. The data in the book is stunning actually and indisputable.
It is all related to opportunity. From the start of competitive youth baseball, the older kids in the age group are usually always the more advanced/better players. Thus at an earlier age, they tend to get the benefit of playing against better competition (playing up), likely get a higher level of coaching/instruction and in general get a better opportunity to get better. The younger players of a given age group may be the ones that either just make the team and don't play much or even get cut which can further set their training /learning back a whole year as they would likely go find a lower level team to play for with lower level coaches, competition, etc.
We see this all the time in youth baseball, the best players for a given age group are more likely the ones to to be asked to play on elite club/travel team, getting better coaching, more playing time, better competition, etc. Over the years the benefits from this long-term opportunity advantage accumulates over the younger players in the same grad class and results in the top baseball prospects for that grad class. Another confirmation, I just looked though the PG list of top 2011 draft prospects and while most 2011s should have birthdays in 1993, all but 2 of the HS prospects on the list had a 1992 birthdays. We have all seen the "older" kids in a given age group and noticed the advantage they have (especially in 10-14U baseball). Few of us (including me), however, could appreciate how far reaching this advantage is for playing high level baseball later in life - it is an advantage that never goes away. So parents, if you want to optimize you sons chances of playing high level baseball, plan those kids for October/Nov birthdays OR hold them back a year early on.
It is all related to opportunity. From the start of competitive youth baseball, the older kids in the age group are usually always the more advanced/better players. Thus at an earlier age, they tend to get the benefit of playing against better competition (playing up), likely get a higher level of coaching/instruction and in general get a better opportunity to get better. The younger players of a given age group may be the ones that either just make the team and don't play much or even get cut which can further set their training /learning back a whole year as they would likely go find a lower level team to play for with lower level coaches, competition, etc.
We see this all the time in youth baseball, the best players for a given age group are more likely the ones to to be asked to play on elite club/travel team, getting better coaching, more playing time, better competition, etc. Over the years the benefits from this long-term opportunity advantage accumulates over the younger players in the same grad class and results in the top baseball prospects for that grad class. Another confirmation, I just looked though the PG list of top 2011 draft prospects and while most 2011s should have birthdays in 1993, all but 2 of the HS prospects on the list had a 1992 birthdays. We have all seen the "older" kids in a given age group and noticed the advantage they have (especially in 10-14U baseball). Few of us (including me), however, could appreciate how far reaching this advantage is for playing high level baseball later in life - it is an advantage that never goes away. So parents, if you want to optimize you sons chances of playing high level baseball, plan those kids for October/Nov birthdays OR hold them back a year early on.
I'm confused now.
Could somebody give the average start dates and ages for first grade in US public schools?
My son is a 8/92 2010 and one of the youngest if not youngest on his Varsity BB team. The rest are older, and many over a year older than he is.
He was 5yo when he started First grade and turned 6yo shortly after school started.
Could somebody give the average start dates and ages for first grade in US public schools?
My son is a 8/92 2010 and one of the youngest if not youngest on his Varsity BB team. The rest are older, and many over a year older than he is.
He was 5yo when he started First grade and turned 6yo shortly after school started.
New2this,
If your son is an 8/92 2010, then he must have started first grade as a 5 year old. My son is also an 8/92 2010--he started kindergarten as a 4 year old and turned 5 shortly after school started.
My son did sign with a D-1 school; however, if I had known then (when my son started school) what I know now, I probably would have started him in school a year later. It has been a tougher road for him baseballwise--not because of talent, but because of physical development, and an extra year would have probably gotten him more looks (and more size).
If your son is an 8/92 2010, then he must have started first grade as a 5 year old. My son is also an 8/92 2010--he started kindergarten as a 4 year old and turned 5 shortly after school started.
My son did sign with a D-1 school; however, if I had known then (when my son started school) what I know now, I probably would have started him in school a year later. It has been a tougher road for him baseballwise--not because of talent, but because of physical development, and an extra year would have probably gotten him more looks (and more size).
From my point of view, the numbers are nice, but not surprising and completely unnecessary. Age is a huge, huge factor for all but a handful of players. I see it every day. Nonetheless, I am very impressed with the research, CA.
quote:Those interested in this topic should read the book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. This will give you a clear understanding of the relationship
MDbaseball ...... I referenced the book in my response as have a number of others. To me its a moot point. If you have been a parent, Coached youth (pre-puberescent) or Teen/young adults (growing through the long process of puberty), or are a Teacher, then you have seen that it does, indeed matter. I referenced a Little League age study done that demonstrated, that without question, being biologically older (not chronologically) dramatically affects how you stack up against your peers.
True, it eventually all evens out, we have all seen that. But that "evening out" can last well into the early 20's!
quote:Originally posted by Prime9:
MDbaseball ...... I referenced the book in my response as have a number of others. To me its a moot point. If you have been a parent, Coached youth (pre-puberescent) or Teen/young adults (growing through the long process of puberty), or are a Teacher, then you have seen that it does, indeed matter. I referenced a Little League age study done that demonstrated, that without question, being biologically older (not chronologically) dramatically affects how you stack up against your peers.
True, it eventually all evens out, we have all seen that. But that "evening out" can last well into the early 20's!
I don't think it's moot. While we have all have experienced the effect of age in baseball as our kids have played through the years, it is a common misconception that this benefit doesn't accumulate through the years and that suddenly "it all evens out" (even you say it below). This is just not true - it doesn't even out - ever!!! Some people actually think it start to "even out" as early as 15 or 16 since physical differences between the old and young within an age group are less. No chance!
The older kids go on to play high level college baseball and some get drafted. The younger ones, on average are not going to play college baseball and will end up playing intermural Ultimate Frisbee in college and on average will be in the work place sooner and have missed their chance. Never evens out..
This discussion is really futile.
The boys age is what it is
The cut off dates are what they are--no matter what date is used for the cut off there will be those who feel they being short changed
Learn to live with the hand you are dealt--you can't jus keep wanting to change things becuase they do not fit you
The boys age is what it is
The cut off dates are what they are--no matter what date is used for the cut off there will be those who feel they being short changed
Learn to live with the hand you are dealt--you can't jus keep wanting to change things becuase they do not fit you
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
This discussion is really futile.
The boys age is what it is
The cut off dates are what they are--no matter what date is used for the cut off there will be those who feel they being short changed
Learn to live with the hand you are dealt--you can't jus keep wanting to change things becuase they do not fit you
TR, you are missing the point. I could care less about this topic since it doesn't affect me - just fascinated by the data and how consistent it is.
quote:Originally posted by mdbaseballfan2010:
... just fascinated by the data and how consistent it is.
Is it fascinating enough for you to do the work to dig out the age distribution of Canadian pro hockey players? I've seen the age distribution for younger teen hockey players, and as you say, it is stunning.
But I wonder if that distribution actually persists. In fact, if either of us had an avatar, I'd risk an avatar bet with you that it does (eventually) "even out."
Only did hockey for one year, but USA Hockey (all players must belong) uses birth year only- no month/day cutoff. Born Jan 1990 or Dec 1990, you're in the same bracket.
USLacrosse (all players must belong) uses May 31 cutoff, I think, so you can play U12 and turn 12 during the season.
USLacrosse (all players must belong) uses May 31 cutoff, I think, so you can play U12 and turn 12 during the season.
Obviously once you're in college there's nothing that can be done except to accept the challenge and do everything you can to outwork the competition.
For those at earlier stages in the process there is something that can be done.
Kids who are in states with a later cutoff date than other parts of the nation can be started at the same time as the rest of the nation.
Kids can make an adjustment by repeating a grade in extreme cases. (I'm not for this in most cases unless there are social or academic reasons.)
Those few who can afford it can take a postgraduate year to catch up.
The one thing that surprises me is that no coaches seem to have taken advantage of the situation by making a 2012 offer to a younger 2010 grad who is just as talented as his 2011 peers of the same age, with the stipulation that they do a postgraduate year or the equivalent.
For those at earlier stages in the process there is something that can be done.
Kids who are in states with a later cutoff date than other parts of the nation can be started at the same time as the rest of the nation.
Kids can make an adjustment by repeating a grade in extreme cases. (I'm not for this in most cases unless there are social or academic reasons.)
Those few who can afford it can take a postgraduate year to catch up.
The one thing that surprises me is that no coaches seem to have taken advantage of the situation by making a 2012 offer to a younger 2010 grad who is just as talented as his 2011 peers of the same age, with the stipulation that they do a postgraduate year or the equivalent.
quote:suddenly "it all evens out" (even you say it below). This is just not true - it doesn't even out - ever!!!
MD .. I now understand what you mean. If an athlete has the birthdate "advantage" AND has the additional big break of being an "early maturer" (biological-advanced, not necessarily more skilled) then those factors work for him and against the others and do have a compounding affect as the research suggests.
For those athletes who don't fall by the wayside but do continue to play; the biological versus chronological age seperation disappears once puberty is complete. That is where it does even out physically, once puberty is complete. The cumulative affect, however, as you say and is well covered in the Outlier book, doesn't disappear.
Where I disagree is that the biological advanced vs. chronological age disparities, DO even out when puberty is complete. Those athletes, if they are still playing, are often the "ones that slipped thru the cracks or appeared from nowhere." Many times they have spent more time working on skills just so they can compete, that they are often very good players (if they are still in the game).
My older son will be 17 when he graduates.His birthday is in Oct. and yes,if I could do it over I would,but oh well. Its done.He has had some benifits...he has always had to work longer and harder than the next guy who had a year on him or was just plain talented. Most of the so called studs of the "Pony" days are no longer playing baseball and those who are, my son has clearly passed up when it comes to baseball skills and hitting.Why, because he worked his b*** off and gained a great work-ethic in the process.Yes he is still going through the "growing" process beacuse he was a late bloomer,but he knows now exactly what he needs to do the play the next level.All the early disappointments are now made worth it when he meets these same kids on the field. While other guys are socializing he is working on his game.
baseballfam4,
Same here except the kids who were older than him in PONY and the same grade in HS include 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick, a few later round picks and multiple D1 signees. Same can be expected this year from the kids still in HS who are the same age or older.
Same here except the kids who were older than him in PONY and the same grade in HS include 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick, a few later round picks and multiple D1 signees. Same can be expected this year from the kids still in HS who are the same age or older.
CADad - we did have some discussions with D1 schools about taking a PG year for my 17 year old senior. The Ivy's and Patriots frown on red-shirt so they brought up this option to deal with the very "young" senior. It's an expensive option. My son signed D3 in the end, but we talked about it long and hard. Like many here, if we could have done it all again we would have had him start school later. What was the rush? TRHit - I don't think age "is what it is". I've come to realize that the system is easily gamed and the age where the student starts school is in control of the parent. It's one of the few things that the parent actually does control. I also agree with the posters who say that starting your son's education artificially late is cheating. We didn't cheat - but we probably lost out a little bit too.
This topic is like the energizer bunny!
I am not going to argue, it is a parent's perogative to hold their child back, but I don't think it will make a difference as far as sports are concerned, if he lacks the talent, the player will not move ahead no matter how big or small he is.
One question, if it is true that the bigger, more mature player gets the advantage, why are college freshman getting starting spots over the older, bigger upper classman?
I am not going to argue, it is a parent's perogative to hold their child back, but I don't think it will make a difference as far as sports are concerned, if he lacks the talent, the player will not move ahead no matter how big or small he is.
One question, if it is true that the bigger, more mature player gets the advantage, why are college freshman getting starting spots over the older, bigger upper classman?
TPM,
Yes, there are occasions when a freshman starts over an older player, but if Baseball America can be believed it is rare.
In their Top 25 released this week BA published the expected starting lineups for each team and four leading pitchers. Out of 325 starting positions, only 25 were expected to be held by freshman (13%). Older and stronger still wins the day in most cases.
Yes, there are occasions when a freshman starts over an older player, but if Baseball America can be believed it is rare.
In their Top 25 released this week BA published the expected starting lineups for each team and four leading pitchers. Out of 325 starting positions, only 25 were expected to be held by freshman (13%). Older and stronger still wins the day in most cases.
leftyss,
I remember from my days in the NE that the PostGrad option was far more available there than out here. It makes sense that the Ivies would be in a position to take advantage of them. BTW, I tend to agree that starting them artificially late, and I don't know exactly where the cutoff date is, is cheating to some degree. I just figure if most of the states in the country have a September 1st date then there shouldn't be any issue with using that date in any state.
I remember from my days in the NE that the PostGrad option was far more available there than out here. It makes sense that the Ivies would be in a position to take advantage of them. BTW, I tend to agree that starting them artificially late, and I don't know exactly where the cutoff date is, is cheating to some degree. I just figure if most of the states in the country have a September 1st date then there shouldn't be any issue with using that date in any state.
quote:Originally posted by Hot Corner Dad:
TPM,
Yes, there are occasions when a freshman starts over an older player, but if Baseball America can be believed it is rare.
In their Top 25 released this week BA published the expected starting lineups for each team and four leading pitchers. Out of 325 starting positions, only 25 were expected to be held by freshman (13%). Older and stronger still wins the day in most cases.
Baseball hasn't begun yet, let us know after the season ends.
BTW, the reason many freshman DON'T play at first is because they are not as yet experienced, but as the season goes on, things do change.
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
This topic is like the energizer bunny!
I am not going to argue, it is a parent's perogative to hold their child back, but I don't think it will make a difference as far as sports are concerned, if he lacks the talent, the player will not move ahead no matter how big or small he is.
One question, if it is true that the bigger, more mature player gets the advantage, why are college freshman getting starting spots over the older, bigger upper classman?
TPM - When talking about the advantage of older over younger on this topic, I am referring to players in the same graduation class. If you want to compare across different classes it become more difficult to assess but it is likely that Freshmen that do start in front of upperclassmen were the older players within their grad class.
quote:but it is likely that Freshmen that do start in front of upperclassmen were the older players within their grad class.
md, you seem to have some pretty firmly held positions.
I want to make sure I understand your position so let me provide a 3 player example.
All three players graduated high school in June of 2000, came from two adjacent towns, played in rival little leagues and played either Legion or Joe Dimaggio, which were comparable quality at that time. One of the three also played travel ball and one of the three, on a comparable basis, did a lot of showcases. Two of the 3 also played football in HS.
Player 1 was born in March of 1982 so he had just turned 18 at graduation.
Player 2 was born in November of 1981, so he was 18 years and 7 months at graduation.
Player 3 was born in June of 1982 so he was 17 at graduation.
Two of these 3 players received DI scholarships to a Pac10 school coming out of high school.
Is their age at graduation meaningful and does it tell you which ones received the scholarships and why?
One of the 3 eventually was drafted out of college and played Milb.
Is the age at high school graduation meaningful in knowing which one? If so how and why? If not, why?
quote:Originally posted by Hot Corner Dad:
TPM,
Yes, there are occasions when a freshman starts over an older player, but if Baseball America can be believed it is rare.
In their Top 25 released this week BA published the expected starting lineups for each team and four leading pitchers. Out of 325 starting positions, only 25 were expected to be held by freshman (13%). Older and stronger still wins the day in most cases.
Hot Corner,
I completely disagree with your reasoning.
Accepting BA as "gospel" is a major mistake. In fact, I canceled my subscription after their 2009 predictions because they had information on players that was fundamentally just wrong. They had right handed hitters listed as lefties, guys who threw 88 to 91 listed as "soft tossers" and the like.
But more importantly, as TPM suggests, college coaches don't often "give" starting spots to freshman based on Fall ball. They would lose all credibility with upper classmen to do that.
College coaches will almost always provide the upper class player the opportunity to start the season and play his way into or out of the line up. The freshman has to "earn" his way into the lineup when he gets a chance.
What is posted as the lineup in January often times is very different than the start of the lineup for the first conference game.
Look at Stanford this season. Their head coach was interviewed last week and has no freshman listed as his current starters. Their freshman class is unanimously viewed as one of the top 5 nationally.
I would be willing to bet that by the first Pac10 game(about 4 weeks into the season), 2-3 freshman pitchers will receive major innings and 3 position players will start.
Top college coaches don't pay any attention to what is in BA or the line up in January. Not sure why you would in this thread.
infielddad,
Too small of a sample. Within that small of a sample differences in talent are often going to overwhelm the age difference. When you go to a large sample then it is a matter of players with the same ability level at a given age competing against players who had the same ability at that age but are now a year older.
Now if you took a hundred groups like you've shown then I'd say that much more often than not you'd see the effects of age.
I could take a group of three players from our area and show how it exactly tracks the age advantage and that would be fairly meaningless because once again it is too small of a sample. For example, two players who both were well down in the rotation as juniors, both topped out at 87 at 17 yo. Their velocities tracked pretty consistently by age up through 17yo. One is a year older. Which one was a second round pick, which is a JC guy? The one who was a year older for his grade is the 2nd round pick. Does that prove an age advantage? Absolutely not. Too small of a sample and in this case the talent was the real difference. Now if the older player had started school a year sooner as would normally be done in CA and was topping out at 87 as a HS senior who got limited innings and didn't throw against the marquee teams he wouldn't have been drafted as high. The talent was there so he probably would have still been drafted but he wouldn't have most likely gotten second round money. Perhaps he would have gone to college and eventually gotten more. Who knows?
BTW, are you going to tell us that freshmen disproportionally start ahead of sophmores, juniors and seniors? Remember, they were the freshmen once and now they're better or if not, possibly gone. BA may not be gospel but the trend makes plenty of sense.
Too small of a sample. Within that small of a sample differences in talent are often going to overwhelm the age difference. When you go to a large sample then it is a matter of players with the same ability level at a given age competing against players who had the same ability at that age but are now a year older.
Now if you took a hundred groups like you've shown then I'd say that much more often than not you'd see the effects of age.
I could take a group of three players from our area and show how it exactly tracks the age advantage and that would be fairly meaningless because once again it is too small of a sample. For example, two players who both were well down in the rotation as juniors, both topped out at 87 at 17 yo. Their velocities tracked pretty consistently by age up through 17yo. One is a year older. Which one was a second round pick, which is a JC guy? The one who was a year older for his grade is the 2nd round pick. Does that prove an age advantage? Absolutely not. Too small of a sample and in this case the talent was the real difference. Now if the older player had started school a year sooner as would normally be done in CA and was topping out at 87 as a HS senior who got limited innings and didn't throw against the marquee teams he wouldn't have been drafted as high. The talent was there so he probably would have still been drafted but he wouldn't have most likely gotten second round money. Perhaps he would have gone to college and eventually gotten more. Who knows?
BTW, are you going to tell us that freshmen disproportionally start ahead of sophmores, juniors and seniors? Remember, they were the freshmen once and now they're better or if not, possibly gone. BA may not be gospel but the trend makes plenty of sense.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
infielddad,
Too small of a sample. Within that small of a sample differences in talent are often going to overwhelm the age difference. When you go to a large sample then it is a matter of players with the same ability level at a given age competing against players who had the same ability at that age but are now a year older.
BTW, are you going to tell us that freshmen disproportionally start ahead of sophmores, juniors and seniors? Remember, they were the freshmen once and now they're better or if not, possibly gone. BA may not be gospel but the trend makes plenty of sense.
CADad, does it also make a difference if one plays travel year round while another is playing multiple sports?
That has been the subject of a vast number of threads on this sight.
If the older age plays multiple sports and the younger age is a year round baseball player, many argue the year round is the better player.
Heck, there is a thread in the General Section saying travel is now the critical feature and the OP who questioned it is getting shouted down. One poster in that thread suggested playing in college is the byproduct of travel baseball and plenty of posters seem to agree!
CADad,
md postulated, no, stated the following:
"but it is likely that Freshmen that do start in front of upperclassmen were the older players within their grad class."
My question was to md. md stated the "likely" conclusion in response to TPM. Sampling size had nothing to do with it. If the md conclusion is likely in that small population under discussion, why should it not apply elsewhere..like to mine?
As to why freshman play and do not play, I have posted many, many times on this site about my views that it is far more mental than physical. BA has, to my knowledge never measured heart, intensity and competitive drive, but they have incorrectly projected UCLA, Texas A&M and a few others that ended up unranked at the end, as the pre-season #1 more than once
"but it is likely that Freshmen that do start in front of upperclassmen were the older players within their grad class."
That's a good example of small sample size in my case. I know 2 players who ended up as freshman starters at a D1 and neither was what I'd call an older player or a younger player for their grade. So what does that mean?
I might guess that would happen to a degree but it would be very difficult to prove so I wouldn't go there personally. If anyone wants to go through a 100 or so rosters from last year and check to see how old the freshman starters were - thanks, I'll buy you a McDonald's coffee refill next time I run into you.
Guesses are based on our biases and are often wrong. For example, earlier I guessed that about 15% of the players in the US would be at an age disadvantage. I went through the numbers and it is closer to 10% so guesses and feelings aren't worth much.
I was simply responding to your question where you brought up 3 players as an example. Probably a bit of cherry picking on my part.
travel vs. multiple sports, apples vs oranges when it comes to age differences.
There are many paths to college baseball and the best path varies from location to location and individual to individual. There are HS programs that do such a good job of getting their players exposure that very little outside play is needed. There are HS programs that get their players almost no exposure and then travel ball, showcases, tournaments and college camps may have a significant role to play. Which of those plays the most important role will depend on the individual.
That's a good example of small sample size in my case. I know 2 players who ended up as freshman starters at a D1 and neither was what I'd call an older player or a younger player for their grade. So what does that mean?
I might guess that would happen to a degree but it would be very difficult to prove so I wouldn't go there personally. If anyone wants to go through a 100 or so rosters from last year and check to see how old the freshman starters were - thanks, I'll buy you a McDonald's coffee refill next time I run into you.
Guesses are based on our biases and are often wrong. For example, earlier I guessed that about 15% of the players in the US would be at an age disadvantage. I went through the numbers and it is closer to 10% so guesses and feelings aren't worth much.I was simply responding to your question where you brought up 3 players as an example. Probably a bit of cherry picking on my part.
travel vs. multiple sports, apples vs oranges when it comes to age differences.
There are many paths to college baseball and the best path varies from location to location and individual to individual. There are HS programs that do such a good job of getting their players exposure that very little outside play is needed. There are HS programs that get their players almost no exposure and then travel ball, showcases, tournaments and college camps may have a significant role to play. Which of those plays the most important role will depend on the individual.
quote:I might guess that would happen to a degree but it would be very difficult to prove so I wouldn't go there personally
I pretty much knew that.
While I am a bit surprised, I have enjoyed this dialogue with you as well as the give and take. We are not going to convince each other I don't think.
I respect your views and the efforts and research you accumulated to present them.
infielddad,
It is very difficult to change anyone's views. However, there are people out there who don't have a set view on some of these subjects and hopefully they can sift through these arguments, laugh a bit at those of us who are overly passionate about presenting our side of them, and take away something that will help their son in the future.
Thanks for the dialogue, I've enjoyed it also, even the part about the draft where you were right and I was wrong.
It is very difficult to change anyone's views. However, there are people out there who don't have a set view on some of these subjects and hopefully they can sift through these arguments, laugh a bit at those of us who are overly passionate about presenting our side of them, and take away something that will help their son in the future.
Thanks for the dialogue, I've enjoyed it also, even the part about the draft where you were right and I was wrong.
CADad,
Nothing wrong with presenting your point of view. No doubt being older can make a difference, in some cases.
If you are interested I would be happy to give you the email for a HC (in BA's top 25), I may be wrong, but I got the impression when choosing one player over another, he does not take birthdates into consideration, I really do feel that most of it is based upon projection, coachability and other intangibles that infielddad speaks about. This may give you a perspective from a coaches point of view.
Nothing wrong with presenting your point of view. No doubt being older can make a difference, in some cases.
If you are interested I would be happy to give you the email for a HC (in BA's top 25), I may be wrong, but I got the impression when choosing one player over another, he does not take birthdates into consideration, I really do feel that most of it is based upon projection, coachability and other intangibles that infielddad speaks about. This may give you a perspective from a coaches point of view.
quote:Thanks for the dialogue, I've enjoyed it also, even the part about the draft where you were right and I was wrong.
I thought I was right about everything.
My younger son,who went to a private kindergarten, had no choice but to start at 5yrs old w/a fall birthday. He is now a freshman at a very competitive HS, one of his friends, who was always older,homeschooled from 8 to 9th(basically held back) and now he is a freshman w/my son. He made the baseball team and is getting his drivers license next week!!WOW.The thing is, on this kid's travel team he plays on 2013 graduation year.(he's playing down!) My son plays on 18u travel team.
(thank goodness)Maybe that will equal it all out.
(thank goodness)Maybe that will equal it all out.
TPM,
Thanks, but no need. I would guess that almost every coach would do the same and that very few would try to take advantage of a younger player with a bit more projectability if they could get a an older player in the same grade who is better right now. Like you say they probably wouldn't take the birthdate into consideration at all. A bird in hand...
Thanks, but no need. I would guess that almost every coach would do the same and that very few would try to take advantage of a younger player with a bit more projectability if they could get a an older player in the same grade who is better right now. Like you say they probably wouldn't take the birthdate into consideration at all. A bird in hand...
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
TPM,
Thanks, but no need. I would guess that almost every coach would do the same and that very few would try to take advantage of a younger player with a bit more projectability if they could get a an older player in the same grade who is better right now. Like you say they probably wouldn't take the birthdate into consideration at all. A bird in hand...
This is not what I got from the conversation, what I got was that the player needs to be able to have the skills to be able to compete in the division they are in, regardless of birthdate, size, and in many cases projectibility, depending on whether that coach has the ability to develop talent.
Are you confusing size with birthdates, unfortunetly we all know that most coaches prefer height in bb players(especially in pitchers), but that doesn't mean the player with more skills will be shut out due to his lack of height, regardless of birthday.
Listen I hear what you are saying, I think in son's freshman class the birthdates ranged from aug 1985 until april 1986, which you would say that those with later birthdates got left out of recruiting, and I can see how that would make sense.
Wow, there are 438 replies to this topic. How did I miss this one.
Personally, I think there is zero significance of graduation age in recruiting for college.
When a recruiter is out looking for players he is thinking hey I like this kid; he is good and I project him to be getting better... He fits into what I recruit, he is graduating the year I need someone of his capabilities. He is not committed? Great, can his grades can get into my school?.. Yes, great... Is he is willing to come to my school for my offer?
I really dont think that if a kid passes the above criteria a recruiter is going to say, gee shucks, that kid is a year older/younger than I would like him to be, so nevermind.
Now I will tell you where age matters. If you have a boy with a summer birthday I would heartily recommend that you do not enter him into school until he is 6.
In kindergarden at 6 he will most likely be able to sit still longer and get praise from the teacher for being such a good listener. He will likely be able to handle a crayon/scissor/pencil with better dexterity and draw praise from his peers and teacher for his good work. He builds confidence in himself and in his ability to succeed.
This all builds up through his elementary school year and it pays dividends in grades, friends, self esteem, confidence,... a general sense of "I can do it" develops through his success.
Then he gets to his high school and he is a year older, bigger, stronger, physically mature, mentally mature and it pays dividends in making the team, playing time on the team and "first to varsity".
I think the older boy at graduation has a leg up on his younger peers but the leg up was gained during the last 13 years and the recruiter does not care about that. The recruiter only cares that the kid is good and projecting to be better.
Personally, I think there is zero significance of graduation age in recruiting for college.
When a recruiter is out looking for players he is thinking hey I like this kid; he is good and I project him to be getting better... He fits into what I recruit, he is graduating the year I need someone of his capabilities. He is not committed? Great, can his grades can get into my school?.. Yes, great... Is he is willing to come to my school for my offer?
I really dont think that if a kid passes the above criteria a recruiter is going to say, gee shucks, that kid is a year older/younger than I would like him to be, so nevermind.
Now I will tell you where age matters. If you have a boy with a summer birthday I would heartily recommend that you do not enter him into school until he is 6.
In kindergarden at 6 he will most likely be able to sit still longer and get praise from the teacher for being such a good listener. He will likely be able to handle a crayon/scissor/pencil with better dexterity and draw praise from his peers and teacher for his good work. He builds confidence in himself and in his ability to succeed.
This all builds up through his elementary school year and it pays dividends in grades, friends, self esteem, confidence,... a general sense of "I can do it" develops through his success.
Then he gets to his high school and he is a year older, bigger, stronger, physically mature, mentally mature and it pays dividends in making the team, playing time on the team and "first to varsity".
I think the older boy at graduation has a leg up on his younger peers but the leg up was gained during the last 13 years and the recruiter does not care about that. The recruiter only cares that the kid is good and projecting to be better.