Official Club Stuff Carlton Academy - Next Gen & Father/Son/Daughter Discussion II

[agro]

January birthdays, even the first six months of the year, provides a huge advantage that starts all the way back in u9’s .

January birthday never helped my football career.

 

[Uncle Fester]

January birthday never helped my football career.

ditto

 

[Flaggers22]

January birthdays, even the first six months of the year, provides a huge advantage that starts all the way back in u9’s .

It's only a selection bias, which means they're more likely to make it to representative teams. There's no evidence for any competitive advantage at AFL level. The competitive advantage that probably exists at early junior level likely dissipates by the time a player reaches their top age year. When you're talking about a player who is in the 99.9th percentile of his age cohort, I think the birth date is likely completely irrelevant, because they're likely excelling for more reasons than just exposure/coaching.

 

[teddy-hopkins]

It's only a selection bias, which means they're more likely to make it to representative teams. There's no evidence for any competitive advantage at AFL level. The competitive advantage that probably exists at early junior level likely dissipates by the time a player reaches their top age year. When you're talking about a player who is in the 99.9th percentile of his age cohort, I think the birth date is likely completely irrelevant, because they're likely excelling for more reasons than just exposure/coaching.

If you've ever read Freakonomics it is definitely a factor (at least in ice hockey). Not for the supremely talented players like walker but for the meat and potato's players it makes a big difference.

 

[Flaggers22]

If you've ever read Freakonomics it is definitely a factor (at least in ice hockey). Not for the supremely talented players like walker but for the meat and potato's players it makes a big difference.

What are you referring to precisely? The selection bias or having a competitive advantage? The selection bias is well established. People born in the first half of the year are over-represented in the AFL, and it's a statistically significant over-representation. However, I'm not aware of any evidence that birth month leads to a competitive advantage (meaning birth month is related to performance) in the AFL. There's actually ample evidence to suggest there's not. Which is why I always roll my eyes at people who think a December birth means a player has greater scope for improvement, or a January birth date means they have less.

 

[katmanblue]

January birthday never helped my football career.

Likewise.

Probably for 2 reasons.

1. Birthday ain't in Jan
2. Never seriously played footy

 

[Lukeblueboy]

Likewise.

Probably for 2 reasons.

1. Birthday ain't in Jan
2. Never seriously played footy

Mine either!
My birthday is in jan and I kicked 25 goals in one game! What else is a man to do!

 

[RPCB]

Just can’t wrap my head around how physically ready he is.

Cody Walker at training

 

[ferrisb]

Hopefully he slides next year as he has low "upside"..

I have low upside...

 

[katmanblue]

I have low upside...

 

[Michael Jezz]

If you've ever read Freakonomics it is definitely a factor (at least in ice hockey). Not for the supremely talented players like walker but for the meat and potato's players it makes a big difference.

The book may have been Gladwell's "Blink"?

 

[ferrisb]

I thought of that when I posted.

Was my favourite band back in high school.

Could also work for all the Stranger Things fans out there...

 

[teddy-hopkins]

What are you referring to precisely? The selection bias or having a competitive advantage? The selection bias is well established. People born in the first half of the year are over-represented in the AFL, and it's a statistically significant over-representation. However, I'm not aware of any evidence that birth month leads to a competitive advantage (meaning birth month is related to performance) in the AFL. There's actually ample evidence to suggest there's not. Which is why I always roll my eyes at people who think a December birth means a player has greater scope for improvement, or a January birth date means they have less.

So the theory in that book was from junior age groups the older kids get selected for rep teams which gives them access to more / better footy and coaching. Which doesn't matter so much for the elite talent but for the "good ordinary" players does.

In AFL I think it skews away from Nov - Feb birth dates... but I haven't looked at that in ages.

 

[The Return of the Paf]

What are you referring to precisely? The selection bias or having a competitive advantage? The selection bias is well established. People born in the first half of the year are over-represented in the AFL, and it's a statistically significant over-representation. However, I'm not aware of any evidence that birth month leads to a competitive advantage (meaning birth month is related to performance) in the AFL. There's actually ample evidence to suggest there's not. Which is why I always roll my eyes at people who think a December birth means a player has greater scope for improvement, or a January birth date means they have less.

How do you explain the selection bias if there is no difference? People are looking at the concept of 'upside' wrongly is this context. It's about players with late birthdays potentially still developing. That's not to say one age group was born under a magic star sign or that December born players gain some boost close to their birthdays (that others don't get).

Recruiting skews towards exposed form and it's only natural that some players (not all) with later later birthdays are a bit behind the others.

 

[Flaggers22]

How do you explain the selection bias if there is no difference? People are looking at the concept of 'upside' wrongly is this context. It's about players with late birthdays potentially still developing. That's not to say one age group was born under a magic star sign or that December born players have some boost close to their birthdays (that others don't get).

Recruiting skews towards exposed form and it's only natural that some players (not all) with later later birthdays are a bit behind the others.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but there is a competitive advantage in junior football, it just diminishes over time. An 11 month head start in biological development is a significant advantage at 8 but is likely marginal at 18. We know this because there is no data to suggest that birth month and performance are related at AFL level. The selection bias exists because of the competitive advantage that exists in junior football, the older kids are more likely to be identified by the talent pathways and then improve from exposure. So an early birthday gives you a better chance of being drafted, but the system also corrects itself over time and those players are more likely to be delisted.

 

[Juddernaut08]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but there is a competitive advantage in junior football, it just diminishes over time. An 11 month head start in biological development is a significant advantage at 8 but is likely marginal at 18. We know this because there is no data to suggest that birth month and performance are related at AFL level. The selection bias exists because of the competitive advantage that exists in junior football, the older kids are more likely to be identified by the talent pathways and then improve from exposure. So an early birthday gives you a better chance of being drafted, but the system also corrects itself over time and those players are more likely to be delisted.

You were clear, but clearly wrong.

The selection bias actually compounds due to greater opportunities and confidence over time. It does not diminish.

 

[Flaggers22]

You were clear, but clearly wrong.

The selection bias actually compounds due to greater opportunities and confidence over time. It does not diminish.

You should try reading it again. I never said the selection bias diminishes, I said the competitive advantage diminishes. Selection advantage ≠ performance advantage.

 

[Dramoth]

I have low upside...

Yeah, but you have an up lowside

 

[Michael Jezz]

How do you explain the selection bias if there is no difference? People are looking at the concept of 'upside' wrongly is this context. It's about players with late birthdays potentially still developing. That's not to say one age group was born under a magic star sign or that December born players gain some boost close to their birthdays (that others don't get).

Recruiting skews towards exposed form and it's only natural that some players (not all) with later later birthdays are a bit behind the others.

The selection bias is that borne out even in the 2nd, 3rd and 4ths rounds to older players, so that younger players who are potentially better miss out altogether. Recruiters can not project a players ability into the future by compensating for age.

 

[BlueTang]

You were clear, but clearly wrong.

The selection bias actually compounds due to greater opportunities and confidence over time. It does not diminish.

Correct, I think what was left out. Is that at a young age of 8, kids are noticeably bigger when born in the first half of the year. So they get more time on the field, more team selections etc. and that advantage over many years (game time), leads to more kids born in the first 6 months of the year doing better at sport professionally in the long term. It’s hard for posters to write a chapter of information into a paragraph or two, but the theory checks out and makes sense if you look at the data presented

 

[The Return of the Paf]

The selection bias is that borne out even in the 2nd, 3rd and 4ths rounds to older players, so that younger players who are potentially better miss out altogether. Recruiters can not project a players ability into the future by compensating for age.

That also bears out for players sidelined by injury. You can't expect recruiters to work miracles but the best ones do learn to read patterns better than others.

It's not the players you pick that might be an issue, most players chosen in the draft have done enough to deserve a chance on an AFL list, it's how you plan and prioritise. One of our past list managers had the right idea, IMO, in that I think you should always keep a list spot in the draft open for a player who might otherwise need a bit more time to prove themselves. It doesn't mean you can't pass if someone worthy doesn't last. The list manager in question was just poor with the details.