Here are the combined win % for all top level teams in their age brackets for the spring Npyll and HoCo seasons.
These are games played on real fields with real refs using standard rules with consistent players (unlike most tournaments).
These are only the teams through 8th (going into 9th) grade. Club. Win % Crabs 92.0% Annapolis Hawks 85.4% FCA 72.4% Bethesda 68.0% Madlax 65.9% Baltimore Breakers 65.4% Greene Turtle 58.3% Club Blue 57.5% Looney's 55.6% Arden Diamondbacks 52.2% Kooper's 50.0% Rough Riders 50.0% Next Level 48.8% Storm 44.4% VLC 42.9% API Select 41.7% Cannons 38.6% Zingos 33.3% Rock 30.4% MD Elite 23.1%
Anybody who has the time and inclination to produce stats like this seriously needs a mental health examination.
You're right. Why bring facts into an argument about which club has a better record top to bottom?
One, these are stats, not facts.
Two, these "stats" are skewed. Not every club listed here fielded the same number of teams. Some fielded teams in NPYLL. Some in Hoco. Some in both. Some fielded teams at the A level. Some only in B. Some in both.
There is a wide variance among these teams in terms of number of teams fielded, teams in HoCo, teams in NPYLL, teams in both, teams who played NPYLL A, NPYLL B, etc.
Thus, the winning percentage stats are rendered meaningless. The only thing you can draw is that the author of the "study" is weird.
These stats are only for the top level teams at each grade level. No B or C level league results were included. These are the very top teams representing each club at all Grade levels (a win for the top 2rd grade team counts as much as a win for the top 8th grade team). The information came from the NPYLL and HoCo websites and about ˝ hour of effort was taken to put them all together in a spreadsheet. The stats/facts are only as good as the NPYLL and HoCo websites.
In some cases, the clubs chose not to field a team at the top level in each grade. Some clubs only fielded 2 top level teams total. Other clubs had as many as 7. The top level HoCo leagues may not be at the same level as the top level Npyll leagues, but I think they are in the same ball park. - so yes the results are skewed, but I don't believe they are meaningless.
I was at a loss on how to evaluate the multitude of clubs out there today to justify the significant cost (Paying these costs for youth sport may be the real reason for a mental health examination).
All clubs "build character", "improve a player's skills", "win championships" and put out D1 players – just look at their websites. But as everyone points out, most clubs are inconsistent top to bottom having good and bad teams and coaches within the organization. Depending on who you are talking to, the same team/coach could be good or bad. So I crunched the numbers.
I am open to any suggestions on a better way to compare the clubs top to bottom.
Is using tournament records any better? The overall tournament competition is very inconsistent especially with teams using “guest players” and playing down a grade level or teams just hitting the weaker tournaments.
Is listing D1 commits better? D1 commits really only come from the older teams and you don’t know if the club that now has those players did the development of them.
Even talking to the coaches and attending many tryouts can't give a complete picture on how well your kid will fit on a team.
In general, I believe good coaching does translate into improved skills and therefore wins.
As for the weirdness, you can lump me in with the fantasy football and rotisserie baseball players. Guilty as charged.
Reply
Quote
