I went through the PG 2009 rankings and compared the ages of the players ranked 1-20 and the players ranked 491-510. Rather than telling you right off what, if any, the age difference was between the two groups I'd like to get some guesses. Anybody brave enough to make a guess as to the difference in average age between the two groups is? Once I get 10 or more guesses I'll let you know what the results were.

Please feel free to explain the rationale behind your guess.

Question:
Average age difference between 2009 players ranked 1-20 and 491-510?

Choices:
0 months
1 month
2 months
3 months
4 months
5 months

 

Does the age difference really matter?

Talent is talent !!!


Why do we have to get so scientific--just play the game--the best 9 players are in the lineup

TR,
If talent is talent then there shouldn't be any difference and you should vote for 0 months if you haven't already. The results are what they are and you could be right on target.

CADAD

Please do not tell me how to vote---I can think for myself--polls mean nothing especially with the small pool of voters here---and the results could also be way off target

The poll results will just reflect people's opinions and the biases the people who vote bring with them. That result is interesting but doesn't "prove" anything.

The result of comparing the ages of the two groups does have real value and although it would be possible for it to be way off target it is quite unlikely. I will say the result was different from what I anticipated, given that I know a bit about distributions and probability.

The most interesting thing in this case would be to hear why people voted the way they did. I've admitted I guessed wrong before I saw the results.

I agree with TR. Talent is talent and a couple months shouldn't matter. I voted 0

CADad, like others I'm not sure why it is that important. Maybe at the younger ages but for rising Juniors? Hmm.

But it would be interesting to see your results. I think, however, your sample size is insufficient. Try the top and bottom 40.

15 answers, that's enough. You can all look at the poll to see what people thought.

I anticipated about a 1 month difference. The age advantage would have to be pretty significant for it to be more than that. I also didn't figure given the small sample size the 1 month was enough to be significant so I figured it would have to be at least 2 months to be meaningful. The difference was 3 months. 3 months difference in the average ages indicates a very strong bias.

If I had been making the poll up without knowing the answer I wouldn't have even bothered putting in the 4 month or 5 months answers as that's so much difference when you're talking average ages that it almost isn't possible.

Bum,
Top and bottom 40 would probably smear the results a bit but there's very little chance the basic results would change. Probably the only way to get a really good feel would be to take the whole database and then draw a trendline through it or show a distribution. As far as the people talking about a few months difference the difference between youngest and oldest among these 40 players was over a year and a half. Is it important? Only for scouts and pro scouts already take it into account in their own fashion.