I have 2 boys in the Centennial Assoc and while they have high numbers what impresses me the most is the amount of very good coaching within the assoc (top to bottom) My boys play at the Mite level and both have coaches that are dedicated to making hockey fun and focusing on the fundamentals. From what I have seen within the assoc I believe this is the same all the way up to the Bantam level.
Centennial consistently has teams ranked in the top 10 at each level and have produced many D1 prospects over the past 10 years. That is what sets the top youth programs apart.
Best Associations
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
PoniesDad45
- Posts: 337
- Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:45 am
- Location: Woodbury
We were in a C Squirt Tourney once at Centennial and I was really impressed with the entire organization. The parents had hot dogs and treats for the kids and the medals and trophies were really nice.cchky wrote:I have 2 boys in the Centennial Assoc and while they have high numbers what impresses me the most is the amount of very good coaching within the assoc (top to bottom) My boys play at the Mite level and both have coaches that are dedicated to making hockey fun and focusing on the fundamentals. From what I have seen within the assoc I believe this is the same all the way up to the Bantam level.
Centennial consistently has teams ranked in the top 10 at each level and have produced many D1 prospects over the past 10 years. That is what sets the top youth programs apart.
We won 3rd place in the tourney and I remember before the game the association president shook hands with each kid and thanked them for being in the tournament.
I've never seen that before, I was impressed.
Top Shelf!!!!!!!!InigoMontoya wrote:I've heard you might get offered a well-paying, cushy job at a window manufacturer if your kid can play.DON'T PACK YOUR BAGS YET though, because of course nobody up here uses "move ins" so that option is out, you cities kids are stuck playing on your cities teams, sorry about that.
-
yeahyeahyeah
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:12 am
Nobamba, by your definition, Shattuck would be the best association since Crosby, Johnson, Toews, Parise and others have gone through that program. Though we all know those guys were highly skilled before they got there.Thanks to all I appreciate your insight...
I hear allot about Edina and Roseau being the best development model...
Can someone name 1 player or more who graduated from either of these programs High School in the last TWENTY years who has gone on to the NHL for a career longer than a cup of coffee
I would not call Edina a great association for development since most of their top players spend more hours outside of the association developing their skills. Not saying they are bad either, but if you are a C or B2 player, you miss some of the coaching expertise they have at the top.
I look at what Moorhead (Cullen)and Bloomington Jefferson (Saterdalen) did back in the 80s and 90s as probably the best model to follow. Both had strong leadership from their high school head coaches and controlled player development. Most kids were developed primarily through those coaches programs in the off season, and they controlled a lot ot the content during the season. Both had strong support staffs (Shercliffe-M, Bianchi, Trebel, Parise-BJ), and all the kids wanted to play for their high school. The kids had a development plan from the time they were mites until they finished playing.
Moorhead has tried to keep it together after Cullen retired, but BJ has had a harder time due to declining numbers, break-up at the top, and and many more choices that are down in the cities.
Roseau has a similar development profile, with all the cheap ice as an added bonus.
MM has a a great development model also, it is just the mental and emotional issues prevent it from being right for a lot of kids. The also try to cherry pick the best athletes, so it is not all development that gets a kid far in the game.
If it is all about getting to the NHL, then maybe you should drink the water from the sod farm in Thunder bay that created all the Staal boys. Or is it the DNA from the parents?
Metrics Applied
I posed the question some time ago as to who are the best associations? I also asked how do you do you define success? There were a number of replies, many of them good. I have done a lot of thinking, and subsequently, a LOT of research on this subject.
First, I wanted to define what it is that an association is supposed to do for its membership. There are a lot of somewhat generic mission statements on various association websites that talk about providing a safe, fun environment for learning the game of hockey. This should certainly be true, but ultimately I believe the success of an association comes down to the effectiveness of that association in its ability to develop each its players.
But how do we measure this effectiveness? By the ratio of kids that go pro? D1? Play high school hockey? My answer is no to all the above. The only viable metric is in how those players’ teams perform. And performance cannot be measured by wins and losses alone – it must be measured against what can be expected. For instance, much is made of the fact that an Edina A team has somewhere around 150 or more players from which to select their top 15 skaters. Meanwhile, an Apple Valley team may have only 40 to choose from. It cannot be stated that Edina develops kids better because their ‘A’ team betas Apple Valley’s ‘A’ team. That is the proverbial comparing apples to oranges.
So I gave this some thought… and I came up with a methodology to make the comparison that puts teams (and associations) on equal footing. I am not going to go into the gory detail (I guarantee I would lose 90% of the audience if I haven’t already), but in effect what I did was assign a statistically determined “score” to a given team based on the number of kids on that given team from the total number of players in that association at that level. I then could use this score and actual game scores to determine whether a team performed better or worse than should statistically be expected. As an example, the aforementioned Edina team is assigned a score of 47 and Apple Valley a 39. From this, it is expected that Edina would beat Apple Valley by eight goals. I then employ a system similar to that used on the mnhockeyrankings.com website to adjust their assigned score based on actual game results. Finally, the metric becomes the difference between their expected score and their calculated score.
That gets me to an individual team’s score. From there, I accumulate all the teams from that association and weight-sum them to find that associations total score. For instance, maybe Apple Valley’s A team score s a -1.2, but their ‘B’ team scores a +0.5 and their ‘C’ team a +0.7 This gives me a roughly ‘0’ score and would tell me that they are, as an association, average at developing talent (and perhaps are a little deficient at developing their top-end talent).
Now, there are some wild-cards in here. This method works well for large numbers, but statistics can lie when you consider that goalies can have such a significant impact on team success. So you could expect some variance due to that. Also, I don’t have access to all the exact numbers. Particularly for smaller associations, this can impact an expected score. In all cases I attempted to obtain this number, but there were times that I needed to make an educated guess. Another factor to consider is coaching – not only effectiveness, but also philosophy. For instance, the calculated score is based on all players on that team getting equal ice time. Obviously, this is not the case (particularly at the ‘A’ level). However, even in taking all these factors into account I feel this system gives a fairly objective way of evaluating each association.
Now on to the sample set. I chose to use the PeeWee level for this study. Why? Because first, it is a large sample (as opposed to U12, U10, etc.). I chose not to use Squirts because a) data is more difficult to attain and b) these are still highly developmental years with less emphasis on games. I chose not to use Bantams chiefly because the exodus of second year Bantam aged kids to high school (both Varsity and regrettably, JV) skews the statistical distribution and therefore does not give as accurate an evaluation.
I wanted to post this groundwork and the thinking that went along with it to hopefully lend some credence to the data that is to follow. We are now roughly halfway through the season and there is a statistically meaningful level of information available to begin to make these assessments. I will continue to track these scores through the season but frankly, I would not expect results to change dramatically by the end of the year. The scores that are achieved to follow are the fruition of the previous six or seven years along with this. What you do today or tomorrow will probably not significantly change this current group of PeeWees, but hopefully will inspire the failing associations to learn and perhaps model the successful ones at the younger age levels where the bulk of the development occurs.
~ Pioneer ~
First, I wanted to define what it is that an association is supposed to do for its membership. There are a lot of somewhat generic mission statements on various association websites that talk about providing a safe, fun environment for learning the game of hockey. This should certainly be true, but ultimately I believe the success of an association comes down to the effectiveness of that association in its ability to develop each its players.
But how do we measure this effectiveness? By the ratio of kids that go pro? D1? Play high school hockey? My answer is no to all the above. The only viable metric is in how those players’ teams perform. And performance cannot be measured by wins and losses alone – it must be measured against what can be expected. For instance, much is made of the fact that an Edina A team has somewhere around 150 or more players from which to select their top 15 skaters. Meanwhile, an Apple Valley team may have only 40 to choose from. It cannot be stated that Edina develops kids better because their ‘A’ team betas Apple Valley’s ‘A’ team. That is the proverbial comparing apples to oranges.
So I gave this some thought… and I came up with a methodology to make the comparison that puts teams (and associations) on equal footing. I am not going to go into the gory detail (I guarantee I would lose 90% of the audience if I haven’t already), but in effect what I did was assign a statistically determined “score” to a given team based on the number of kids on that given team from the total number of players in that association at that level. I then could use this score and actual game scores to determine whether a team performed better or worse than should statistically be expected. As an example, the aforementioned Edina team is assigned a score of 47 and Apple Valley a 39. From this, it is expected that Edina would beat Apple Valley by eight goals. I then employ a system similar to that used on the mnhockeyrankings.com website to adjust their assigned score based on actual game results. Finally, the metric becomes the difference between their expected score and their calculated score.
That gets me to an individual team’s score. From there, I accumulate all the teams from that association and weight-sum them to find that associations total score. For instance, maybe Apple Valley’s A team score s a -1.2, but their ‘B’ team scores a +0.5 and their ‘C’ team a +0.7 This gives me a roughly ‘0’ score and would tell me that they are, as an association, average at developing talent (and perhaps are a little deficient at developing their top-end talent).
Now, there are some wild-cards in here. This method works well for large numbers, but statistics can lie when you consider that goalies can have such a significant impact on team success. So you could expect some variance due to that. Also, I don’t have access to all the exact numbers. Particularly for smaller associations, this can impact an expected score. In all cases I attempted to obtain this number, but there were times that I needed to make an educated guess. Another factor to consider is coaching – not only effectiveness, but also philosophy. For instance, the calculated score is based on all players on that team getting equal ice time. Obviously, this is not the case (particularly at the ‘A’ level). However, even in taking all these factors into account I feel this system gives a fairly objective way of evaluating each association.
Now on to the sample set. I chose to use the PeeWee level for this study. Why? Because first, it is a large sample (as opposed to U12, U10, etc.). I chose not to use Squirts because a) data is more difficult to attain and b) these are still highly developmental years with less emphasis on games. I chose not to use Bantams chiefly because the exodus of second year Bantam aged kids to high school (both Varsity and regrettably, JV) skews the statistical distribution and therefore does not give as accurate an evaluation.
I wanted to post this groundwork and the thinking that went along with it to hopefully lend some credence to the data that is to follow. We are now roughly halfway through the season and there is a statistically meaningful level of information available to begin to make these assessments. I will continue to track these scores through the season but frankly, I would not expect results to change dramatically by the end of the year. The scores that are achieved to follow are the fruition of the previous six or seven years along with this. What you do today or tomorrow will probably not significantly change this current group of PeeWees, but hopefully will inspire the failing associations to learn and perhaps model the successful ones at the younger age levels where the bulk of the development occurs.
~ Pioneer ~
Now onto some data. By my research there are approximately 5793 PeeWee players playing on 434 teams in 137 associations. I have included associations that participate in a Minnesota hockey affiliated district (e.g., Hudson, WI, Superior, WI, etc.). For teams that play teams from out of state, the expected value for out of state teams is calculated based on the average of their results of games played against Minnesota teams. This keeps me from having to create the monstrous database that mnhockeyrankings.com has while keeping relative performance of these teams intact.
As of this posting, my database has 2,907 completed scores in it from 425 of the 439 teams.
I have decided the best way to disseminate the information I have gathered is by District. This allows each post size to stay reasonable and hopefully also keep the information salient. I have decided I will give an A-F style grade to each association based on the results. The biggest part of the grade will be objectively based on the weighted-sum score as explained in the previous post, but I want to take some liberty to adjust the grade down if there is not a lot of uniformity in the individual team scores. For instance, in the example I used previously with Apple Valley, I would likely adjust the grade down somewhat as those scores reflect a lack of player development at the ‘A’ level relative to the ‘B’ and ‘C’ level. Generically the A-F scoring is as follows:
A+ > +2.75
A +2.25 to +2.74
A- +1.75 to +2.24
B+ +1.25 to +1.74
B +0.75 to +1.24
B- +0.25 to +0.74
C+ -0.25 to +0.24
C -0.74 to -0.25
C- -1.24 to -0.75
D+ -1.74 to -1.25
D -2.24 to -1.75
D- -2.74 to -2.25
F < -2.75
Keep in mind that these scores are calculated such that a difference of 1.0 equals a goal. So if your association is developing kids that as an association has a score differential of more that +2.75 goals a game, you should be pretty darn happy with that. Alternatively, if you are at less than -2.75, it is time to call for a change! Get involved!
Enjoy!
~ Pioneer ~
As of this posting, my database has 2,907 completed scores in it from 425 of the 439 teams.
I have decided the best way to disseminate the information I have gathered is by District. This allows each post size to stay reasonable and hopefully also keep the information salient. I have decided I will give an A-F style grade to each association based on the results. The biggest part of the grade will be objectively based on the weighted-sum score as explained in the previous post, but I want to take some liberty to adjust the grade down if there is not a lot of uniformity in the individual team scores. For instance, in the example I used previously with Apple Valley, I would likely adjust the grade down somewhat as those scores reflect a lack of player development at the ‘A’ level relative to the ‘B’ and ‘C’ level. Generically the A-F scoring is as follows:
A+ > +2.75
A +2.25 to +2.74
A- +1.75 to +2.24
B+ +1.25 to +1.74
B +0.75 to +1.24
B- +0.25 to +0.74
C+ -0.25 to +0.24
C -0.74 to -0.25
C- -1.24 to -0.75
D+ -1.74 to -1.25
D -2.24 to -1.75
D- -2.74 to -2.25
F < -2.75
Keep in mind that these scores are calculated such that a difference of 1.0 equals a goal. So if your association is developing kids that as an association has a score differential of more that +2.75 goals a game, you should be pretty darn happy with that. Alternatively, if you are at less than -2.75, it is time to call for a change! Get involved!
Enjoy!
~ Pioneer ~
-
dogeatdog1
- Posts: 510
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:41 pm
[quote="pioneer"]Now onto some data. By my research there are approximately 5793 PeeWee players playing on 434 teams in 137 associations. I have included associations that participate in a Minnesota hockey affiliated district (e.g., Hudson, WI, Superior, WI, etc.). For teams that play teams from out of state, the expected value for out of state teams is calculated based on the average of their results of games played against Minnesota teams. This keeps me from having to create the monstrous database that mnhockeyrankings.com has while keeping relative performance of these teams intact.
As of this posting, my database has 2,907 completed scores in it from 425 of the 439 teams.
I have decided the best way to disseminate the information I have gathered is by District. This allows each post size to stay reasonable and hopefully also keep the information salient. I have decided I will give an A-F style grade to each association based on the results. The biggest part of the grade will be objectively based on the weighted-sum score as explained in the previous post, but I want to take some liberty to adjust the grade down if there is not a lot of uniformity in the individual team scores. For instance, in the example I used previously with Apple Valley, I would likely adjust the grade down somewhat as those scores reflect a lack of player development at the ‘A’ level relative to the ‘B’ and ‘C’ level. Generically the A-F scoring is as follows:
A+ > +2.75
A +2.25 to +2.74
A- +1.75 to +2.24
B+ +1.25 to +1.74
B +0.75 to +1.24
B- +0.25 to +0.74
C+ -0.25 to +0.24
C -0.74 to -0.25
C- -1.24 to -0.75
D+ -1.74 to -1.25
D -2.24 to -1.75
D- -2.74 to -2.25
F < -2.75
Keep in mind that these scores are calculated such that a difference of 1.0 equals a goal. So if your association is developing kids that as an association has a score differential of more that +2.75 goals a game, you should be pretty darn happy with that. Alternatively, if you are at less than -2.75, it is time to call for a change! Get involved!
Kan yu break this down to the playr level for each kid? I'm wondrin if my kid scors 2 goals a game if he will get a skolarship?
Wow as you can tell I failed stats in college.. I would be interested in the rankings justfor the fun of it.
As of this posting, my database has 2,907 completed scores in it from 425 of the 439 teams.
I have decided the best way to disseminate the information I have gathered is by District. This allows each post size to stay reasonable and hopefully also keep the information salient. I have decided I will give an A-F style grade to each association based on the results. The biggest part of the grade will be objectively based on the weighted-sum score as explained in the previous post, but I want to take some liberty to adjust the grade down if there is not a lot of uniformity in the individual team scores. For instance, in the example I used previously with Apple Valley, I would likely adjust the grade down somewhat as those scores reflect a lack of player development at the ‘A’ level relative to the ‘B’ and ‘C’ level. Generically the A-F scoring is as follows:
A+ > +2.75
A +2.25 to +2.74
A- +1.75 to +2.24
B+ +1.25 to +1.74
B +0.75 to +1.24
B- +0.25 to +0.74
C+ -0.25 to +0.24
C -0.74 to -0.25
C- -1.24 to -0.75
D+ -1.74 to -1.25
D -2.24 to -1.75
D- -2.74 to -2.25
F < -2.75
Keep in mind that these scores are calculated such that a difference of 1.0 equals a goal. So if your association is developing kids that as an association has a score differential of more that +2.75 goals a game, you should be pretty darn happy with that. Alternatively, if you are at less than -2.75, it is time to call for a change! Get involved!
Kan yu break this down to the playr level for each kid? I'm wondrin if my kid scors 2 goals a game if he will get a skolarship?
Wow as you can tell I failed stats in college.. I would be interested in the rankings justfor the fun of it.
District 6 Association Grades
Code: Select all
Apple Valley
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 14 39.03 38.26 -0.77
B2 13 28.48 27.69 -0.79
C 13 18.81 20.03 +1.22
Overall 40 -0.18
Grade: C -
-------------------------------------------------------
Burnsville
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 14 42.38 44.58 +2.20
B1 14 34.43 34.85 +0.42
B2 14 29.32 28.94 -0.38
C Gold 14 20.29 21.74 +1.44
C Black 14 20.16 20.48 +0.32
Overall 70 +0.83
Grade: B -
-------------------------------------------------------
Chaska
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 15 43.28 41.06 -2.22
B1 14 35.53 34.08 -1.45
B2 Gold 13 28.79 27.06 -1.74
B2 Purple 13 28.77 28.30 -0.47
C Gold 15 19.69 16.80 -2.89
C Purple 14 18.91 17.83 -1.08
Overall 84 -1.59
Grade: D
-------------------------------------------------------
Eastview
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 13 40.54 42.66 +2.12
B1 14 32.55 32.48 -0.07
B2 14 26.08 26.56 +0.48
C 13 17.02 18.09 +1.07
Overall 54 +0.93
Grade: B
-------------------------------------------------------
Eden Prairie
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 15 43.47 44.51 +1.04
B1 Black 15 33.53 34.24 +0.71
B1 Red 15 33.51 33.44 -0.07
B2 14 26.91 28.58 +1.67
C Black 14 18.72 20.19 +1.47
C Red 14 18.85 19.85 +1.00
Overall 87 +1.01
Grade: B
-------------------------------------------------------
Edina
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 15 46.82 47.34 +0.51
B1 Green 15 38.82 39.30 +0.48
B1 White 15 38.81 38.19 -0.62
B2 Black 15 31.14 28.91 -2.22
B2 Gold 15 31.13 32.00 +0.88
B2 Green 15 31.11 30.01 -1.11
B2 White 15 31.10 30.48 -0.63
C Black 14 19.94 19.48 -0.46
C Gold 14 19.88 17.68 -2.20
C Green 13 19.80 21.51 +1.71
C White 13 19.43 21.15 +1.72
C Silver 13 19.23 20.93 +1.70
Overall 172 -0.05
Grade: C
-------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 15 40.76 41.02 +0.25
B1 14 31.61 33.57 +1.97
B2 13 24.90 28.44 +3.54
C 12 16.39 21.61 +5.21
Overall 54 +2.22
Grade: A -
-------------------------------------------------------
Kennedy
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 13 35.81 38.99 +3.18
B2 13 21.76 24.25 +2.49
Overall 26 +2.90
Grade: A+
-------------------------------------------------------
Prior Lake
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 14 41.01 42.76 +1.75
B1 13 31.89 32.20 +0.31
C Navy 14 22.07 20.48 -1.22
C White 14 21.94 19.46 -2.48
Overall 55 +0.23
Grade: C -
-------------------------------------------------------
Shakopee
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
B1 13 38.75 36.17 -2.59
B2 13 29.08 28.50 -0.58
C 14 19.60 19.95 +0.35
Overall 40 -1.20
Grade: D
-------------------------------------------------------
Waconia
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
B1 14 36.51 34.20 -2.31
C 14 22.12 18.36 -3.77
Overall 28 -2.88
Grade: F
--------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsinguy
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:33 pm
Lets keep this real simple.
If you are going to evaluate associations based on performance, you judge them on wins and losses. Done.
If you are going to adjust for wins and losses based on how many kids play in the association versus how many play in a different association than you need to give associations credit for getting a higher number of eligible. If one association has 84 players participating, but 784 kids could be participating and another association has 171 players playing out of 650 eligible players than the "better" association would be the one attracting a higher percentage of eligible players.
If you are going to evaluate associations based on performance, you judge them on wins and losses. Done.
If you are going to adjust for wins and losses based on how many kids play in the association versus how many play in a different association than you need to give associations credit for getting a higher number of eligible. If one association has 84 players participating, but 784 kids could be participating and another association has 171 players playing out of 650 eligible players than the "better" association would be the one attracting a higher percentage of eligible players.
This raises an interesting question. I recall reading that Eden Prairie and Wayzata currently have almost identical High School enrollments and each has only one youth hockey association tied to the public high school. However, EP has 6 Peewee teams and Wayzata has 9. Further, Wayzata has 7 B teams, while EP has only 3. What acounts for the different numbers? Wayzata doesn't exactly have a historically stellar high school record, yet they attract lots of youth players. EP has had success with the young high schoolers (now that great junior class) who were really good youth players when these Peewees would have been joining the ranks. Thoughts?Wisconsinguy wrote:Lets keep this real simple.
If you are going to evaluate associations based on performance, you judge them on wins and losses. Done.
If you are going to adjust for wins and losses based on how many kids play in the association versus how many play in a different association than you need to give associations credit for getting a higher number of eligible. If one association has 84 players participating, but 784 kids could be participating and another association has 171 players playing out of 650 eligible players than the "better" association would be the one attracting a higher percentage of eligible players.
District 2
Code: Select all
Forest Lake
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 15 41.39 39.95 -1.44
B1 15 32.63 31.84 -0.79
B2 15 26.36 25.85 -0.51
C 15 17.59 20.77 +3.18
Overall 60 -0.07
Grade C-
------------------------------------------------------
Highland Central
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 14 41.70 43.51 +1.81
B1 12 32.73 32.59 -0.14
B2 10 26.18 29.49 +3.31
C Blue 13 20.29 24.74 +4.44
C Red 13 20.12 19.73 -0.39
Overall 62 +1.66
Grade: B+
------------------------------------------------
Irondale
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 14 39.35 35.20 -4.15
B2 14 29.32 25.59 -3.72
C 14 19.28 17.40 -1.88
Overall 42 -3.38
Grade: F
------------------------------------------------
Mahtomedi
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 14 39.65 40.88 +1.23
B1 15 29.77 30.16 +0.39
C 15 19.51 19.18 -0.33
Overall 44 +0.62
Grade: B-
-----------------------------------------------------
Mounds View
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 14 40.68 40.50 -0.18
B1 14 31.70 32.96 +1.26
B2 13 24.74 25.87 +1.14
C 11 15.76 15.02 -0.74
Overall 52 +0.52
Grade: B-
-----------------------------------------------------
North St. Paul
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 14 39.03 38.52 -0.51
B1 13 28.48 28.64 +0.15
C 13 18.81 19.14 +0.33
Overall 40 -0.12
Grade: C+
-----------------------------------------------------
Roseville
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 15 43.47 40.83 -2.64
B1 15 35.85 36.55 +0.70
B2 15 31.19 29.80 -1.39
C Black 14 21.58 27.71 +6.12
C White 14 21.53 20.53 -0.99
C Silver 14 21.37 21.60 +0.22
Overall 87 -0.55
Grade: D+
Gotta comment here... how do you get such wide discrepancies here? Almost looks like some misplaced kids between A and B1, and obviously they stacked their C Black team? Anyone have any insight to this?
----------------------------------------------------
Stillwater
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 15 44.45 43.82 -0.63
B1 Black 15 35.18 34.85 -0.33
B1 Red 15 35.16 34.94 -0.22
B2 Black 15 27.71 28.36 +0.65
B2 Red 15 27.69 30.17 +2.47
C Black 15 18.20 21.77 +3.57
C Red 15 18.06 22.25 +4.19
Overall 105 +0.69
Grade: C+
----------------------------------------------------
Tartan
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 15 42.03 38.83 -3.21
B1 15 33.36 32.81 -0.85
B2 15 28.02 26.77 -1.25
C Blue 11 18.01 21.16 +3.15
C White 11 17.82 20.02 +2.19
Overall 67 -1.26
Grade: D
-----------------------------------------------------
White Bear Lake
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 15 44.40 42.57 -1.83
B1 Black 15 35.10 33.17 -1.93
B1 Orange 15 35.08 32.20 -2.88
B2 15 29.37 29.61 +0.24
C Orange 15 21.16 27.35 +6.19
C White 15 20.39 22.37 +1.98
C Black 14 20.27 22.37 +2.10
Overall 104 -1.02
Grade: D+
Another stacked ‘C’ team?
-----------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Saints
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 15 39.01 37.43 -1.57
B (Johnson) 13 28.19 26.44 -1.76
C (Como) 13 18.66 19.98 +1.32
Overall 41 -0.89
Grade: C-
-----------------------------------------------------
Langford Park
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
C Blue 13 28.96 26.08 -2.88
C White 13 28.61 20.87 -7.74
Overall 26 -6.35
Grade: Incomplete
-----------------------------------------------------
St. Mary’s Point
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
C Black 13 28.96 23.26 -5.70
C Green 13 28.61 21.38 -7.23
Overall 26 -6.72
Grade: Incomplete
-----------------------------------------------------WI guy - I agree with you - to a point. The reality is "recruiting" or attracting players in Edina is simply just going to be easier than it is in say Bloomington. Bloomington probably has more "eligible" recruits than Edina, but the reality is that there is a large socio-economic disparity between the two towns. On the other hand Jefferson continues to do well, certainly at the high school level, even today vs. the likes of Edina. We all know that not ALL of Jefferson's kids are home-grown, but many of them are and the reality is Jefferson continues to produce quality hockey talent dispite a disadvantage in numbers. Clearly they are doing something right over there and I think other associations should look to emulate the things they do that make them successful. Omce a quality program is in place the recruting job becomes much easier - kids at a young age (and their parents) buy into the dream of donning the high school sweater.pebbles wrote:This raises an interesting question. I recall reading that Eden Prairie and Wayzata currently have almost identical High School enrollments and each has only one youth hockey association tied to the public high school. However, EP has 6 Peewee teams and Wayzata has 9. Further, Wayzata has 7 B teams, while EP has only 3. What acounts for the different numbers? Wayzata doesn't exactly have a historically stellar high school record, yet they attract lots of youth players. EP has had success with the young high schoolers (now that great junior class) who were really good youth players when these Peewees would have been joining the ranks. Thoughts?Wisconsinguy wrote:Lets keep this real simple.
If you are going to evaluate associations based on performance, you judge them on wins and losses. Done.
If you are going to adjust for wins and losses based on how many kids play in the association versus how many play in a different association than you need to give associations credit for getting a higher number of eligible. If one association has 84 players participating, but 784 kids could be participating and another association has 171 players playing out of 650 eligible players than the "better" association would be the one attracting a higher percentage of eligible players.
Pebs - I too am puzzled as to why the EP program isn't larger. I've not looked at income data, but I'd always thought EP would be on par, socio-economically with Wayzata.
Total numbers are a huge part of the discussion. When you have 12 squirt teams the A team will likely be better than an association with 3 squirt teams. But, another factor that often isn't discussed is not only do they have 4 times as many kids as you but they all work harder too. In order to make a high level team, in a large association, you have to skate off season. It's very competitive which means dedication and hard work. If it looks like the top team has 1000s more hours on the ice it's because they have. They've all worked extremely hard to make the top team. The players in an association with 3 squirt teams rarely work as hard.
They get you twice. They have more kids but are also outworking you.
They get you twice. They have more kids but are also outworking you.
-
Air Force 1
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:22 pm
- Location: East Grand Forks
-
yeahyeahyeah
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:12 am
I think this thinking is flawed. The numbers and numbers only are the reason Big associations have more success. For every kid a small association has in summer AAA or in development programs big programs have 3 or 4. Kids and families are competitive no matter the number of kids. If a small association has one gifted athlete the large association will have 2 or 3. This automatically increases the depth of each team at the third line. Pretty simple.observer wrote:Total numbers are a huge part of the discussion. When you have 12 squirt teams the A team will likely be better than an association with 3 squirt teams. But, another factor that often isn't discussed is not only do they have 4 times as many kids as you but they all work harder too. In order to make a high level team, in a large association, you have to skate off season. It's very competitive which means dedication and hard work. If it looks like the top team has 1000s more hours on the ice it's because they have. They've all worked extremely hard to make the top team. The players in an association with 3 squirt teams rarely work as hard.
They get you twice. They have more kids but are also outworking you.
I do have a lot of respect for the comment made earlier regarding like size communities recruiting drasticly different numbers of hockey players. Kudos to communities that over acheive when it comes to recruiting. I believe high school success has a lot to do with it. Our High school loses many of its highly skilled players to private schools so we do not have the luxury of relying on the HS to market our program. We need a group like Lee, Buddish and Gleason to come through and say I am staying.
No it's not. Numbers are important but believe me the large assocation teams are also outworking the kids from most small associations. They have to or they won't make the team. It causes parents at large assocations huge anxiety as they worry about little Johnny's team mates outworking him in the summer. So they race. More development, more off season training and AAA.
I often look to see how many teams an association has at any particular level. If an asocation with 4 PeeWeee teams beats one with 8 PeeWee teams that's a nice accomplishment.
How did they beat them? This is where the discussion of "best association" comes in. With hard work, strong coaching, and a nice bubble of kids coming through, a small assocation can compete with a larger one. I takes big time dedication though.
Apple Valley and Burnsville are two metro favorites of mine as their youth numbers have shrunk yet they continue to field strong teams and develop good players.
The Wisconsin Tier setup matches like sized associations which I always found interesting.
Number of PeeWee Teams
Edina 12
Wayzata 8
OMG 8
Burnsville 5
Apple Valley 3
Roseau 2
I often look to see how many teams an association has at any particular level. If an asocation with 4 PeeWeee teams beats one with 8 PeeWee teams that's a nice accomplishment.
How did they beat them? This is where the discussion of "best association" comes in. With hard work, strong coaching, and a nice bubble of kids coming through, a small assocation can compete with a larger one. I takes big time dedication though.
Apple Valley and Burnsville are two metro favorites of mine as their youth numbers have shrunk yet they continue to field strong teams and develop good players.
The Wisconsin Tier setup matches like sized associations which I always found interesting.
Number of PeeWee Teams
Edina 12
Wayzata 8
OMG 8
Burnsville 5
Apple Valley 3
Roseau 2
-
Air Force 1
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:22 pm
- Location: East Grand Forks
You don't ask magicians how they do their tricks!pioneer wrote:Patience. I will get to ALL of the districts. Suffice it to say, if your given location is correct, you should be happy with the results. What are you guys doing to those kids in EGF?Air Force 1 wrote:Alright, you got me. You have done two metro districts, how about D16?
