HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

thanks karl. much better

youngblood08 wrote:It also helps if your kid is born in the first half of the year (Jan-Jun) There was a study done on the birthdays of NHL draft picks, it showed some where around 80% of the top players were jan-jun.

I couldnt find it but there is also a book written on it.

If by top players, you mean NHLer's then yes, there is a correlation that shows that being born in the first half of the year has its advantages. However, looking at the birthdays of (IMO) the 3 best players in the game today you'll see that the theory does not necessarily hold true when talking about elite players within the NHL:

Sidney Crosby - August
Alex Ovechkin - September
Patrick Kane - November

Also, the stats on Minnesota born NHLer's show that the relationship is closer to 60/40 in regards to early/ late birthdays. This most likely has to do with the fact they we are not as dependant on the AAA model as they are in Canada and elsewhere in the United States.

Correction, in Minnesota that number is actually closer to 50/50:

Here is the breakdown by birth month of Minnesota born NHLer's born in 1970 or later:

JAN - 6
FEB - 5
MAR - 8
APR - 7
MAY - 5
JUN - 5
JUL - 10
AUG - 6
SEP - 3
OCT - 6
NOV - 5
DEC - 4

http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv/bi ... =&state=MN

That would be 36 born in the first half of the year and 34 in the second half.

jBlaze3000 wrote:Also, the stats on Minnesota born NHLer's show that the relationship is closer to 60/40 in regards to early/ late birthdays. This most likely has to do with the fact they we are not as dependant on the AAA model as they are in Canada and elsewhere in the United States.

Correction, in Minnesota that number is actually closer to 50/50:

Here is the breakdown by birth month of Minnesota born NHLer's born in 1970 or later:

JAN - 6
FEB - 5
MAR - 8
APR - 7
MAY - 5
JUN - 5
JUL - 10
AUG - 6
SEP - 3
OCT - 6
NOV - 5
DEC - 4

http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv/bi ... =&state=MN

That would be 36 born in the first half of the year and 34 in the second half.

Just for fun, based on the link you provided I decided to look and see what Wisconsin looked like for this data. I used the same deal of using players born in 1970 or after and here is what I found.

JAN - 2
FEB - 0
MAR - 3
APR - 0
MAY - 1
JUN - 1
JUL - 2
AUG - 1
SEP - 1
OCT - 3
NOV - 1
DEC - 0

Total of 15 players, 7 born in the first half of the year, 8 born in the second half. Not quite as large of a pool as Minnesota but interesting that we have the same basic 50/50 split with technically more born in the second half of the year..... Also of interest was that the three best players of these fifteen I think would be Phil Kessel, Joe Pavelski and Ryan Suter and their birthdays are October, July and January respectively.....

JSR wrote:

jBlaze3000 wrote:Also, the stats on Minnesota born NHLer's show that the relationship is closer to 60/40 in regards to early/ late birthdays. This most likely has to do with the fact they we are not as dependant on the AAA model as they are in Canada and elsewhere in the United States.

Correction, in Minnesota that number is actually closer to 50/50:

Here is the breakdown by birth month of Minnesota born NHLer's born in 1970 or later:

JAN - 6
FEB - 5
MAR - 8
APR - 7
MAY - 5
JUN - 5
JUL - 10
AUG - 6
SEP - 3
OCT - 6
NOV - 5
DEC - 4

http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv/bi ... =&state=MN

That would be 36 born in the first half of the year and 34 in the second half.

Just for fun, based on the link you provided I decided to look and see what Wisconsin looked like for this data. I used the same deal of using players born in 1970 or after and here is what I found.

JAN - 2
FEB - 0
MAR - 3
APR - 0
MAY - 1
JUN - 1
JUL - 2
AUG - 1
SEP - 1
OCT - 3
NOV - 1
DEC - 0

Total of 15 players, 7 born in the first half of the year, 8 born in the second half. Not quite as large of a pool as Minnesota but interesting that we have the same basic 50/50 split with technically more born in the second half of the year..... Also of interest was that the three best players of these fifteen I think would be Phil Kessel, Joe Pavelski and Ryan Suter and their birthdays are October, July and January respectively.....

I don't know what's more surprising, the fact that Wisconsin has virtually a 50/50 split, or that there have actually been 15 NHL players to come out of Wisconsin.

jBlaze3000 wrote:

JSR wrote:

jBlaze3000 wrote:Also, the stats on Minnesota born NHLer's show that the relationship is closer to 60/40 in regards to early/ late birthdays. This most likely has to do with the fact they we are not as dependant on the AAA model as they are in Canada and elsewhere in the United States.

Correction, in Minnesota that number is actually closer to 50/50:

Here is the breakdown by birth month of Minnesota born NHLer's born in 1970 or later:

JAN - 6
FEB - 5
MAR - 8
APR - 7
MAY - 5
JUN - 5
JUL - 10
AUG - 6
SEP - 3
OCT - 6
NOV - 5
DEC - 4

http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv/bi ... =&state=MN

That would be 36 born in the first half of the year and 34 in the second half.

Just for fun, based on the link you provided I decided to look and see what Wisconsin looked like for this data. I used the same deal of using players born in 1970 or after and here is what I found.

JAN - 2
FEB - 0
MAR - 3
APR - 0
MAY - 1
JUN - 1
JUL - 2
AUG - 1
SEP - 1
OCT - 3
NOV - 1
DEC - 0

Total of 15 players, 7 born in the first half of the year, 8 born in the second half. Not quite as large of a pool as Minnesota but interesting that we have the same basic 50/50 split with technically more born in the second half of the year..... Also of interest was that the three best players of these fifteen I think would be Phil Kessel, Joe Pavelski and Ryan Suter and their birthdays are October, July and January respectively.....

I don't know what's more surprising, the fact that Wisconsin has virtually a 50/50 split, or that there have actually been 15 NHL players to come out of Wisconsin.

25 total 15 born in or after 1970. We're a hockey state that is on the rise

It's a slow day at the office so I did Michigan (since 1970):

JAN - 7
FEB - 6
MAR - 4
APR - 3
MAY - 6
JUN - 3
JUL - 4
AUG - 5
SEP - 3
OCT - 4
NOV - 3
DEC - 6

27 first half/ 25 second half

This one surprised me. What's going on here, it's almost as if birth month has no affect? If I get time later I'll add up Mass.

Looks more and more like if your good enough it just don't matter when you were born.

Massachusetts looks more like how I would expect:

NHLer's born 1970 or later:

JAN - 4
FEB - 4
MAR - 8
APR - 5
MAY - 9
JUN - 3
JUL - 2
AUG - 3
SEP - 5
OCT - 2
NOV - 3
DEC - 5

33 first half/ 15 second half

jBlaze3000 wrote:If by top players, you mean NHLer's then yes, there is a correlation that shows that being born in the first half of the year has its advantages. However, looking at the birthdays of (IMO) the 3 best players in the game today you'll see that the theory does not necessarily hold true when talking about elite players within the NHL:

Sidney Crosby - August
Alex Ovechkin - September
Patrick Kane - November

These players are disciples of the 10,000 hour rule, having parents who actively sought out an intense development scheme for their kids that overcame the birth month. The entire premise of the January syndrome is that kids who get a good start continue to press their advantage through added opportunities.

Crosby's family is filthy rich and shipped young Sydney all around the world to hockey camps from a young age and eventually shipped him to Shattuck. Very few January birthdays got the same opportunities that Sydney got.

Kane's father set up a schedule for him when he was 10 years old that included 360 of 365 days a year on ice, 300 games a year, 1000 goals, 9 of 10 weeks every summer at hockey camp. Dad owned a car dealership and Buffalo and earned a comfortable living, allowing Patrick to enjoy opportunities that even January babies weren't getting.

Ovechkin is a product of the Russian Academy where he worked on his skills a grueling 3 hours a day. In his own words - "If it didn't kill you, it made you good."

Following the 10,000 hour rule, any birth month baby has a shot, but for the VAST MAJORITY who just play in season or even all year round in moderation, cutoff dates do matter. It's nice to see it's been recognized and at some point some great thinker will find a recipe that equalizes opportunities for all kids.

Remember, the theory about early birthdays is that players in populated areas get chronically cut and miss out on developmental opportunities. The study often cites data from a Major Junior draft in Canada.

I live in Florida and parents often mention the "January advantage". I think they are misapplying it. There is certainly an advantage in youth hockey games to be January versus December...essentially a year older. However, we aren't usually cutting our Decembers like you might in Minneapolis (there it is actually June), Toronto, or Calgary.

Eventually kids go through puberty and approach their genetic ceiling. The argument is that some players with high ceilings and late birthdays are lost in the system because they tire of hearing they aren't good enough. Look at the Wisconsin data and how it contrasts to Massachusetts and I wonder if it is the way it is because of a lower hockey density. Maybe those kids didn't get cut all the time.

That's a good point O-town. Two of the best young players I know of in my sons age group are both July born Canadian kids but they play in rural sparsely populated areas.

Let me add something to that - both of their fathers coached them all the way up - not uncommon in sparsely populated areas. They both recieved the benefit of practices catered to their skill sets and ice time more than their peers. In a way, they recieve 'extra opportunities' similiar to an experience a January born player of skill would - they just the extra opportunities for other reasons.

One of the knocks on Wayne Gretzky growing up in Brantford came from the other parents on the team because Wayne's uncle, who coached the team, played Wayne 55 out of 60 minutes a game - even as they were winning games 25-1 and 30-1. When pressed, Wayne's uncle explained to the press that "playing Wayne 55 out of 60 minutes a game was in the best interest of the team, and that he was responsible to make decisions in the best interest of the team"

Wayne was already a January kid in a hockey crazy environment, but it didn't hurt having an uncle coach the team. Incidentally, there were 2 other kids on Wayne's peewee team that made the NHL.

In the end, no matter where you are born, Canada or Minnesota or Florida, anyone can overcome a birth date situation through extra reps or by making your own extra opportunities. It's just easier if the system is built to your advantage, but we don't have to be prisoners of the system.

That's a good point O-town. Two of the best young players I know of in my sons age group are both July born Canadian kids but they play in rural sparsely populated areas.

Let me add something to that - both of their fathers coached them all the way up - not uncommon in sparsely populated areas. They both recieved the benefit of practices catered to their skill sets and ice time more than their peers. In a way, they recieve 'extra opportunities' similiar to an experience a January born player of skill would - they just the extra opportunities for other reasons.

One of the knocks on Wayne Gretzky growing up in Brantford came from the other parents on the team because Wayne's uncle, who coached the team, played Wayne 55 out of 60 minutes a game - even as they were winning games 25-1 and 30-1. When pressed, Wayne's uncle explained to the press that "playing Wayne 55 out of 60 minutes a game was in the best interest of the team, and that he was responsible to make decisions in the best interest of the team"

Wayne was already a January kid in a hockey crazy environment, but it didn't hurt having an uncle coach the team. Incidentally, there were 2 other kids on Wayne's peewee team that made the NHL.

In the end, no matter where you are born, Canada or Minnesota or Florida, anyone can overcome a birth date situation through extra reps or by making your own extra opportunities. It's just easier if the system is built to your advantage, but we don't have to be prisoners of the system.

Love that last sentiment. If opportunity is not there create your own opportunity. I think we are seeing that with the expansion of AAA and other off season programs popping up everywhere (not just in Minnesota). I also agree with O-Town. My son is in a "less sparsely" populated area and on top of that he is getting extra opportunites that we are both creating for his team (not just him but he benefits) and also because of "who his friends are" and it's interesting that him and two other players on his team are developing right on pace with the "best" kids of the big known heavily populated teams. Now their association team cannot compete with those TEAMS but as individuals they are keeping pace. I think there is alot to what both of you just said in that regard. In otherwwords, atleast at the early developmental ages, maybe it's good to be a big fish in a small pond. Just a thought