03-13-2015, 02:29 PM
![[Image: 01-764.png]](http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/55034efbeab8ea205d8b4567-800-600/01-764.png)
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
about that 40 year decision
03-13-2015, 02:55 PM
Conclusion: Get your kids playing hockey if you want to maximize probability of making it to the pros. Greater than 0.2%. Not bad.
03-13-2015, 03:03 PM
What a stupidly designed chart, you can't make any sense out of the bars other than "wow that's a big drop-off", which anyone who's heard anything about this already knew.
03-13-2015, 03:18 PM
A bit deceptive since not all sports rely on college drafts (or are purely American).
A bit deceptive since not all sports rely on college drafts (or are purely American).
03-13-2015, 03:27 PM
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
03-13-2015, 05:20 PM
Ah, ok, that's a bit better but doesn't solve the issue. The problem is that the statistics WANT to tell you that you should focus on education because your odds of going pro in sports are infinitesimal, but that doesn't reflect the true odds:
1) a high schooler can go pro without going to college. (that's addressed because they normalize it to "number of college players).
2) a college player can go pro in American sports without being drafted. (undrafted free agents).
3) A college player can go pro in a league abroad without being drafted (pretty common in soccer and basketball.)
These aren't the true odds, is the point.
1) a high schooler can go pro without going to college. (that's addressed because they normalize it to "number of college players).
2) a college player can go pro in American sports without being drafted. (undrafted free agents).
3) A college player can go pro in a league abroad without being drafted (pretty common in soccer and basketball.)
These aren't the true odds, is the point.
Ah, ok, that's a bit better but doesn't solve the issue. The problem is that the statistics WANT to tell you that you should focus on education because your odds of going pro in sports are infinitesimal, but that doesn't reflect the true odds:
1) a high schooler can go pro without going to college. (that's addressed because they normalize it to "number of college players).
2) a college player can go pro in American sports without being drafted. (undrafted free agents).
3) A college player can go pro in a league abroad without being drafted (pretty common in soccer and basketball.)
These aren't the true odds, is the point.
1) a high schooler can go pro without going to college. (that's addressed because they normalize it to "number of college players).
2) a college player can go pro in American sports without being drafted. (undrafted free agents).
3) A college player can go pro in a league abroad without being drafted (pretty common in soccer and basketball.)
These aren't the true odds, is the point.
03-13-2015, 05:23 PM
(03-13-2015, 02:55 PM)donkey687 link Wrote:Conclusion: Get your kids playing hockey if you want to maximize probability of making it to the pros. Greater than 0.2%. Not bad.
Yeah, but for hockey you'd be better off not having your kid play high school hockey at all and instead get him drafted onto a junior team in the WHL, OHL, or QMJHL at 15.
Actually, I'm not sure they have higher conversion percentage, but a hell of a lot more than 60 players a year get drafted out of those leagues.
(03-13-2015, 05:20 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Ah, ok, that's a bit better but doesn't solve the issue. The problem is that the statistics WANT to tell you that you should focus on education because your odds of going pro in sports are infinitesimal, but that doesn't reflect the true odds:
it's also skewed because the NHL and MLB in particular have decent minor league systems. There are plenty of hockey players who get drafted and will never sign an actual NHL contract, or even if they do sign an NHL contract will never play in the NHL. Just like how the MLB has like a billion rounds in their drafts.
(03-13-2015, 02:55 PM)donkey687 link Wrote:Conclusion: Get your kids playing hockey if you want to maximize probability of making it to the pros. Greater than 0.2%. Not bad.
Yeah, but for hockey you'd be better off not having your kid play high school hockey at all and instead get him drafted onto a junior team in the WHL, OHL, or QMJHL at 15.
Actually, I'm not sure they have higher conversion percentage, but a hell of a lot more than 60 players a year get drafted out of those leagues.
(03-13-2015, 05:20 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Ah, ok, that's a bit better but doesn't solve the issue. The problem is that the statistics WANT to tell you that you should focus on education because your odds of going pro in sports are infinitesimal, but that doesn't reflect the true odds:
it's also skewed because the NHL and MLB in particular have decent minor league systems. There are plenty of hockey players who get drafted and will never sign an actual NHL contract, or even if they do sign an NHL contract will never play in the NHL. Just like how the MLB has like a billion rounds in their drafts.
03-13-2015, 05:39 PM
(03-13-2015, 05:20 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Ah, ok, that's a bit better but doesn't solve the issue. The problem is that the statistics WANT to tell you that you should focus on education because your odds of going pro in sports are infinitesimal, but that doesn't reflect the true odds:True, they are not the true odds given that there are non collegiate pathways to professional sports. But also consider that a fair number of players who are drafted never make a team, and some who do struggle along on practice squads or as third stringers and get cut after a season and never get financial security from their sport, and many minor leaguers also never attain financial security from their sport--I would say that these statistics actually understate the imperative of making a wise 40 year decision about an educational degree.Â
1) a high schooler can go pro without going to college. (that's addressed because they normalize it to "number of college players).
2) a college player can go pro in American sports without being drafted. (undrafted free agents).
3) A college player can go pro in a league abroad without being drafted (pretty common in soccer and basketball.)
These aren't the true odds, is the point.
(03-13-2015, 05:20 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Ah, ok, that's a bit better but doesn't solve the issue. The problem is that the statistics WANT to tell you that you should focus on education because your odds of going pro in sports are infinitesimal, but that doesn't reflect the true odds:True, they are not the true odds given that there are non collegiate pathways to professional sports. But also consider that a fair number of players who are drafted never make a team, and some who do struggle along on practice squads or as third stringers and get cut after a season and never get financial security from their sport, and many minor leaguers also never attain financial security from their sport--I would say that these statistics actually understate the imperative of making a wise 40 year decision about an educational degree.Â
1) a high schooler can go pro without going to college. (that's addressed because they normalize it to "number of college players).
2) a college player can go pro in American sports without being drafted. (undrafted free agents).
3) A college player can go pro in a league abroad without being drafted (pretty common in soccer and basketball.)
These aren't the true odds, is the point.
03-13-2015, 09:16 PM
(03-13-2015, 05:20 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Ah, ok, that's a bit better but doesn't solve the issue. The problem is that the statistics WANT to tell you that you should focus on education because your odds of going pro in sports are infinitesimal, but that doesn't reflect the true odds:
1) a high schooler can go pro without going to college. (that's addressed because they normalize it to "number of college players).
2) a college player can go pro in American sports without being drafted. (undrafted free agents).
3) A college player can go pro in a league abroad without being drafted (pretty common in soccer and basketball.)
These aren't the true odds, is the point.
LOL. Change the odds by 2x or 3x or whatever, and the point is still made quite well.
(03-13-2015, 05:20 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Ah, ok, that's a bit better but doesn't solve the issue. The problem is that the statistics WANT to tell you that you should focus on education because your odds of going pro in sports are infinitesimal, but that doesn't reflect the true odds:
1) a high schooler can go pro without going to college. (that's addressed because they normalize it to "number of college players).
2) a college player can go pro in American sports without being drafted. (undrafted free agents).
3) A college player can go pro in a league abroad without being drafted (pretty common in soccer and basketball.)
These aren't the true odds, is the point.
LOL. Change the odds by 2x or 3x or whatever, and the point is still made quite well.
03-13-2015, 09:31 PM
(03-13-2015, 09:16 PM)standfan link Wrote:LOL. Change the odds by 2x or 3x or whatever, and the point is still made quite well.
The point may still be strong but it's a bit cavalier to say that the argumentative ends justify the means.
(03-13-2015, 09:16 PM)standfan link Wrote:LOL. Change the odds by 2x or 3x or whatever, and the point is still made quite well.
The point may still be strong but it's a bit cavalier to say that the argumentative ends justify the means.
03-14-2015, 12:23 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2015, 12:25 AM by ThePassionOfTheChryst.)
(03-13-2015, 05:20 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Ah, ok, that's a bit better but doesn't solve the issue. The problem is that the statistics WANT to tell you that you should focus on education because your odds of going pro in sports are infinitesimal, but that doesn't reflect the true odds:And not a single nit was left unpicked.
1) a high schooler can go pro without going to college. (that's addressed because they normalize it to "number of college players).
2) a college player can go pro in American sports without being drafted. (undrafted free agents).
3) A college player can go pro in a league abroad without being drafted (pretty common in soccer and basketball.)
These aren't the true odds, is the point.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2015, 12:25 AM by ThePassionOfTheChryst.)
(03-13-2015, 05:20 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Ah, ok, that's a bit better but doesn't solve the issue. The problem is that the statistics WANT to tell you that you should focus on education because your odds of going pro in sports are infinitesimal, but that doesn't reflect the true odds:And not a single nit was left unpicked.
1) a high schooler can go pro without going to college. (that's addressed because they normalize it to "number of college players).
2) a college player can go pro in American sports without being drafted. (undrafted free agents).
3) A college player can go pro in a league abroad without being drafted (pretty common in soccer and basketball.)
These aren't the true odds, is the point.
03-14-2015, 07:20 AM
It's nit picking only if the numbers going pro by the other methods or playing pro in other leagues is small.
That's probably true in Am. football. However, in women's basketball, almost all the college players who go pro end up playing abroad at some point. A chart like the one above is almost meaningless in tennis, where the top players almost always come from academies.
That's probably true in Am. football. However, in women's basketball, almost all the college players who go pro end up playing abroad at some point. A chart like the one above is almost meaningless in tennis, where the top players almost always come from academies.
It's nit picking only if the numbers going pro by the other methods or playing pro in other leagues is small.
That's probably true in Am. football. However, in women's basketball, almost all the college players who go pro end up playing abroad at some point. A chart like the one above is almost meaningless in tennis, where the top players almost always come from academies.
That's probably true in Am. football. However, in women's basketball, almost all the college players who go pro end up playing abroad at some point. A chart like the one above is almost meaningless in tennis, where the top players almost always come from academies.
03-15-2015, 01:57 PM
(03-14-2015, 12:23 AM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=11870.msg114722#msg114722 date=1426292404]And not a single nit was left unpicked.
Ah, ok, that's a bit better but doesn't solve the issue. The problem is that the statistics WANT to tell you that you should focus on education because your odds of going pro in sports are infinitesimal, but that doesn't reflect the true odds:
1) a high schooler can go pro without going to college. (that's addressed because they normalize it to "number of college players).
2) a college player can go pro in American sports without being drafted. (undrafted free agents).
3) A college player can go pro in a league abroad without being drafted (pretty common in soccer and basketball.)
These aren't the true odds, is the point.
[/quote]
So from a layman's perspective, it is somewhere between 94% and 98% a better decision to attend Stanford than a football factory? Am I in the ballpark?
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(03-14-2015, 12:23 AM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=11870.msg114722#msg114722 date=1426292404]And not a single nit was left unpicked.
Ah, ok, that's a bit better but doesn't solve the issue. The problem is that the statistics WANT to tell you that you should focus on education because your odds of going pro in sports are infinitesimal, but that doesn't reflect the true odds:
1) a high schooler can go pro without going to college. (that's addressed because they normalize it to "number of college players).
2) a college player can go pro in American sports without being drafted. (undrafted free agents).
3) A college player can go pro in a league abroad without being drafted (pretty common in soccer and basketball.)
These aren't the true odds, is the point.
[/quote]
So from a layman's perspective, it is somewhere between 94% and 98% a better decision to attend Stanford than a football factory? Am I in the ballpark?
Audaces fortuna iuvat
03-16-2015, 04:49 AM
(03-15-2015, 03:35 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=11870.msg114776#msg114776 date=1426453027]And not a single nit was left unpicked.
[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=11870.msg114734#msg114734 date=1426317813]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=11870.msg114722#msg114722 date=1426292404]
Ah, ok, that's a bit better but doesn't solve the issue. The problem is that the statistics WANT to tell you that you should focus on education because your odds of going pro in sports are infinitesimal, but that doesn't reflect the true odds:
1) a high schooler can go pro without going to college. (that's addressed because they normalize it to "number of college players).
2) a college player can go pro in American sports without being drafted. (undrafted free agents).
3) A college player can go pro in a league abroad without being drafted (pretty common in soccer and basketball.)
These aren't the true odds, is the point.
[/quote]
So from a layman's perspective, it is somewhere between 94% and 98% a better decision to attend Stanford than a football factory? Am I in the ballpark?
[/quote]
93.7 - 98.03
[/quote]
I'll take that as in the ballpark, perhaps not lower box seats, but not view-reserved, SRO either. Call it low bleachers or outfield, ten rows up.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(03-15-2015, 03:35 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=11870.msg114776#msg114776 date=1426453027]And not a single nit was left unpicked.
[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=11870.msg114734#msg114734 date=1426317813]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=11870.msg114722#msg114722 date=1426292404]
Ah, ok, that's a bit better but doesn't solve the issue. The problem is that the statistics WANT to tell you that you should focus on education because your odds of going pro in sports are infinitesimal, but that doesn't reflect the true odds:
1) a high schooler can go pro without going to college. (that's addressed because they normalize it to "number of college players).
2) a college player can go pro in American sports without being drafted. (undrafted free agents).
3) A college player can go pro in a league abroad without being drafted (pretty common in soccer and basketball.)
These aren't the true odds, is the point.
[/quote]
So from a layman's perspective, it is somewhere between 94% and 98% a better decision to attend Stanford than a football factory? Am I in the ballpark?
[/quote]
93.7 - 98.03
[/quote]
I'll take that as in the ballpark, perhaps not lower box seats, but not view-reserved, SRO either. Call it low bleachers or outfield, ten rows up.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »