New season within association tryouts...placement Xpectation

[57special]

Agree with you. I've seen the summer AAA kids really level out by December, and seem fatigued by February. The kids who do take time off improve throughout the season, in most cases. Having said that, the AAA summer kids look great coming into fall tryouts compared to the ones who stay off the ice when it's warm out.

Others have spoken about biased evaluators. My personal bias (related to ranking "bubble players") when a bubble player is wearing their AAA hockey socks/jerseys/helmets, my general theory is that player is as good as they will get. Meaning they have skated so much since last March, they are not rusty and are at the top of their game. So if they are on the bubble with kids that might look rusty or maybe show signs of football feet, I will score the AAA player lower. I have been correct on most over the years as they plateau and the rusty football players advance further come November/December.

[CRMiteHockey]

Probably just my association, but the top kids are all summer players. Having said that, a few of the weakest players play summer hockey too. Our kids who take the summer off do seem to close the gap a little, but in terms of production on the ice they never really catch up to the top kids.

[InigoMontoya]

Probably just my association, but the top kids are all summer players. Having said that, a few of the weakest players play summer hockey too. Our kids who take the summer off do seem to close the gap a little, but in terms of production on the ice they never really catch up to the top kids.

I don't think 'just your association' at all. I would be surprised if any kids on the A teams of Edina, Eden Prairie, OMGHA, Wayzata, Blaine, Elk River, Centenial, White Bear Lake, Woodbury, etc., etc., hung up the skates in February and laced 'em back up again in September. I wouldn't think many B1 kids in most metro associations were skating over the summer.

[JSR]

Probably just my association, but the top kids are all summer players. Having said that, a few of the weakest players play summer hockey too. Our kids who take the summer off do seem to close the gap a little, but in terms of production on the ice they never really catch up to the top kids.

I don't think 'just your association' at all. I would be surprised if any kids on the A teams of Edina, Eden Prairie, OMGHA, Wayzata, Blaine, Elk River, Centenial, White Bear Lake, Woodbury, etc., etc., hung up the skates in February and laced 'em back up again in September. I wouldn't think many B1 kids in most metro associations were skating over the summer.

I'd agree with this and I think badgerbob also agrees with this. I think he is just saying that in instances where a kid who did not skate in the summer and a kid who did are both neck in neck on the bubble for on eof those last slots he favors the kid who did not skate because he feels like he might have more upside by the end of the season. That is not 100% but I can see his logic. I would also say that this is not a likely scenario fo the "A" teams of the mega metro area assoications where probably 100% of the A and B1 teams probably do skat ein the summer. But smaller metro and out state associations I bet this happens with some frequency.

[WB6162]

In my experience there are loads of folks sweeping the sidewalks, decorating the association float for the parade, organizing and coaching kids on a MASH team, repainting the locker rooms at the arena. They are rarely noticed, and certainly not thanked, by those who strut through the rink. I don't think that board members get a pass as being saintly, when, not always, but often, they are undeserving. And I don't think that members that question the boards decisions should be cast to the seventh layer of Hell as constant complainers that don't roll up their sleeves and contribute.

And just as many people who cry about having to do everything. Pick your poison.

[C-dad]

So I have a related question for the experts here, since I am certainly no expert. My kid is a first year bantam this year and I've watched a lot of grading sessions and tryouts over these years.

Is there a good way to do grading? Is it better to somehow use outside evaluators, or from inside the association? Every year I see kids placed in tryout groups after grading that are totally misplaced. I don't mean off a level, I mean clearly, to anyone who has seen these kids play, off by two levels (out of four). Then the coaches at some point decide they can't keep moving kids around between groups and decide to leave them there.

I don't think this is happening at the top levels as they seem pretty well placed (although sometimes a kid gets into group 1 who should be 2 or even 3, but gets rapidly moved down).

Also, by the way, it's not about my kid. He's not a great player and is in the group he deserves. It's kids he's played with and against in the past who have really improved and don't get recognized. Also, this is one of the mega associations with lots of kids.

[Shinbone_News]

So I have a related question for the experts here, since I am certainly no expert. My kid is a first year bantam this year and I've watched a lot of grading sessions and tryouts over these years.

Is there a good way to do grading? Is it better to somehow use outside evaluators, or from inside the association? Every year I see kids placed in tryout groups after grading that are totally misplaced. I don't mean off a level, I mean clearly, to anyone who has seen these kids play, off by two levels (out of four). Then the coaches at some point decide they can't keep moving kids around between groups and decide to leave them there.

I don't think this is happening at the top levels as they seem pretty well placed (although sometimes a kid gets into group 1 who should be 2 or even 3, but gets rapidly moved down).

Also, by the way, it's not about my kid. He's not a great player and is in the group he deserves. It's kids he's played with and against in the past who have really improved and don't get recognized. Also, this is one of the mega associations with lots of kids.

I too have sat in on plenty of tryout sessions, and have never mustered the nerve to watch the evaluators in action (plus, the association frowns on that kind of eavesdropping). How on earth can they give everyone a fair shake with 30 or 40 kids all skating for an hour? Others have said that the top and bottom 3-5 are easy, and everyone beyond that is hard. Totally agree with that.

I think first round cuts may be the easiest (find roughly the break point between top third, middle third and bottom third), but a kid who gets placed wrong -- as many as two levels off -- probably stands a good chance of staying too low after that first assessment. Happened to my youngest kid last year. Solid B2+ player put into C's, had 75 points last year. (He didn't complain until end of the season, though some other coaches did. Was first line on one of the better AAA teams this summer.) Only reason I can figure is because he was simply new to the association.

There is no way, in my view, that evaluators can work up a full USAH player evaluation, scoring each player on everything from skating, puckhandling, shooting and passing to "toughness" and "quickness." Maybe they do really detailed evals for the bubble players, but my hunch is they go by instinct and the head coach's input. Maybe parents should ask their associations for a real, detailed "report card" on their kids that puts them in a mathematical continuum. That would be a huge amount of work, but maybe help parents feel a little less skeptical about the process.

[jBlaze3000]

So I have a related question for the experts here, since I am certainly no expert. My kid is a first year bantam this year and I've watched a lot of grading sessions and tryouts over these years.

Is there a good way to do grading? Is it better to somehow use outside evaluators, or from inside the association? Every year I see kids placed in tryout groups after grading that are totally misplaced. I don't mean off a level, I mean clearly, to anyone who has seen these kids play, off by two levels (out of four). Then the coaches at some point decide they can't keep moving kids around between groups and decide to leave them there.

I don't think this is happening at the top levels as they seem pretty well placed (although sometimes a kid gets into group 1 who should be 2 or even 3, but gets rapidly moved down).

Also, by the way, it's not about my kid. He's not a great player and is in the group he deserves. It's kids he's played with and against in the past who have really improved and don't get recognized. Also, this is one of the mega associations with lots of kids.

In our association there is 1 day of skills evaluations (45 minute session) then the kids are divided into an upper (A, B1) and lower (B2,C) group where they scrimmage a couple times and then teams are determined. Usually only 1 or 2 kids will get moved to a different group after the initial skills evaluation. This tells me that the evaluators feel they can determine the proper placement of kids with 95% accuracy after one 45 minute session. Not sure if that's realistic.

[Shinbone_News]

Here's something I did this year: Discretely make my own evaluations for my own purposes at a level where I don't have any kids -- I really didn't want anyone thinking I was second-guessing the evaluators, that wasn't my purpose. I just wanted to see if my own evaluations were anywhere near what the evalautors thought.

This was relatively easy, because I sat in on a first tryout for PeeWee A/B1s. My evaluation was just watching and identifying the players I thought were A material -- not even really ranking them (that would have been too hard for me).

My non-mathematical method turned out to be 99% correct. I had one kid cut to B1s who actually made the first A cut (but not the second).

If you can do this discretely and not to second guess anyone, I thought it was an interesting exercise. It also made me GLAD to not be an evaluator. It seems REALLY HARD! (Especially trying to decide who's better between any two similarly skilled kids. Those bubble decisions must be tough, if it's a big wash between players 12-18, for example).

[jBlaze3000]

At the Squirt level you could probably figure out teams with about 80% accuracy just by lining up all the kids on the goal line and having them race to the other end of the ice.

Also, I don't think it is a huge injustice if your kid is one of the last few cut to a lower team versus being one of the last few to make a higher team. Depending on the association, you should be careful what you wish for. I've seen first hand kids riding the bench on the A team when they could have been a star on the B1's.

[C-dad]

At the Squirt level you could probably figure out teams with about 80% accuracy just by lining up all the kids on the goal line and having them race to the other end of the ice.

Also, I don't think it is a huge injustice if your kid is one of the last few cut to a lower team versus being one of the last few to make a higher team. Depending on the association, you should be careful what you wish for. I've seen first hand kids riding the bench on the A team when they could have been a star on the B1's.

I agree. I think the bigger problem may be B2s who end up on C. The problem with our association is the spread of Cs is so huge. From kids who could easily skate on a B2 to kids who are only out for hockey cause mom and dad make them do something and hockey is "in" here. It gets really frustrating for the kid who could skate B2 to be in with kids who screw around and don't care and a parent coach who may not care much either and is just looking out for his kid.

[jBlaze3000]

At the Squirt level you could probably figure out teams with about 80% accuracy just by lining up all the kids on the goal line and having them race to the other end of the ice.

Also, I don't think it is a huge injustice if your kid is one of the last few cut to a lower team versus being one of the last few to make a higher team. Depending on the association, you should be careful what you wish for. I've seen first hand kids riding the bench on the A team when they could have been a star on the B1's.

I agree. I think the bigger problem may be B2s who end up on C. The problem with our association is the spread of Cs is so huge. From kids who could easily skate on a B2 to kids who are only out for hockey cause mom and dad make them do something and hockey is "in" here. It gets really frustrating for the kid who could skate B2 to be in with kids who screw around and don't care and a parent coach who may not care much either and is just looking out for his kid.

Good point. Sometimes there are good reasons for not wanting to be on a certain team. A lot of times it's simply because of the label.

[57special]

So I have a related question for the experts here, since I am certainly no expert. My kid is a first year bantam this year and I've watched a lot of grading sessions and tryouts over these years.

Is there a good way to do grading? Is it better to somehow use outside evaluators, or from inside the association? Every year I see kids placed in tryout groups after grading that are totally misplaced. I don't mean off a level, I mean clearly, to anyone who has seen these kids play, off by two levels (out of four). Then the coaches at some point decide they can't keep moving kids around between groups and decide to leave them there.

I don't think this is happening at the top levels as they seem pretty well placed (although sometimes a kid gets into group 1 who should be 2 or even 3, but gets rapidly moved down).

Also, by the way, it's not about my kid. He's not a great player and is in the group he deserves. It's kids he's played with and against in the past who have really improved and don't get recognized. Also, this is one of the mega associations with lots of kids.

I definitely see kids who are off by one level, but not two. I'm not talking "bubble" kids, either. Just puzzling choices made that have nothing to do with position or anything else. Newcomers and relative newcomers are more likely to get the short end of the stick, while "local legends"(i.e. dad played on HS team or at the U) kids are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt.

I don't see kids playing at the C level who should be in B1, or playing in B2 that should be in A. I think that the A team choices are correct for the most part.