Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

90/10 Rule

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Iunderstand the question now...I am from a small rural town of 20K in a county of 100LK. In the pas 10 years or so, there has been 2 NFL players and 1 MLB player from the area. I watched all three of them in high school and they were heads and shoulders above everyone from age 10 to 18. So yes, an elite pro is in the top 10% when younger. They are on a different level, not wired like the average person.

    Comment


    • #17
      If you look at the number of undrafted, late round picks, and on occasion players who didn't take up their sport until a relatively late age that rise to high levels in sports it says that development can happen quite late.

      I would buy into a high percentage of pro athletes being among the best players entering college. Their varsity years in HS a little lower percentage. Entering HS lower again. And prior to that ("that" mainly being puberty) I don't believe it's anywhere near a 90/10 rule.

      If the question were, "Would you agree that 90% of professional athletes were HS standouts?" I'd say, yes I agree. If the question were, "Would you agree that 90% of professional athletes were considered to be the best player in their league at age 10?" I'd say no.

      I recently read an article where the U. of Ore.'s top pitching recruit said that he never made an all star team. I referenced Herschel Walker earlier. Once an overweight teen with no desire to participate in sports, he goes on to be arguably the most gifted collegiate athlete ever. From my own experience, at 10 I was so fat and slow that adults made fun of me. I later became a college walk on WR because I had a legit sub 4.5 40. A kid in my son's baseball program - never an all star, pigeon holed at 1B because he was slow and unathletic. Kid is now a varsity underclassman with track speed and built like a Thoroughbred. I mean I could go on and on, but the long and short of it is this: Yes, some will mature early, stay dedicated, and continue to improve ahead of their peers. Others will mature later and play catch up, perhaps even leaving their peers behind.
      There are two kinds of losers.....Those that don't do what they are told, and those that do only what they are told.

      Comment


      • #18
        I am not saying that the all top 10% of youth have a shot. Just saying that 90% of the pros that make it were in the top 10% of their peers when they were kids.

        Comment


        • #19
          No intent to be missleading, I agree with your statement 100%.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by real green View Post
            I am not saying that the all top 10% of youth have a shot. Just saying that 90% of the pros that make it were in the top 10% of their peers when they were kids.
            If you mean like 16, 17, and 18 when you say "when they were kids" a pretty high percentage probably were in the top 10%. The further you go back from there though that number shrinks. Earlier when you said like 5 or 6 years old.............that's a joke (right?). I think back to some of the kids I played sports with even in Pop Warner, LL, and junior high and where they topped out at in HS. The 90/10 rule doesn't even hold true for that.
            Last edited by shake-n-bake; 04-11-2012, 11:24 AM.
            There are two kinds of losers.....Those that don't do what they are told, and those that do only what they are told.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by shake-n-bake View Post
              If you look at the number of undrafted, late round picks, and on occasion players who didn't take up their sport until a relatively late age that rise to high levels in sports it says that development can happen quite late.

              I would buy into a high percentage of pro athletes being among the best players entering college. Their varsity years in HS a little lower percentage. Entering HS lower again. And prior to that ("that" mainly being puberty) I don't believe it's anywhere near a 90/10 rule.

              If the question were, "Would you agree that 90% of professional athletes were HS standouts?" I'd say, yes I agree. If the question were, "Would you agree that 90% of professional athletes were considered to be the best player in their league at age 10?" I'd say no.

              I recently read an article where the U. of Ore.'s top pitching recruit said that he never made an all star team. I referenced Herschel Walker earlier. Once an overweight teen with no desire to participate in sports, he goes on to be arguably the most gifted collegiate athlete ever. From my own experience, at 10 I was so fat and slow that adults made fun of me. I later became a college walk on WR because I had a legit sub 4.5 40. A kid in my son's baseball program - never an all star, pigeon holed at 1B because he was slow and unathletic. Kid is now a varsity underclassman with track speed and built like a Thoroughbred. I mean I could go on and on, but the long and short of it is this: Yes, some will mature early, stay dedicated, and continue to improve ahead of their peers. Others will mature later and play catch up, perhaps even leaving their peers behind.
              I agree not all pro's were studs from a young age, but I would bet 90% of them were.

              Comment


              • #22
                Also, in today's youth sports climate where safety and parity are emphasized far more than back in the day, there's a lot of kids that could shine more brightly that don't. And there's kids that excel more than they once would have. This muddies the water a bit as well.
                There are two kinds of losers.....Those that don't do what they are told, and those that do only what they are told.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by real green View Post
                  I agree not all pro's were studs from a young age, but I would bet 90% of them were.
                  Define "young age." Post-puberty or pre-puberty?
                  There are two kinds of losers.....Those that don't do what they are told, and those that do only what they are told.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    If we put restrictions on the age and, arbitrarily, say 10yo's, I would wager that if you could quantify such a thing the percentage would be much higher than 90%. While there are plenty of examples of late bloomers in sports, does anyone really believe those stories make up greater than 10% of the total professional athletes?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Well, I did some figurin'........

                      8123533-green-school-board-with-chaotic-mathematical-formulas.jpg

                      .....and I think that what has been posted throughout this thread is fairly close to correct.

                      So yes, 90% of MLB players, probably played LL or some sort of sandlot ball when they were younger, and were without a doubt, possibly pretty good, sometime before they reached "the show".
                      You can all thank me later.......
                      In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by shake-n-bake View Post
                        Define "young age." Post-puberty or pre-puberty?
                        Pre-puberty. Coaching kids, having kids, being around kids, form a very young age you can see who has better command of their body. 5-6 yr olds might be a stretch, but you can see a huge seperation in "natural skill set" by 8yrs old.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by shake-n-bake View Post
                          If you mean like 16, 17, and 18 when you say "when they were kids" a pretty high percentage probably were in the top 10%. The further you go back from there though that number shrinks. Earlier when you said like 5 or 6 years old.............that's a joke (right?). I think back to some of the kids I played sports with even in Pop Warner, LL, and junior high and where they topped out at in HS. The 90/10 rule doesn't even hold true for that.
                          I would guess top HS athletes make up much higher than 90% of professional atheletes. How many collegiate athletes were poor HS athletes? I feel kids are born with natural ability to compete at very high levels. And no I am not joking about 5-6 yr olds. It's pretty easy to see natural athletes at very young ages.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by real green View Post
                            I would guess top HS athletes make up much higher than 90% of professional atheletes. How many collegiate athletes were poor HS athletes? I feel kids are born with natural ability to compete at very high levels. And no I am not joking about 5-6 yr olds. It's pretty easy to see natural athletes at very young ages.
                            I agree that you can see early if a kid has talent or not. but what's the point about that?

                            you still cannot project success. what you can predict is failure but not success..
                            I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              In these youngsters, are you talking about natural athleticism or learned skills?

                              A lot of the ability you see in an 8-year-old is "just" evidence of how much (whether?) he practices, IMO.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by bbrages View Post
                                In these youngsters, are you talking about natural athleticism or learned skills?

                                A lot of the ability you see in an 8-year-old is "just" evidence of how much (whether?) he practices, IMO.
                                Natural Athletism for sure! Granted, the higher your natural athletism the quicker you develop learned skills. And yes, at 8yrs old a middle of the road kid can work hard and learn skills to compete with a lazy natural athlete.

                                The lazy natural athlete is unfortunate. If he never learns to work hard, the game will kick him to the curb. A good friend of mine drafted out of high school with a nice little bonus never learned to work. He was out of the game at 22. This was the kid that just showed up through HS and was the top player of every sport he participated in. Never took the extra step to improve. He just showed up, you gave him the ball (any ball) and he dominated.

                                It takes that kind of natural athletism AND work ethic to make it in professional sports today. You need both. Determenation is not enough to over come lack of natural talent at the professional level. That natural talent stands out like a "turd in milk" at a very young age. In my opinion.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X