Iowa's D1 Baseball Participation: Summer/Spring Impact?

[gg2224]

Data Sources:
A manual count of Perfect Game D1 signees (self-reported) from classes of 2010-2015
The US Census (2012 Estimates)

D1 Signees per state (2010-2015):

Illinois - 503
Missouri - 140
Minnesota - 92
Iowa - 86
Wisconsin - 84
Nebraska - 35

Each state's 5-18 year old population (male and female)

Illinois - 2.26 million
Missouri - 1.02 million
Wisconsin - 963,000
Minnesota - 932,000
Iowa - 527,000
Nebraska - 291,000

D1 Signees (self reported) per 1 million 5-18 year olds

Illinois - 223
Iowa - 163
Missouri - 140
Nebraska - 120
Minnesota - 92
Wisconsin - 87

Possilbe Sources of Error

1) Me: I manually counted the D1 signee for each state for each year. I could have missed classed a school, skewing my count slightly.
2) Self-reporting by players: The data relies on the accuracy and integrity of the players participating at PG
3) Perfect Game player participation: It's likely that PG partcipation varied from state to state during the timeframe.

 

[gg2224]

What do these numbers mean?

First, you can't take this to the Sporting News and claim that Iowa ranks #2 in the Midwest in placing D1 baseball players. The PG numbers aren't solid enough to make that type of claim.

But they do shed some light on where we might stack up. It looks like we hold our own.



As mentioned in a previous post, there is a possibility that other states underreport D1 signings on Perfect Game.

So let's assume for the sake of arguement that the other 5 states listed had an underreporting error of 30% and we decided to correct for that error by arbitrarily increasing their D1 count by 30% for each of those state. Let's also assume the Iowa count is 00% accurate and not adjusted. Where would Iowa stack up then?

D1 Signee per 1 million 5-18 year olds (hypothetical situation)

Illinois - 290*
Missouri - 178*
Iowa - 163
Nebraska - 156*
Minnesota - 129*
Wisconsin - 113*
*D1 count artificially inflated by 30% from PG actual count in my previous post.



Iowa would slip just one spot, from second to third, now trailing Missouri if our hypothetical was proven true.



I think this is stil kind of an astonishing result.

It appears that Iowa's summer baseball schedule and overall sports schedule, unconventional and frustrating as they might be, doesn't hurt the Iowa baseball player as much as we might sometimes think.

To go a step further, it looks possible that our schedule, it terms of placing D1 baseball prospects, might be outperforming those of most of our peer states.

I think this possibility runs contrary to what most of our collective gut feel would be, that summer baseball is a net negative for Iowa D1 caliber high school players.

How could this be?

Maybe Iowa players wanting to take their game to the D1 level plan ahead knowing the impact of Iowa's sports schedule. They leverage PG and other national sites for earlier visibility among D1 programs. They get in front of coaches at unconventional times, when they don't get lost in the crowds at summer camps, and maybe they actually stand out a bit more because of it.

Or maybe it's just that teams find good players no matter where or when they play.

Not making any sweeping claims here, just thought the numbers proved interesting.

Edited for formatting and minor content by gg2224
This post was edited on 5/13 9:43 AM by gg2224

 

[Saints85]

Wow, that is some good research/work. No matter what one takes away from that info, fantastic job. Thanks.

 

[usfhawk]

It just goes to show that traveling teams/AAU aren't as important in baseball as we might think and that Iowa playing summer baseball doesn't effect if you get a scholarship to a D1 school. Scouts will look at things they have always looked at weather you play high school ball in spring or summer. They will look at the 5 tools - Speed, Power, Contact, Glove work, and a Cannon of an arm. Scouts will use other coaches as resources and find kids in small areas of the state. I have seen it first hand in football and it is no different in any other sport IMO. Parents paying tons of money to travel teams for tourneys/hotels/etc. is not the cure all to getting noticed. All it does is solidifies that you have a spot on a team that plays a lot of baseball. You still have to be on the field and 1 of the 9 best to get noticed. If you have the tools and athletic ability the coaches will find you. Especially, if you put a highlight/workout tape together on HUDL and send to college coaches.

 

[gg2224]

High School Baseball Participation

Nationally

2012-2013 474,791
2011-2012 474,219
2010-2011 471,025
2009-2010 472,644
2008-2009 473,184
2007-2008 478,029

Iowa (from IAHSAA)

2012-2013 - 10,847
2011-2012 - 10,696
2010-2011 - 10,726
2009-2010 - 11,268
2008-2009 - 11,424

Iowa HS baseball participation rate as a percentage of Iowa male population, ages 15-18 (US Census)

2012-2013 - 12.8% (10,847/84,581)
2011-2012 - 12.6% (10,696/84,883)
2010-2011 - 12.5% (10,729/85,920)
2009-2010 - 13.1% (11,268/86,117)
2008-2009 - 13.2% (11,424/86,296)

Over the past 5 years, Iowa seems to be following the national trend with a slight rebound in numbers over the past year.

Iowa has dropped 577 total players during the 5 year period (-5%).

That's not insignificant, but the blow isn't as severe when you take into account that the population has also decreased over the time frame.

With population changes taken into account, participation rate dipped just 3.1% (13.2% - 12.8%).

Even though it's slight and just one year, it's good to see an increase in Iowa's participation between the '12 and '13 seasons.




This post was edited on 5/13 10:13 AM by gg2224

 

[cruhawk]

Originally posted by gg2224:


What do these numbers mean?

First, you can't take this to the Sporting News and claim that Iowa ranks #2 in the Midwest in placing D1 baseball players. The PG numbers aren't solid enough to make that type of claim.

But they do shed some light on where we might stack up. It looks like we hold our own.



As mentioned in a previous post, there is a possibility that other states underreport D1 signings on Perfect Game.

So let's assume for the sake of arguement that the other 5 states listed had an underreporting error of 30% and we decided to correct for that error by arbitrarily increasing their D1 count by 30% for each of those state. Let's also assume the Iowa count is 00% accurate and not adjusted. Where would Iowa stack up then?

D1 Signee per 1 million 5-18 year olds (hypothetical situation)

Illinois - 290*
Missouri - 178*
Iowa - 163
Nebraska - 156*
Minnesota - 129*
Wisconsin - 113*
*D1 count artificially inflated by 30% from PG actual count in my previous post.



Iowa would slip just one spot, from second to third, now trailing Missouri if our hypothetical was proven true.



I think this is stil kind of an astonishing result.

It appears that Iowa's summer baseball schedule and overall sports schedule, unconventional and frustrating as they might be, doesn't hurt the Iowa baseball player as much as we might sometimes think.

To go a step further, it looks possible that our schedule, it terms of placing D1 baseball prospects, might be outperforming those of most of our peer states.

I think this possibility runs contrary to what most of our collective gut feel would be, that summer baseball is a net negative for Iowa D1 caliber high school players.

How could this be?

Maybe Iowa players wanting to take their game to the D1 level plan ahead knowing the impact of Iowa's sports schedule. They leverage PG and other national sites for earlier visibility among D1 programs. They get in front of coaches at unconventional times, when they don't get lost in the crowds at summer camps, and maybe they actually stand out a bit more because of it.

Or maybe it's just that teams find good players no matter where or when they play.

Not making any sweeping claims here, just thought the numbers proved interesting.

Edited for formatting and minor content by gg2224

This post was edited on 5/13 9:43 AM by gg2224

Those numbers seem to indicate that there is some pretty good baseball talent in Iowa--which anyone who pays any real attention already knows. This in spite of the fact that Iowa--with no spring baseball--plays quite a few less games overall than neighboring states that play a spring hs schedule & legion ball in the summer. Little surprise, then, that Nebraska--with half the population of Iowa--produces almost as many D-1 players.

 

[cruhawk]

Originally posted by gg2224:
High School Baseball Participation

Nationally

2012-2013 474,791
2011-2012 474,219
2010-2011 471,025
2009-2010 472,644
2008-2009 473,184
2007-2008 478,029

Iowa (from IAHSAA)

2012-2013 - 10,847
2011-2012 - 10,696
2010-2011 - 10,726
2009-2010 - 11,268
2008-2009 - 11,424

Iowa HS baseball participation rate as a percentage of Iowa male population, ages 15-18 (US Census)

2012-2013 - 12.8% (10,847/84,581)
2011-2012 - 12.6% (10,696/84,883)
2010-2011 - 12.5% (10,729/85,920)
2009-2010 - 13.1% (11,268/86,117)
2008-2009 - 13.2% (11,424/86,296)


That's not insignificant, but the blow isn't as severe when you take into account that the population has also decreased over the time frame.

With population changes taken into account, participation rate dipped just 3.1% (13.2% - 12.8%).






This post was edited on 5/13 10:13 AM by gg2224

Interesting that your figures show Iowa's 15-18 y/o male population has decreased even though the states overall population has increased over that time frame. It has increased every year since reaching a 30-year low in 1990, going from 2,926,324 in 2000 to 3,046,355 in 2010 to 3,090,416 in 2013.

Makes you want to recheck that 15-18 y/o number.

 

[tm3308]

Originally posted by cruhawk:

Originally posted by gg2224:
High School Baseball Participation

Nationally

2012-2013 474,791
2011-2012 474,219
2010-2011 471,025
2009-2010 472,644
2008-2009 473,184
2007-2008 478,029

Iowa (from IAHSAA)

2012-2013 - 10,847
2011-2012 - 10,696
2010-2011 - 10,726
2009-2010 - 11,268
2008-2009 - 11,424

Iowa HS baseball participation rate as a percentage of Iowa male population, ages 15-18 (US Census)

2012-2013 - 12.8% (10,847/84,581)
2011-2012 - 12.6% (10,696/84,883)
2010-2011 - 12.5% (10,729/85,920)
2009-2010 - 13.1% (11,268/86,117)
2008-2009 - 13.2% (11,424/86,296)


That's not insignificant, but the blow isn't as severe when you take into account that the population has also decreased over the time frame.

With population changes taken into account, participation rate dipped just 3.1% (13.2% - 12.8%).






This post was edited on 5/13 10:13 AM by gg2224

Interesting that your figures show Iowa's 15-18 y/o male population has decreased even though the states overall population has increased over that time frame. It has increased every year since reaching a 30-year low in 1990, going from 2,926,324 in 2000 to 3,046,355 in 2010 to 3,090,416 in 2013.

Makes you want to recheck that 15-18 y/o number.

It could be that the state is simply getting older, or there are a lot more kids who are under 15.

 

[gg2224]

I rechecked the population numbers and I think they're sound, or at least as sound as the Census can provide.

To address some of the demographic questions -

Between 2002 and 2012, the number of 10-18 year old boys in Iowa's population dropped 3.4%. Our vintage of 15-18 year olds fall into this bucket, although the loss there was just down 2.4%.

Also, over the same time period, 0-9 year old boys in the population rose 5.1%.

If you dig into the numbers, there are 37 of 86 'ages' (0-85+) that lost population between 2000-2009 and 49 'ages' that gained population.

So as noted, while Iowa's population has increased in a majority of ages, our current vintage of 15-18 year olds happen to be in a demographic that did not.