Postcards from the Id

ADHD - The Need To Consider Comparative Ages

Interesting article here that reviews research into the assessment of ADHD.  The article covers the details, with the main concern being that the youngest children in early grades are being excessively diagnosed (and subsequently medicated) due to comparisons with the older students in the class.  Given there is no biological marker for ADHD, and the diagnosis requires the symptoms be present in at least two settings, teachers are often asked to provide their observations of children in the classroom.  The difficulty can be when the youngest child in a class such as kindergarten or first grade is compared against the other children, who are older and thus more developed, in terms of attention, impulsivity, etc., the very areas of concern with respect to ADHD.  From the article:

According to Elder's study, the youngest kindergartners were 60 percent more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than the oldest children in the same grade. Similarly, when that group of classmates reached the fifth and eighth grades, the youngest were more than twice as likely to be prescribed stimulants.

The article does not mention gender, but this can also be a factor.  If someone compares a just-turned five year old boy against a six-year old girl, they may well appear to be from different planets when it comes to the diagnostic issues related to attention and behavior.  However, these comparisons are not appropriate; the evaluator should be examining the child in the context of other children at a similar developmental stage.  As adults, the groups are often distinguished by decade.  In children, however, differences of as little as three months can have a significant impact.  Clinically, it would make sense to consider ADHD only if the youngest of a class were displaying symptoms of ADHD relative to the other younger students, not the class as a whole.

Interestingly, I read somewhere a theory that older boys do well in school, relative to their younger classmates, for an indirectly related reason - sports.  Athletic prowess is of particular importance in the perception of a boy's success in school, and at early ages, older boys tend to have a natural biological advantage; they are not only likely to be bigger, stronger, etc., but also more coordinated, and able to focus longer.  It would be interesting to examine how the early athletic success afforded the older boys in second, third, fourth grade, etc. relative to the youngest boys of each class (who are, at times a year or more younger, depending on various admission factors), shapes their later attitude towards sports.  I would imagine it would be hard to develop a dominating athletic mentality at age 18, when things have evened out (maybe the student is even bigger than his peers), but during those early years, that student was always the least athletic, simply because they were younger and lagged behind their classmates during those early, formative years.  Who knows? 

Maybe that's what accounts, at least partially, for some of these college and pro athletes who, by all accounts, have "all the physical tools," but simply can't manage to dominate, despite the physical advantages; maybe in their head, they are still smaller than everyone else...David Robinson comes to mind.  A late bloomer anyway, he seems like a wonderful guy, with many intellectual and artistic interests.  But that's just it - I wonder if he would have truly dominated the NBA if he had developed a Jordanesque attitude, and I wonder if he would have done just that, if he'd been kicking everyone's butt in basketball since an early age.  A less well-rounded individual, but a more dominating NBA career.  I'm guessing, since he attended Navy, he wasn't the dominating presence in high school his later physique suggested, and in the NBA, he had a really good career, but not what was expected (just ask Bill Simmons).  As much as anything, David Robinson didn't dominate more because of his mental approach to the game; clearly, it wasn't his physical skills.  Was he a younger guy in class growing up?  I don't know, but I'm guessing going from 6'7' to 7'1" after high school hurt his ability to play center in the NBA - he simply wasn't able to develop a center's mentality early enough.  Okay, how did I get from ADHD in kindergarten to David Robinson?  Oh, that's right - maybe being the smallest guy on the team from the age of 6-12 sours you on sports, or at least impacts your self-view, even when you eventually turn out to be just as big and strong as everyone else.

For that matter, going back to the original article, how much does being diagnosed impact one's self-view related to academics, if you are behind simply because you are the youngest in the class?  Interesting stuff...

Picking NCAA Tourney Upsets

Wow!  If you are a college basketball junky, and have any interest in the mathematics and probabilities in selecting upsets in your "entirely for fun, no gambling here, move along" pools, then check this article out.  Peter Tiernan gives you all the statistics you need regarding the history of upsets in the tournament.  Really well done!

Avalanche Report - The Avs Win!!!

Okay, so it was the other night, but still, a 6-3 divisional win with the playoffs on the line is a fun thing to take in live.  Especially when the tickets are free (No, thank you, Employee's Club!).  What is amazing is that I did not really pay attention to hockey until my mid-20s, much later than any of the other major sports, and yet I LOVE to watch hockey live.  At the stadium, hockey is far more entertaining than basketball or football, and just as good as baseball, but for entirely different reasons.

First, you can follow the entire game of hockey live, regardless of where you sit.  In contrast, it is extremely difficult to see everything important going on during a football game.  In addition, the energy is incredible, compared to NBA basketball (with fouls called every 2.2 seconds), and football (which drags for some reason live - temperature?).  Baseball, in contrast, is just an experience live that is inexplicable.  Just being at the game, in the sun, watching a game...it's incredibly pleasant, and it doesn't even matter if the games matters.  Of course, if the game does matter, baseball does take on the energy of the other sports, but it doesn't need that to be enjoyable. 

So, I'm pretty much a lucky guy.  I got to go to a free hockey game last week, and the Rockies are starting up for the season (Coors Field is a remarkable venue to take in a game).  Yep, life's good.

The Impact of Pitching Mound Height on Baseball Injuries

Baseball season is just around the corner, folks!  Despite all of the bad publicity this off-season, I'm still pumped for another year of ball.  I'm especially excited because I was able to get a few tickets, right behind first base, for some Rockies games this year.  You can't beat Coors Field!

Here is a really interesting article that examines recent research into the relationship between the height of the pitcher's mound, and injuries, particularly shoulder injuries due to the strain on the rotator cuff due to the angle.  Not being a physiologist, I can't explain the science (click on the link and check it out), but the authors note Nolan Ryan preferred to pitch from ground level between starts, which they believe may have at least partially contributed to his amazing ability to throw so hard for so long.  If this stuff is confirmed, I wonder if it will have an impact at least at the amateur level.  I also wonder if subsequent research would be able to find a threshold level that would allow for elevation, but without any increased risk of injury (say, for example, six inches), and would MLB go for that.  In any event, another really interesting bit of research being conducted!

Hope for Buffalo Bills Fans!!!

Wow.  I mean, "Wow!"  It has been a loooooong time, but I think I'm actually a bit excited to be a Bills fan again.  I guess I feel like Godzilla in one of those old Japanese monster movies.  You know, hibernating for years, finally awoken.  Stretch, yawn, come to life.  It's been like that for Bills' fans for quite some time now.  So, while I don't normally post too much on sports, I've been moved enough to post on the Bills, given the flurry of free agent activity.

So, yes, there have been occasional teases.  The Bills rode a really weak stretch of their schedule a few years ago to the brink of the playoffs, only to lose, AT HOME, to Pittsburgh, who had their 9th stringers in the game, thus missing the playoffs.  The occasional tease also occurred when players the Bills acquired were over-hyped, sold as something they were not.  Off the top of my head, I can think of JP Losman, Willis Magahee, London Fletcher, Drew Bledsoe, etc. as examples of guys who, while maybe not bad, were not what previous management suggested.

However, two years ago things began to change.  A new regime came in, and wasn't fooled by that aforementioned false hope provided by that illusory "run" towards the playoffs.  The Bills weren't very good, especially in the trenches, and they had a lot of aging players that were not worth their salaries.  They dumped the old guys, took the predictable media hits that, while ridiculous, were inevitable given that these were name players (never mind that they were so good, the Bills never made the playoffs with any of them).  Takeo Spikes, Nate Clements, London Fletcher, Willis Magahee, etc.  What, exactly, did any of them do last year with their other teams?  Only Washington even made the playoffs, and were promptly bounced in the first round.  But the media went after Bills management for letting all of the "marquee" players go.  Where are the apologies to Marv Levy, who in retrospect was on the money in terms of dumping those guys (oh yeah, I'll throw in Darwin Walker, who was built up by the media as a "savior" last year when Marv traded him - I missed him at the Pro Bowl...)

Instead, Marv Levy and company infused the team with some much needed youth.  They went after players who could fit in their system, who were athletic, and who are young.  Two straight drafts where they landed solid players.  In addition, they made the effort to revamp the trenches.  Last year, it was the offensive line.  Over the previous decade, no area of this team had been more neglected than the O-Line, which was truly offensive.  While other teams' scouting reports would laugh at our front five, Tom Donahue would continue to go after specialty skill position players like Losman, Magahee, and Parrish.  None of that matters if there is no blocking.

Now, the Bills have revamped their D-Line, taking it from a weakness to a strength.  With the additions of Marcus Stroud, Kawika Mitchell, and Spencer Johnson, this defense looks 100% better.  Here's why:

1) Marcus Stroud finally gives the Bills an athletic run-stuffer in the middle.  When healthy, he will often command a double team, which will allow John McCargo to continue his progression.  Everything I've read has said McCargo was really coming on at the end of last year.  DTs generally take a bit longer to develop, and McCargo's injuries set him back a bit further.  Even after cutting Larry Triplett, the Bills now, with Johnson, also appear to have some depth as well.

2) Chris Kelsay and Aaron Schobel just got better.  With the significant upgrade in the middle, the DEs can't be double teamed as much.  I've read many posts that believe Schobel is the big beneficiary here, but I'm thinking Kelsay will be a big surprise.  He's a high motor guy - a guy that can't get it done when he's the main focus, but a dangerous guy when he's an afterthought for the opposing team's game plan.  I think he may thrive with all the attention the other guys will command. 

3)  The line backing core - this could be fun!  Paul Posluszny, Angelo Crowell, and Kawika Mitchell form a really nice group, with the potential to be even more than just nice.  This is especially true if the front four do what is expected of them.  Man, the Bills haven't had a truly attacking defense in a long time, and even in the Cover-2, I think this front seven has the potential to be nasty (again, I don't think I've been able to say that since Bruce Smith, Cornelius Bennett, and Darryl Talley were anchoring the defense).

4) Similarly, the secondary also stands to benefit.  The corners did a better job than people thought they would, but there were games last year where it seemed like they had to cover people forever.  With the front seven more improved, they won't be as exposed.

Okay, so what happens next?  Rumors abound regarding Bryant Johnson, who I understand was in Buffalo yesterday.  I've also heard the name Ben troupe thrown out there.  Lee Evans is entering a contract year, and Trent Edwards is only a second year guy.  Losman is still here, also going into a contract year.  What has to happen?  My opinion:

1) Need to draft a WR in either the first or second round, regardless of whether we sign Bryant Johnson or not.  There is no guarantee Lee Evans will be here more than one more year, and true contenders tends to have three solid wide outs.  Also, most WRs need some time to develop - if Lee Evans does walk, we want his replacement now, not next year.

2) Another CB.  This is an obvious area of need, despite their over achievement last year.  In addition, you can never have too much depth, and if you are going to compete with the Patriots, you'd better have numerous cover guys on your team who can cover.

3) More D-Linemen.  Can't have too many, and Stroud's injury history means we want even more meat ready to man the trenches, if necessary.  And, like WR and QB, interior D-Linemen usually take a little longer to come around.

4) More interior O-Lineman - especially someone to replace Melvin Fowler.  Fortunately, good guards and centers are usually available later in drafts.

5) Pass catching TE - especaily if we don't get Troupe.

6) Depth Depth Depth!!!  What is truly sweet about the Stroud deal is that we used accumulated picks to get him, we still have a full complement of picks in this draft, as well as some possible compensatory picks (won't be much, because of the O-Line signings, but we might get a 6th and/or 7th rounder).  Part of the reason for the Giants' success this year is that they had a fantastic draft last year, especially the later rounds.  When guys went down, others stepped in.  We need that.

Outlook - obviously, a lot depends on the rest of free agency, as well as the draft.  Also, you simply can't figure out the injury factor - last year was atrocious for injuries, and I'd like to think that would even out, but you never know.  In addition, the Patriots are still in the division.  We're closer, but they are still, by far, the team to bet.  You've also got the Colts, Steelers, Jags, Titans, and Chargers, not to mention the rapidly ascending Browns.  The AFC is simply killer.  But, for the first time in a long time, it looks like we are moving in the right direction again! 

Basketball and Jazz

If you're at all interested in jazz music, you'll find this article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune an interesting read.  Larry Blumenfeld discusses the similarities between basketball and jazz, and he interviews Kareem Abdul-Jabbar about the history of jazz, including in the context of New Orleans and early basketball.  An interesting, informative read, especially because I wasn't aware that Jabbar's efforts in the world of the arts extended beyond this and this.  Check it out!

As a Bills fan, I can relate...

Scott Norwood almost caused this.  All kidding aside, I wonder if this fully generalizes to America.  I know we love our sports, but there seems to be a particular passion for soccer in Europe that possibly eclipses even our love of football.  On the other hand, I once heard of a study, some time ago, which suggested employees in Buffalo were 25% more likely to call in sick on a Monday following a Bills loss versus a win, so maybe the results would generalize more than I think.  Of course, there's only one way to find out - research, anyone? 

The Psychology of Fitness

This is a fantastic article on various aspects of psychology and its relationship to fitness, including why some people become less active (being sedentary is not the norm), how relying on personal trainers may actually set you up for failure (and how to possibly avoid that failure), and how exercise can help combat depression.  Read the whole thing.