↓ Skip to main content

Born at the Wrong Time: Selection Bias in the NHL Draft

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
38 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Born at the Wrong Time: Selection Bias in the NHL Draft
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0057753
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert O. Deaner, Aaron Lowen, Stephen Cobley

Abstract

Relative age effects (RAEs) occur when those who are relatively older for their age group are more likely to succeed. RAEs occur reliably in some educational and athletic contexts, yet the causal mechanisms remain unclear. Here we provide the first direct test of one mechanism, selection bias, which can be defined as evaluators granting fewer opportunities to relatively younger individuals than is warranted by their latent ability. Because RAEs are well-established in hockey, we analyzed National Hockey League (NHL) drafts from 1980 to 2006. Compared to those born in the first quarter (i.e., January-March), those born in the third and fourth quarters were drafted more than 40 slots later than their productivity warranted, and they were roughly twice as likely to reach career benchmarks, such as 400 games played or 200 points scored. This selection bias in drafting did not decrease over time, apparently continues to occur, and reduces the playing opportunities of relatively younger players. This bias is remarkable because it is exhibited by professional decision makers evaluating adults in a context where RAEs have been widely publicized. Thus, selection bias based on relative age may be pervasive.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 86 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Professor 7 8%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 36 40%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 9%
Engineering 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 21 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 108. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 May 2023.
All research outputs
#398,802
of 25,824,818 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#5,610
of 225,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,503
of 206,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#128
of 5,370 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,824,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,145 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 206,060 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,370 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.