Of Redshirting And Birthdates

"Redshirting" may show positive results in the short term but there is no evidence it works over the long-term.

Just my impression here, but whatever "advantages" it may have in the near term may prove to be negligible over the long haul. Too many factors and variables come into play in life. There's no conclusive way to prove that because a parent redshirted their child it led to success later on in their lives - however you may choose to describe success.

One area parents are obsessed with is the notion of constructing "leaders" rather than letting them evolve naturally. But I'm not going to get into that now.

I can just see it now, people calculating to have kids in the winter. Imagine a world where no one was born in June!

***

Which made me think about sports and the book Outliers (which I didn't read. I read Tipping Point) by Malcolm Gladwell. It touches on the concept or idea of "cumulative advantages" of which "redshirting" is a part of.

First, another "True Story" installment.

My experience playing soccer began at five years-old. My "career" can be summarized this way: In the early stages, I was pretty much an average player. It was only when I turned nine or 10 did I begin to separate myself from my peers. By the time I was, 11 or 12 I was an elite player - often put in teams one year my senior - right until I tore my ACL at 15. I was just getting into my peak years before I even had a chance but even by 15 or 16  (I played competitively until I was 18) I observed a subtle reality. Namely, that while my skills were above average, physically I was below average.

I started to detect certain plays I got away with earlier were no longer plausible against guys equal or greater to my abilities. I started realizing my kicks didn't have the same power and that speed became a critical component of a soccer player. My running abilities were above average but not enough to overcome physical and height disadvantages. Where I managed was being able to outwit opponents with sleek passes and good mental judgment.

I remember distinctly when this happen. We were playing an elite squad from the South Shore and one of the players on their team was, loathe as I was to admit then, superior to me. No matter what I tried he was simply bigger, better and badder than I was. The team as well. Funny how that works. It was one of those "I guess it's over for me" epiphanies.

After 18 years old, I continued to play in various leagues but by the time I was in my 20s I was better prepared and conditioned to handle the opposition; including women. Cough.

I quickly figured out the players (like in a dance club. Cough) I knew were intelligent and gifted athletically and adjusted my in-game technique accordingly. For example, if I was coming down the left-wing and knew the right back was bigger and faster, I would look to draw him close and dish the ball off. Or, where I felt confident, I would attempt to deke him with a solid timing play. If I came up the middle and noticed the center back was average then my options to take advantage were greater.

The success of the play, of course, hinged on my strikers understanding how it was unfolding. More often than not, they didn't. You can go over plays but vision is subjective and very much in the eye of the beholder.  I can count on one hand how many guys I played with where we were in sync. It doesn't happen often.

I was born in February.

Why mention all this especially my date of birth? Well, in Outliers, Gladwell alleges that being born early in the year (in the first quarter. In Canada, the cut off date for player eligibility in youth hockey is January 1) gives you an advantage early in life and those advantages accumulate over time possibly giving one a competitive edge to success. Based on this, he continues, it may explain why so many NHL players are born in the first quarter of a year.

Aside from my gaining zero benefit of being born in February (in the end, life gives you a reality check no matter what), I looked at the birth dates for each NHL team.

237 players out of the 734 active on NHL rosters were born in the first quarter of the year - or 32%.

I didn't check the rest of the months but already Gladwell's assertion is off to a good start. Only 68% is left for the rest of the months so the likelihood (and I will check this out eventually) of another quarter surpassing 32% is low.

Still, there are problems. Does quantity mean quality?

For instance, the Carolina Hurricanes have the greatest number of players with 15 out of 23 players born in the first quarter. And they ain't exactly a hockey powerhouse. But you know who are? The Vancouver Canucks. They have just five players born in the same months. Wo, what about the Detroit Red Wings? Don't they have 14 out of 24 born in those months? Yes they do! However, this brings up another problem with Gladwell's argument. The superstars. Specifically, the best players on each team. The majority of Detroit's top players (Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg for instance) were not born in the first quarter.

What about other stars? Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin are summer babies. Same with Alexander Ovechkin.

For all I know, one of these years the reverse will be true. Maybe a team with 50% of its roster will have been born inside March. It still won't prove squat though.


.