I wish I could triple like this! Hire the best is lazy thinking. * I have been on teams that were not considered the best until they had success, then everyone on the team was a "star". * I have worked places where they only hire "superstars"-- and were pretty serious about paying for good talent and being picky-- and still failed for all kinds of organizational reasons. Teams with more role players, or more cohesion…
Imagine if you picked a sports team by the most paid players in their league. The football team would be half quarterbacks, the hockey team mostly goalies and so on.
Moneyball teams
41–50 of 178 posts
Re: Moneyball teams
#42I wish I could triple like this! Hire the best is lazy thinking. * I have been on teams that were not considered the best until they had success, then everyone on the team was a "star". * I have worked places where they only hire "superstars"-- and were pretty serious about paying for good talent and being picky-- and still failed for all kinds of organizational reasons. Teams with more role players, or more cohesion…
I got a good perspective on this from little league coaching. Sometimes that "superstar" kid is individually talented, but a net-negative on the team if the kid is a ball hog or doesn't share.
NOTE: We did win when the next batter came up and got the hit we needed.
Re: Moneyball teams
#43I wish I could triple like this! Hire the best is lazy thinking. * I have been on teams that were not considered the best until they had success, then everyone on the team was a "star". * I have worked places where they only hire "superstars"-- and were pretty serious about paying for good talent and being picky-- and still failed for all kinds of organizational reasons. Teams with more role players, or more cohesion…
The best what? If you're talking about a software development team, are you hiring the best software developers? The best devs in what niche? I consider myself a very good developer, but I would be shit for quite a while if I joined a team focusing on embedded systems. Or if I was writing an OS kernel. I would likely get up to speed and surpass some people, but I may never be as good at Y as I am at A, B, and C now. I may just not have the passion for it that I do for those other things.
To agree with your point more, assembling a team of 'rockstars' who are all good at just about the same things means that your team is likely going to have very large blind spots (say: testing, for instance), and contention over people's preferences for work. We can't all be the architect of a greenfield real time data processing service.
I fundamentally believe someone who is engaged, enjoys critical thinking, likes to learn, and is generally good (or at the very least conscientious) at their craft can move from technology stack to technology stack if it aligns with their personal interests and/or motivations. I do, however, believe we generally have our sweet spots where we are most apt. Maybe due to our preferences, possibly our aptitude, likely a combination of those and our personal preferences.
I consider myself stack agnostic, I float between a half dozen languages a month between professional and personal projects and depending on the problem trying to be solved. But if I sat down and thought about it, a couple of languages would float to the top as my preferred or best, and the rest would be because I'm good at solving a certain type of problem with them.
We can't all be the best at everything, but we can be really damn good at some, and together we can go full Voltron and kick ass. It's just too hard for someone in HR/Talent Acquisition to figure out who should be the leg or the arm (or even what Voltron is), and they're likely the filter most candidates must get through.
EDIT: To add, I'm not just ragging on HR/Recruiters either. I generally know what I'm looking for in developers but still consider it hard to interview and hire. I don't think I'm very good at being the interviewer in the formal interview process. Now, if we had all the time in the world and left the office to grab a pint and just talked like human beings I think I could feel it out better, but now I can't get any work done and I'm going to be drinking 5 days a week until I fill the position.
Re: Moneyball teams
#44I wish I could triple like this! Hire the best is lazy thinking. * I have been on teams that were not considered the best until they had success, then everyone on the team was a "star". * I have worked places where they only hire "superstars"-- and were pretty serious about paying for good talent and being picky-- and still failed for all kinds of organizational reasons. Teams with more role players, or more cohesion…
Re: Moneyball teams
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really disagree, and I Podesta would also: [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/plato-pop/201109/moneyb... [2] http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/09/23/the-l... According to Podesta: "Subjectivity ruled the day in evaluating players ... We had a completely new set of metrics that bore no resemblance to anything you’d seen. We didn’t solve baseball. But we reduced the inefficiency of our decision m…
That supports exactly what I was saying: "In the competition between intuition vs. evidence, evidence wins." So it's not clear why you are saying "In the case of the A's, intuition seemed to trump evidence , but the author keeps telling us to collect more evidence (in the form of matrices, skill trees, or whatever else). Not only is that the categorically wrong approach, it's also not how you build good teams." (Emph…
Re: Moneyball teams
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if you picked a sports team by the most paid players in their league. The football team would be half quarterbacks, the hockey team mostly goalies and so on.
Goalies are the highest paid players in hockey? Interesting.
The same reason your team fights a lot when the other team messes with your goalie; can't afford an injured goalie.
Re: Moneyball teams
#47Totally true that. But the title almost suggests you can build a winning team out of a random bunch of average developers.
Although the best developer is an illusion as it doesn't exist as such, just 'building teams' doesn't really say much to me too. I've seen very terrible teams that should have been replaced with just 1 good developer..
Personally I prefer to hire the best fit for the job, whether he or she will be part of a team or not.
Re: Moneyball teams
#48One of my favorite movies, Miracle about the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team that upset the Soviets, had this dialogue that actually happened between Head Coach Herb Brooks and Assistant Head Coach Craig Patrick. I feel it applies here. Patrick: This is the final roster? You're kidding me, right? You're missing some of the best players. Brooks: I'm not looking for the best players, Craig. I'm looking for the right ones…
If the "right people" aren't the same as the "best people" are the criteria we're using for "best" correct?
Re: Moneyball teams
#49I wish I could triple like this! Hire the best is lazy thinking. * I have been on teams that were not considered the best until they had success, then everyone on the team was a "star". * I have worked places where they only hire "superstars"-- and were pretty serious about paying for good talent and being picky-- and still failed for all kinds of organizational reasons. Teams with more role players, or more cohesion…
Imagine if you picked a sports team by the most paid players in their league. The football team would be half quarterbacks, the hockey team mostly goalies and so on.