The (un)importance of age

[CaptainShark]

A lot of draft experts mention the fact that a player is very old or very young for his draft class.

I was wondering how much that should factor into evaluating the prospect.

The argument for that being quite a factor ist, that a prospect that is almost one year younger has a lot more developmental runway.

I was wondering if that was true. Most prospects don’t grow much or at all after being drafted. Still, the chance of a late growth-spurt is higher for the younger guy. Apart from that, does age really matter for development? Or should the developmental curves of two players at opposite ends of the age-spectrum still be similar cause they have gone through the junior-ranks in the same age-group?

If you poll, please note that if you only would use age as a tie-breaker if everything else was even (which it never is) should lead to a „It’s a non-factor“ vote.

Click to read more...

 

[majormajor]

Runway is hugely important, and age is often the best clue about how much runway a player has left. But it's only one of several clues about runway.

Jesse Pulkkinen, for example, is a 6'6 overager D that only fully committed to hockey a year ago. His size and his late commitment to hockey both suggest a late bloomer with plenty of runway left. Then you've got Beckett Sennecke who is still growing and has to adjust to his frame. And Artyom Levshunov who was playing in Belarus junior just two years ago. Levshunov can now learn skills and tactics that other prospects have learned years ago.

Sam Dickinson is younger than all of them, and closer to two years younger than Pulkkinen. But I'd argue he might have less runway remaining than those three. So to answer your question, yes I absolutely put weight on a player's age, but there's more to consider.



* Where a player fits within his age cohort can be interesting. You can have talents like Zeev Buium somewhat hidden behind older players in his cohort. But generally I don't like it when people put a lot of weight on the number of years a player has played in a given program. The players' physical and mental maturity, which is a function of age, is what matters. You mentioned growth spurts but there's a lot more mental growth that happens after age 18 than there is physical growth. Players get thicker and they get much smarter, the height is usually not going to change.

 

[Kraken Jokes]

I pretty much treat 2005-born ("late birthday") players as U19 and 2006-born players as U18.

Being older is not a bad thing, it just means you have a bit more insight as they're in higher leagues against tougher competition. For US players, you get to see them at the college-level. Many of the European top prospects are in pro leagues at 18.

CHL U19 players are in their 3rd year usually and should be turning pro a year sooner.

For example, I'm much more impressed with Parekh scoring 30 this year than Yakemchuk. Plus he has an extra year to fill out and improve his defensive game before turning pro.

As for a January 2006 vs August 2006, I don't think it matters nearly as much. I'd say it's almost a non-factor.

 

[majormajor]

I pretty much treat 2005-born ("late birthday") players as U19 and 2006-born players as U18.

Being older is not a bad thing, it just means you have a bit more insight as they're in higher leagues against tougher competition. For US players, you get to see them at the college-level. Many of the European top prospects are in pro leagues at 18.

CHL U19 players are in their 3rd year usually and should be turning pro a year sooner.

For example, I'm much more impressed with Parekh scoring 30 this year than Yakemchuk. Plus he has an extra year to fill out and improve his defensive game before turning pro.

As for a January 2006 vs August 2006, I don't think it matters nearly as much. I'd say it's almost a non-factor.

Parekh doesn't have an extra year to fill out, he's five months younger. Dividing them into birth year cohorts is nothing but confusion.

 

[FLAMESFAN]

Wait - who says most prospects are done growing at 17? They might not get that quick spurt, but most youth I know still grew in height after 17, and almost all will put on weight.

 

[Kraken Jokes]

Parekh doesn't have an extra year to fill out, he's five months younger. Dividing them into birth year cohorts is nothing but confusion.

I'm not confused by it. He has an extra year in junior to work on out the kinks before he's AHL eligible and that ELC clock starts ticking. On the other end, he scored 33 goals and 96 points in just his second year in the CHL. It took Yakemchuk three seasons to reach 31 goals (still very impressive) and still has all the defensive and decision-making issues.

That's why I have Parekh 5th and Yakemchuk 14th in my ranking.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

I pretty much treat 2005-born ("late birthday") players as U19 and 2006-born players as U18.

Being older is not a bad thing, it just means you have a bit more insight as they're in higher leagues against tougher competition. For US players, you get to see them at the college-level. Many of the European top prospects are in pro leagues at 18.

CHL U19 players are in their 3rd year usually and should be turning pro a year sooner.

For example, I'm much more impressed with Parekh scoring 30 this year than Yakemchuk. Plus he has an extra year to fill out and improve his defensive game before turning pro.

As for a January 2006 vs August 2006, I don't think it matters nearly as much. I'd say it's almost a non-factor.

I think it matters in Canada where the school year grouping (along with the hockey year grouping) being January 1-December 31, so thus, the January/early part of the year kids are the oldest in their grade growing up, oldest in minor hockey growing up, and may have dominated minor hockey because they were older and matured faster. Now that obviously doesn't mean January born Canadians suck, it just means they were always the oldest growing up and it's something to note. For example, Cole Perfetti is a January 1, 2002 born Canadian, literally the oldest in his grade and in minor hockey. Potentially less room for growth compared to those born later in the 2002 birthyear, like Quinton Byfield, an August 19, 2002 born Canadian, one of the younger kids in the school year grouping and nearly the youngest in the 2020 Draft class, thus potential for more room to grow.

Again, it's not the end all be all, but something I do take into consideration.

 

[CanadienShark]

I consider it a non factor. If you play in a certain age group, I don't think being 6 months younger actually makes a difference.

 

[User1996]

Just another factor to over analyze. Over the course of a 12ish year playing career for these prospects, a matter of 6 months age difference is just a drop in the bucket

 

[NA Hockey]

I think it matters in Canada where the school year grouping (along with the hockey year grouping) being January 1-December 31, so thus, the January/early part of the year kids are the oldest in their grade growing up, oldest in minor hockey growing up, and may have dominated minor hockey because they were older and matured faster. Now that obviously doesn't mean January born Canadians suck, it just means they were always the oldest growing up and it's something to note. For example, Cole Perfetti is a January 1, 2002 born Canadian, literally the oldest in his grade and in minor hockey. Potentially less room for growth compared to those born later in the 2002 birthyear, like Quinton Byfield, an August 19, 2002 born Canadian, one of the younger kids in the school year grouping and nearly the youngest in the 2020 Draft class, thus potential for more room to grow.

Again, it's not the end all be all, but something I do take into consideration.

Perfetti played his entire minor hockey career with the 2001 age group so was literally the youngest growing up on his team and league. Many elite players play up an age group especially elite players born early in the year.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Perfetti played his entire minor hockey career with the 2001 age group so was literally the youngest growing up on his team and league. Many elite players play up an age group especially elite players born early in the year.

Did not know that. I did know (as most do) that Shane Wright (January 5 2004) played up with the 2003s for his whole minor hockey career.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Runway is hugely important, and age is often the best clue about how much runway a player has left. But it's only one of several clues about runway.

Yeah, this is a pretty good summation of it.

Growth isn't linear. Not everyone has a moustache in grade 4, some kids don't shave until they're 17. And that's part of the evaluation process (not the shaving so much, but...). Where are they on their physical development arc? And there are clues on that and there is research that you can do to help narrow that down per prospect.

I won't intend to distract the thread by using a prospect from this draft, but whether Sean Day made the cut by one day for his draft year or if he was nine months older than most of the class, it wouldn't have made any difference to me. It's quite clear where he was at on his physical development arc and how much room he had to expand on that AND how much he was using his physical tools to take advantage of his situation.

So, the pure age aspect of it matters only when it's part of a larger evaluation.

Similarly, and I've had this debate with some NHL guys, I don't care if you're 19 either. Not because I'll treat you the same as the 17 year old, but for the same reasons as above ^.

I was at the draft one year and I was sitting at the bar or somewhere before it was getting going and I saw an exec there that I knew...we got to talking, and I showed him my list of defensemen from a certain region and asked him what he thought.

He goes, "How can you have that guy so high? He's 19."
- Yeah, but he's playing great against this level of competition. He has a lot of pro qualities.
"Well, sure, but that's because he's older...he has an advantage."
- I agree. But let me ask you this: If you had drafted him last year, wouldn't you be thrilled with where he's at right now and wish you had him?
"Ya know, you're not wrong..."

The guy I had got drafted relatively high and he made the NHL.

Also, it's ok to look at 20 year olds depending on the state of your farm system too...you're not trying to draft AHLers...but hell, if you see someone that you think has some upside, maybe a European pro, and you need someone to jump to your affiliate right away, it's all right to look there too...same adjustments apply, but if you're skilled enough to figure it out, you can figure it out...

 

[Juxtaposer]

I would expect a player like Yakemchuk, who is on his third year in the CHL already, to play a more mature game than players like Dickinson or Parekh, who completed their second. Experience matters.

I would expect players like Levshunov and Buium, who did not have to accelerate their schooling to play in the NCAA this year, to perform better than if they were Macklin Celebrini’s age.

In head to head international matchups, age matters somewhat.

But other than that, it’s not a huge consideration for me, particularly with European prospects.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

I think it's overrated cause it's easily measurable, but the general premise behind it (some players are more developed than others and closer to their final product) is a big factor in scouting.

 

[majormajor]

I was at the draft one year and I was sitting at the bar or somewhere before it was getting going and I saw an exec there that I knew...we got to talking, and I showed him my list of defensemen from a certain region and asked him what he thought.

He goes, "How can you have that guy so high? He's 19."
- Yeah, but he's playing great against this level of competition. He has a lot of pro qualities.
"Well, sure, but that's because he's older...he has an advantage."
- I agree. But let me ask you this: If you had drafted him last year, wouldn't you be thrilled with where he's at right now and wish you had him?
"Ya know, you're not wrong..."

The guy I had got drafted relatively high and he made the NHL.

I asked myself this exact question with regard to Jesse Pulkkinen - if my team had drafted him 15th overall last year would I be happy with how he is playing right now? And at least for me the answer was yes.

I would expect a player like Yakemchuk, who is on his third year in the CHL already, to play a more mature game than players like Dickinson or Parekh, who completed their second. Experience matters.

CHL specific experience matters somewhat but more importantly these players are on a biological clock and are maturing physically and mentally along those lines. If Parekh was born six weeks earlier and in his third CHL season I don't know if it would have changed that much.

Players progression largely comes from training sessions on the ice. Pavel Mintyukov for example did not even have a D-1 season and showed up in the fall of his draft year as a different player. A much more high skilled player.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

It’s a small factor.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I asked myself this exact question with regard to Jesse Pulkkinen - if my team had drafted him 15th overall last year would I be happy with how he is playing right now? And at least for me the answer was yes.



CHL specific experience matters somewhat but more importantly these players are on a biological clock and are maturing physically and mentally along those lines. If Parekh was born six weeks earlier and in his third CHL season I don't know if it would have changed that much.

Players progression largely comes from training sessions on the ice. Pavel Mintyukov for example did not even have a D-1 season and showed up in the fall of his draft year as a different player. A much more high skilled player.

You don’t think having an additional major junior season under your belt helps a player’s progression at all? I agree it’s not a huge deal but I think it’s definitely worth taking into consideration.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I said “non” because the level at which it is relevant is of such a negligible amount that it did not do proper justice to call it “small” as that implies a greater amount of weight than it deserves. It should *not* be treated as a “tiebreaker” compared to basically any other tiebreaker. There is nothing to even suggest late birthdays perform worse or bust higher at a higher rate and anything correlating birth month to success/bust rate is almost certainly statistical noise.

By age 18, relative age effect has basically run its course. The negligible aspect only relates to the total extremes of a player who is one day eligible for the cutoff against a player that one day missed the last cutoff. But when discussing players that are like six months apart, I don’t think there’s any real difference at that point.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

I said “non” because the level at which it is relevant is of such a negligible amount that it did not do proper justice to call it “small” as that implies a greater amount of weight than it deserves. It should *not* be treated as a “tiebreaker” compared to basically any other tiebreaker. There is nothing to even suggest late birthdays perform worse or bust higher at a higher rate and anything correlating birth month to success/bust rate is almost certainly statistical noise.

By age 18, relative age effect has basically run its course. The negligible aspect only relates to the total extremes of a player who is one day eligible for the cutoff against a player that one day missed the last cutoff. But when discussing players that are like six months apart, I don’t think there’s any real difference at that point.

Zach Hamill was overvalued because he was a late birthday. Decent but unspectacular numbers in his 17 year old season, then he was able to stat pad and inflate his resume in his 18 year old season.

Draisaitl is one of the few late birthdays I've seen who had meh 17 year old season production, really good 18 year old season production, and become a superstar. Makar is more so an outlier because he played in the AJHL and developed at an insane rate year by year from junior to university to pro.

Being a late birthday doesn't matter if you're already a rockstar in your 17 year old season (ex: Kariya, Kane, Tavares, Eichel, Matthews)

 

[majormajor]

You don’t think having an additional major junior season under your belt helps a player’s progression at all? I agree it’s not a huge deal but I think it’s definitely worth taking into consideration.

Try re-reading.

 

[emptyNedder]

There have been several analyses that indicate the youngest and oldest players drafted slightly out-perform their draft position. Below is one example:

2022 analysis

 

[Kraken Jokes]

I said “non” because the level at which it is relevant is of such a negligible amount that it did not do proper justice to call it “small” as that implies a greater amount of weight than it deserves. It should *not* be treated as a “tiebreaker” compared to basically any other tiebreaker. There is nothing to even suggest late birthdays perform worse or bust higher at a higher rate and anything correlating birth month to success/bust rate is almost certainly statistical noise.

To follow up, I stated earlier that I evaluate a late birthday (2005, U19) prospects differently than U18 (2006) prospects. I would never suggest that late-birthday prospects have worse outcomes.

All things considered, I still have Demidov, Levshunov and Buium in my top 5.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Try re-reading.

You said “If Parekh was born six weeks earlier and in his third CHL season I don't know if it would have changed that much.”

I disagree, I think his game would be more mature and I would expect a higher level of defensive ability from him.

 

[Hale The Villain]

The way people should look at it is focus first on what development season the prospect is in, and then after figuring that out consider their relative age compared to the other prospects in the same development season.

Normally this works by looking at the player's birth year. Using this year's crop as an example, most players were born in 2006, but there are some 2005-borns with late birthdays that are also first-time draft eligibles. While they are drafted at the same time, the '05 borns (for the most part) are a season ahead of their '06 born peers.

Using a couple players as examples, Alexis Lafreniere and Nathan Legare were friends and played together for two seasons for Mille-Îles Seigneurs Bantam AAA in 14/15 and 15/16, plus a season of Midget AAAA for the Saint-Eustache Vikings in 16/17. After that season both were drafted to QMJHL teams because both were '01 borns. They then each played two QMJHL seasons in 17/18 and 18/19, but because Legare was born earlier in the same year as Lafreniere, he was eligible for the 2019 NHL Draft, while Lafreniere had to play an extra season prior to being drafted in 2020.

Even though Lafreniere was 6 months younger than Legare, it would be silly to think he was a year behind Legare in development when he got drafted the following year in 2020. Both had the same number of seasons played at the same levels since they were 14, but because of the Sep 15 cutoff put in place to ensure NHL teams aren't employing legal minors, Lafreniere got an extra season to develop and impress the scouts before they could draft him. But obviously Lafreniere's production was most accurately compared to other '01 borns like Legare who are in the same development season. Still most people on this site that year were comparing Lafreniere's stats in his 3rd CHL season to an '02 born Byfield's 2nd CHL season, which provides a slanted view of their potential and upside in favour of the late-birthday player who is a season ahead.

Once you factor in that '05 late-birthdays like Demidov, Buium, Yakemchuk, etc... are a season ahead of their '06 born fellow draft eligibles, it becomes obvious why their numbers are often more impressive, and why they are often favorites of unaware casual scouts on HF.

After you consider the number of development years a player has under his belt pre-draft, by all means you can then factor in how many months younger/older they are compared to other prospects. I personally don't put a ton of weight into whether a prospect is born Jan 1 or Sep 14 in the same year, but studies to suggest it plays somewhat of a role. Obviously the slightly younger prospect is slighty less physically and mentally developed, even if they have the same amount of hockey season splayed.

It's also important to factor in if a player is a late comer to competitive hockey. Some prospects don't start playing until later and that obviously means they have less development time as other prospects who started early. These players are the exception to the rule, however, and I certainly don't think it matters a ton if a player was on skates at 5 or 7, for example. Still it's something to take into consideration.

I think this is the biggest blindspot for most of HF when evaluating draft eligibles. Shocking how many people legitimately don't even consider this when comparing prospects.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

Age Bias at the NHL Draft

The above article uses the 07 to 13 drafts which weren't all that terrific. It also doesn't show defensemen or goalies in their SPAR values. It's an interesting read but would be worth someone taking a deeper dive again with advanced stats coming along a lot more than they did when that article first came out.

Here's another article that is worth a read. This study covers 1980 to 2006 when draft philosophy was considerably different than now.
Born at the Wrong Time: Selection Bias in the NHL Draft