The age factor of the NHL Entry Draft

[Darkre]

The mid to late teens are key in the growth and development for any young man, let alone athletes.  The jump from 16 to 17 then 17 to 18 are huge physically and emotionally. We've all heard the comments regarding overage players in the CHL, "well he is 20 years old so he should be dominating his competition."  We've seen this same sentiment stated when a player is selected in his 2nd or 3rd draft eligible season, "I wish they had used that pick on a younger player with more upside.  It would be a riskier pick but the potential reward is much higher." Yet for some reason age seems to be ignored when it comes to discussing first time eligible prospects. 

 

Nolan Patrick (9-19-1998) was almost eligible for last years entry draft missing the cut off by 4 days.  He is the oldest highly ranked player for the 2017 entry draft which gives him a huge advantage over many of the other prospects.  Casey Mittelstadt (11-22-1998) has been one of the fastest risers of this draft along with Nico Hischier (1-4-1999).  Hischier as the youngest of this group is 8 months older than others in this draft class.  Patrick has had an extra year to grow, develop and mature compared to those born in August 1999.  This is not insignificant.

 

Gabriel Vilardi (8-16-1999) is a full 11 months younger then Patrick, 9 months younger then Mittelstadt and 7 month younger then Hischier.  In fact he is the youngest player likely to go in the top 10 by 3.5 months.  When comparing a Vilardi to Partick or even Mittelstadt you need to look at where those 2 players were when they were the same age as Vilradi, not where they are now.  Patrick and Hischier were both better players than Vilardi when they were the same age but Mittelstadt wasn't.  I've seen many people trying to claim Mittelstadt could be the next Clayton Keller yet these people ignore the fact that Keller is actually only 4 months older then Mittelstadt.  I'm not trying to slag Mittelstadt, I think he's a heck of a prospect, but age and maturity likely played a role in his success this season.

 

I'm also not advocating for Vilardi to go #1 overall.  I've used these players as examples as they are well known to CDC members due to their draft rankings.  I do feel that Vilardi deserves to be ranked higher then Mittelstadt.  Where I feel this should be a significant factor is later in the draft.  Even beyond the top 5 this should be useful and carefully considered when making a selection as this is where players tend to bunch up on draft charts and things become more of a crapshoot.  Where 2 players are ranked equally on a teams draft chart and one player is significantly (6-12 months) younger then the other the team should go with the younger player.  

 

Obviously age can't be the only factor in determining player selection but it should play a major role in the discussion.  

 

 

My two picks for significant improvement compared to draft position based on this for later in the 1st round would be:

Center Nicholas Suzuki (8-10-1999).  Many of the players ranked around him are 8-10 months older than he is.  Suzuki probably has the most potential to improve his stock next season compared to his draft position.

Defenceman Miro Heiskanen (7-18-1999) is another player that has significant potential to improve next season compared to the other defencemen ranked near him as most of the top defencemen are 1998 birth dates.

 

 

 

 

[EagleShield]

Auston Matthews has a similarly timed birthday to NP. Ehlers is 6 months older than Virtanen.

 

All things being equal, go with the younger guy. But they aren't equal.

[Aircool]

I wonder which Sedin is older? By this logic it was Daniel I guess. He's probably cursing his mother.... something about the wrong order yada yada.

[DownUndaCanuck]

The biggest thing I take from it is that younger guys are more likely to grow physically a bit more and may develop a bit more in their game. Hirschier and Vilardi being younger than the rest by not a whole lot doesn't matter too much, but you think Vilardi might really fill out into that big frame.

 

For me it's not a deal-breaker, but I'd put Hirschier > Nolan and Vilardi > Mittelstatd anyway.

[ItsMillerTime]

1. Hishier 2. Vilardi 3. Patrick Is my prediction . Im thinking Nolan Patrick having those injury issues is a big deal.

[Warhippy]

Age is always a factor.

 

One of the more pressing reasons that's true is, much like Virtanen and Juolevi who were the younger players in their draft it is CHL NHL or nothing.

 

You are almost forced to play them or develop them.

 

Juolevi will need/have an extra year of seasoning because without a trade we've no room.

 

Vilardi would be faced with the same issue, because without moving a Center/RW we've no room for him, although seeking a year in Europe for him might be a very very good thing as it would help his skating immensely, spending another year in the CHL as an 18 year old and in the SEL or swiss league as a 19 year old

 

I've actually no issues drafting the youngest or younger players in a draft just for this reason, it stretches out their development timeline by almost a full year.  And for a team like ours who won't be competing or competitive for at least 2 more years that fits the timeline perfectly. 

[JM_]

46 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Age is always a factor.

 

One of the more pressing reasons that's true is, much like Virtanen and Juolevi who were the younger players in their draft it is CHL NHL or nothing.

 

You are almost forced to play them or develop them.

 

Juolevi will need/have an extra year of seasoning because without a trade we've no room.

 

Vilardi would be faced with the same issue, because without moving a Center/RW we've no room for him, although seeking a year in Europe for him might be a very very good thing as it would help his skating immensely, spending another year in the CHL as an 18 year old and in the SEL or swiss league as a 19 year old

 

I've actually no issues drafting the youngest or younger players in a draft just for this reason, it stretches out their development timeline by almost a full year.  And for a team like ours who won't be competing or competitive for at least 2 more years that fits the timeline perfectly. 

Somethings gotta give on the CHL-AHL thing. Being allowed to bring in U20 Euro kids to the AHL but not from the CHL makes no sense. I get that the CHL doesn't want a drain of its "star players" but its a development league. There's only a certain number of roster spots so I really don't see it being a big deal, at the very least it should be reduced by 1 year to 19. 

 

 

[baumerman77]

Age is a massive factor that people often under estimate. In the case of Matthews (Eichel, Hall, etc) you have to give their draft minus one season a lot more weight. The thing that always concerns me is when you have an October birthday and the guy has a bad minus one draft year and is a late riser in his draft year. That is a huge red flag that age could be at play. 

 

 

[Warhippy]

6 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

Somethings gotta give on the CHL-AHL thing. Being allowed to bring in U20 Euro kids to the AHL but not from the CHL makes no sense. I get that the CHL doesn't want a drain of its "star players" but its a development league. There's only a certain number of roster spots so I really don't see it being a big deal, at the very least it should be reduced by 1 year to 19. 

 

 

1st round exemptions maybe

[Crabcakes]

I wouldn't put too much weight on age.  Kids develop at different rates and at different times (ages).  And the development curve is definitely not a straight one.

 

There are so many considerations other than age when evaluating a draft pick.  

 

True, in theory one eligible player may be 364 days older than another and a lot happens during that time.  The younger player may be more difficult to predict his future development, so the older player is the safer pick.  All things equal.  But we know that all things aren't equal.  

 

It's a consideration but it is way down the list imo.

[JM_]

16 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

1st round exemptions maybe

Sure, or how about allowing 21 or 22 year olds in the WHL? You could get a lot of guys un-drafted out of college who want another year of experience to get noticed. 

[baumerman77]

6 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

I wouldn't put too much weight on age.  Kids develop at different rates and at different times (ages).  And the development curve is definitely not a straight one.

 

There are so many considerations other than age when evaluating a draft pick.  

 

True, in theory one eligible player may be 364 days older than another and a lot happens during that time.  The younger player may be more difficult to predict his future development, so the older player is the safer pick.  All things equal.  But we know that all things aren't equal.  

 

It's a consideration but it is way down the list imo.

All things being equal the odds are to bet on the younger player at least that is what all the data I have seen points too - which makes sense (that player has more remove to grow). That factor seems to out weigh having less data. 

[Crabcakes]

20 minutes ago, baumerman77 said:

All things being equal the odds are to bet on the younger player at least that is what all the data I have seen points too - which makes sense (that player has more remove to grow). That factor seems to out weigh having less data. 

Like I said, if player A is 364 days younger than player B and has equal skill, then player A is further along the development curve than player B.  I understand the concept but things are never equal.  There are a whole laundry list of attributes that GM's are looking at from skill, IQ, skating, size, shot etc but also maturity, leadership, work ethic, ability to overcome adversity, and others.  GM's obviously have preferences for certain attributes over others.   And no 2 players are alike.

 

I agree that age is a factor but there are a lot of boxes that need to be checked first.  I am suggesting that it is rare that you get to the point where you are letting age determine your pick.

 

 

[baumerman77]

1 hour ago, Crabcakes said:

Like I said, if player A is 364 days younger than player B and has equal skill, then player A is further along the development curve than player B.  I understand the concept but things are never equal.  There are a whole laundry list of attributes that GM's are looking at from skill, IQ, skating, size, shot etc but also maturity, leadership, work ethic, ability to overcome adversity, and others.  GM's obviously have preferences for certain attributes over others.   And no 2 players are alike.

 

I agree that age is a factor but there are a lot of boxes that need to be checked first.  I am suggesting that it is rare that you get to the point where you are letting age determine your pick.

 

 

Age (along with line/teammates and competition) contextualizes many of those scouting attributes such as: skating, skill, IQ, size, shots, playmaking, leadership etc. Age should be a lens through which the player is evaluated, not an attribute in itself.

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, baumerman77 said:

Age (along with line/teammates and competition) contextualizes many of those scouting attributes such as: skating, skill, IQ, size, shots, playmaking, leadership etc. Age should be a lens through which the player is evaluated, not an attribute in itself.

As we discuss this I think I was working towards that conclusion.  So, I agree.  I'm cautious about treating one thing as a holy grail or magic bullet though.  People are too complex for that.

 

The development curve of an individual is not a straight line and there's no telling if an individual peaks early or late.  I think you have to draft for raw skill, and personal qualities and place the player in the best position to develop.

[EagleShield]

10 hours ago, baumerman77 said:

Age (along with line/teammates and competition) contextualizes many of those scouting attributes such as: skating, skill, IQ, size, shots, playmaking, leadership etc. Age should be a lens through which the player is evaluated, not an attribute in itself.

Exactly. Age and teammates are an important factor when you see a very young guy playing some astonishing stuff on a bad team. An example is Ryan Merkley in Guelph - if he were 32 days younger, he wouldn't be draft eligible until 2019, but even still his numbers are noteworthy. 55 points in 62 games as a 16 year old right shot defenseman on a team that scored only 202 goals all year and generally sucked ass is amazing. He was in on 55 of the 185 goals scored by Guelph excluding the time he was at the U17.

 

As you can tell, I'm very high on this kid - and it holds up when you look deeper at things like primary points (Goals and 1st assists) and 5v5 points.

 

If we get favourable ping pong balls this year and next, the rebuild could be over.

[Boudrias]

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 5:37 PM, Crabcakes said:

Like I said, if player A is 364 days younger than player B and has equal skill, then player A is further along the development curve than player B.  I understand the concept but things are never equal.  There are a whole laundry list of attributes that GM's are looking at from skill, IQ, skating, size, shot etc but also maturity, leadership, work ethic, ability to overcome adversity, and others.  GM's obviously have preferences for certain attributes over others.   And no 2 players are alike.

 

I agree that age is a factor but there are a lot of boxes that need to be checked first.  I am suggesting that it is rare that you get to the point where you are letting age determine your pick.

 

 

Malcom Gladwell started one of his books by analyzing two teams battling for a Memorial Cup. I am to lazy to look it up but his analysis centered around the age of the players and how their development was affected. What he discovered was that kids born in the 1st Quarter of their age group usually dominated that group. Being older and likely bigger than the rest of their cohort usually resulted in their getting more ice time and more prominent positions on their teams as they progressed through minor hockey. More rep team picks. The theory of 10 000 reps to become proficient in an activity was brought up. Since the older kids got the initial advantage they got that opportunity to get the reps and time which ultimately cemented their superiority. This process even extends to whether the player evolves as a more offensive or defensive player.  Not suggesting this concept is the sole determinant just that it is a factor. The extension is that when picking players choosing the birth dates of those players in the first 6 months of their cohort is a safer choice. Conversely if a player stands out in the last 6 months of his cohort he might be worth a hard look as he has obviously over come the odds. He likely has unique characteristics that have benefited his progress.     

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

Malcom Gladwell started one of his books by analyzing two teams battling for a Memorial Cup. I am to lazy to look it up but his analysis centered around the age of the players and how their development was affected. What he discovered was that kids born in the 1st Quarter of their age group usually dominated that group. Being older and likely bigger than the rest of their cohort usually resulted in their getting more ice time and more prominent positions on their teams as they progressed through minor hockey. More rep team picks. The theory of 10 000 reps to become proficient in an activity was brought up. Since the older kids got the initial advantage they got that opportunity to get the reps and time which ultimately cemented their superiority. This process even extends to whether the player evolves as a more offensive or defensive player.  Not suggesting this concept is the sole determinant just that it is a factor. The extension is that when picking players choosing the birth dates of those players in the first 6 months of their cohort is a safer choice. Conversely if a player stands out in the last 6 months of his cohort he might be worth a hard look as he has obviously over come the odds. He likely has unique characteristics that have benefited his progress.     

Interesting.  That's real big picture thinking.  1st Q kids have had developmental advantages from the earliest ages.

 

I remember when my son first got into contact sport around the age of 12.  There was the odd man-child who dominated.  You know, the early maturing kid who had a full beard at age 12.  The average group.  And a few who were smaller than the others.  It was the same when I was a kid.  There was one particular guy who was a big stud on my rugby team when we were 13-15 years old.  We all lost touch and I went on to play in men's leagues in another city while at University.  When I came back to the local club at age 22, I was surprised to see this fellow was now smaller than I was.  He was a skilled player still but by no means dominant.

 

I'm not trying to debunk Gladwell.  I know that when he makes claims like that, he has studied it fully.  Age may very well be a dominant factor statistically.  There are other factors involved though.  In hockey, the 1st Q kids may become more proficient at a younger age, having reached their 10,000 hours.  But, if other kids stick with it some how, like if they go to college undrafted, they will eventually reach the 10,000 hour level and at 20-22 we can compare the players.  I think that in certain cases, the younger ones never catch up but the ones that do are certainly worth looking at.

[Hairy Kneel]

interesting