Reply To: Game Intelligence / Decision Training

[hockeygod]

RWF,

Great topics for discussion!

Personally, I feel it comes down to individual differences and the opportunities the various programs provide.

Just like the LTAD model suggests, if a 'motivated' person gets the 'right' coaching at the 'best' time, maximal changes will occur. Change can still occur if all these factors aren't aligned, but to a lesser extent.

Your bantam draft comment: I have seen many top picks get dropped out of the league and have middling careers. I have seen kids NOT drafted become NHL all-stars. Does one become complacent and as Tom Renney once told me, "If you rest on your laurels, soon you will find yourself on the seat of your pants." Or does one who is overlooked, use this as fuel to train even harder?

Your comment about the 18 year old college player: makes me recall some statements from my undergrad psychology days. I think it might have been related to 'The Ceiling / Floor Effect.' Essentially, if one is weak at the start, one can make rapid gains up to a point where the gains start to level off, then even out as there is only 'so high' one may score. Conversely, if one is really skilled from the start, they don't make such rapid improvements as they are already near the ceiling.

"A ceiling effect occurs when test items aren't challenging enough for a group of individuals. Thus, the test score will not increase for a subsample of people who may have clinically improved because they have already reached the highest score that can be achieved on that test. In other words, because the test has a limited number of difficult items, the most highly functioning individuals will score at the highest possible score. This becomes a measurement problem when you are trying to identify changes – the person may continue to improve but the test does not capture that improvement."

http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/strokengine-assess/definitions-en.html

In statistics, the term floor effect refers to when data cannot take on a value lower than some particular number, called the floor.

An example of this is when an IQ test is given to young children who have either (a) been given training or (b) have been given no training. If the test is too difficult (so difficult that no amount of training will affect the ability to carry out the test), both group (a) and group (b) will perform particularly badly. This does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the training has no effect on the ability to complete the IQ test. In fact, this may lead to a Type II error. The IQ test is too difficult, and by making the questions less difficult, training may have an effect on the ability to complete the IQ score.

Here, the floor effect is the data all hitting the bottom end of the distribution due to the extreme difficulty of the task. A ceiling effect is precisely the opposite – all participants reaching the high end of the distribution (e.g. the test was too easy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_effect

The difference between two 18 year old kids in the same setting – one improves rapidly while one doesn't – might come down to individual differences. Maybe one comes from a broken, abusive home and moving away, he sees this as a Godsend and a way 'out' of poverty and his situation, he is given some ice time, he grabs it and runs with it, has some success, so he earns more ice time and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe the other kid comes from privilege and has always been a 'big fish in a small pond'. Now he is away from home for the first time, is homesick, can't focus on the school or hockey, doesn't commit his mind and body like kid #1, loses confidence, gets less ice time and this snowballs.

Now I am not presuming that I know the situation of the kids in your real example, but I am just trying to illustrate 'life' could also contribute factors as to why one excels and another doesn't in a similar situation.

Who knows?

I like your thinking about the kid who is 'an overall athlete' – many layers thick. I believe and have seen first hand these kids make large improvements as time goes on. They are generalists at the start and then start to specialize in various sports at the tight time. One Pee Wee aged kid I have been working with the last year jumped from a Div 5 to a Div 1 team in one year. He does a variety of sports and DOES NOT play hockey in the spring and summer. He does soccer, skiing, lacrosse and a variety of other things (biking, etc.) You wouldn't believe the strides he has made in 2 years! His sister (11 years old) has only skated for two years (and played hockey both years.) She is really 'game smart' – similarly playing lots of different sports – and has also improved tremendously. I am going to watch them play their 'other sports' this spring and summer so I can gain an overall comparison of how their development.

Kids who only play one sport (and / or specialize too early) may show early gains in their skill set, but ultimately, they will be passed later by those well-rounded kids who play lots of different things (if both kids continue to play those sports). I have also seen many of of the early specializers tend to burn out and drop out. I suspect they have 'pushy' parents who have the best of intentions at heart – for their kids to be the best – but in the long run, end up 'pushing' those kids right out.

As to your comment about the more cerebral players – on the surface, it makes sense that this is the case, perhaps because they have developed the critical thinking skills / mental maturity to apply their 'academic' work ethic to other areas in their life, but I also know lots of stereotypically 'dumb jock' types whose passion is clearly the sport and they pay little attention to the books; while excelling in sport. Would they also excel academically if pushed? Are they just 'book lazy' and relying on their athleticism to move forward? Or are they truly less capable in academics?

Again… who knows? That is the million dollar question. If you or I had 'THE ANSWER', we would be retired… counting our money!
——————————-
Good post Dean.
Tom

Dean
M.Ed (Coaching)
Ch.P.C. (Chartered Professional Coach)
Game Intelligence Training
"Great education depends on great teaching."