New Age Group Statistics U13

G

galaxydad

SILVER ELITE
I decided to do a little statistical analysis and what I came up with is right on with statisticians take on age bias-

Of the 86 total U13 DA Academies (there are 88 but 2 do not have completed rosters with DOB)

Only 325 of the players in the entire US are born in Oct-Dec. (1634 total)
October- 124
November- 102
December- 99

The last 3 months of this birth year make up only 19 percent of the total player pool. That is a 6% break from what statistically it should be.

The Pats and Strikers have zero Oct-Dec Players, Albion & FCGS have one Oct player each, LAUFA has 2 players one Oct and one Dec.

Galaxy,Surf, Arsenal, Real So Cal have a 25% distribution
 
Last edited:
galaxydad said:
I decided to do a little statistical analysis and what I came up with is right on with statisticians take on age bias-

Of the 86 total U13 DA Academies (there are 88 but 2 do not have completed rosters with DOB)

Only 325 of the players in the entire US are born in Oct-Dec. (1634 total)
October- 124
November- 102
December- 99

The last 3 months of this birth year make up only 19 percent of the total player pool. That is a 14% break from what statistically it should be.

The Pats and Strikers have zero Oct-Dec Players, Albion & FCGS have one Oct player each, LAUFA has 2 players one Oct and one Dec.

Galaxy,Surf, Arsenal, Real So Cal have a 25% distribution of Oct-Dec Players only 8% off of norm

Only 3 of the 86 DA teams meet the statistical norms of the general population distribution and zero exceeded it.

I am not calling for a mandatory distribution or anything of that nature but its interesting to see how birth months help some and hurt others. Other countries are turning to 6 month age groups to help develop as many players as possible and lessen the birth month bias.

and yes, I have too much time
Click to expand...
A minor error. The last 3 months of the birth year only account for 25% of the months, not 1/3. Good post though.
 
Laced said:
A minor error. The last 3 months of the birth year only account for 25% of the months, not 1/3. Good post though.
Click to expand...
Did the post make that error?

Anyway, great analysis. I'm on mobile, but it would be great if someone could chi-square test this distribution.

Also: kudos to those clubs who - it looks - may have enforced selection of younger kids. It will pay off for them over time.
 
Galaxydad, up for doing the same for the LA and SD brackets at U12 DA? Curious to see if the trend is consistent at these clubs for the youngest age group as well. Looking at this group with 04s/05s adds a bit of a twist to it though.
 
lets make this a little easier and divide it by the old aug-july age. percentage shows teams with youngers second half of the year birthdays.

Arsenal - 19 players rostered - 14 players born after august - 74%

Albion - 15 players rostered - 2 players born after august - 7%

Central California Aztecs - 16 players rostered - 7 players born after august - 44%

Golden State - 17 players rostered - 4 players born after august - 24%

Galaxy - 21 players rostered - 5 players born after august - 24%

LAUFA - 16 players rostered - 7 players born after august - 44%

Nomads - 20 players rostered - 10 players born after august - 50%

Nomads - 20 players rostered - 10 players born after august - 50%

Pats - 15 players rostered - 5 players born after august - 33%

Real SoCal- 16 players rostered - 7 players born after august - 44%

Surf- 20 players rostered - 9 players born after august - 45%

Santa Barbara- 19 players rostered - 9 players born after august - 47%

Strikers- 16 players rostered - 1 player born after august - 6%
 
Splitting the roster down the middle misses the point. If the kids born in the last three months are often too small, physically or mentally immature and left off (we did this with the jan-march kids prior) we are doing a disservice to them as in a couple years the age effect will balance out BUT those kids have already been thrown aside. 25% of the potential stars are lost. There has to be a better way.
 
Slightly but not far off topic. With the new age matrix - my dd went from the 11th month of the year to now (new matrix) 6th month of the year - with the kids from the oldest five months (Aug-Dec) dropping out of age group. I have noticed a HUGE drop off in the level of play from last year to this year even though she has moved up a level (flight) in play. Kids are way smaller and noticeably less athletic and talented. It really drives home the point about the huge swings in size and athleticism between kids within 12 months of age. If you are on the old side of any age matrix you have a big advantage and vice versa if you are on the young side. I am noticing huge changes in level of play - it is as if we moved down an entire age group. Like swinging a baseball bat with a donut on it then swinging it without.
 
"I think Albion U13 USDA has at least 2 2004s, so your numbers are off on that one"

You are correct. It was one of the first I looked at and didnt notice the birth years, I was looking at months born.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top