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
51–60 of 178 posts
Re: Moneyball teams
#52Presumably you have teams of Web-stack ("Fullstack") developers. This caveat should have been put up front. Since "Best" is a vague loaded term it's more accurate to understand the problem that you're trying to solve. If you are creating a new web-standard or industry shifting technology then you absolutely need the best. If you are creating a new web based CRM for firefighters, then you need someone who is good, but…
There's a tension between these two sentences which is worth more consideration about what “best” really means and how it intersects with scalability.
If you're working on a web standard, “best” tends to mean things like “experienced”, “works well with others”, and “broad and deep understanding of what the users do”.
If you're working on a major new technology, it might be more likely that you really need someone who is incredibly good at a particular hard skill but it's still likely that if you have a problem in that class it will exceed any individual's capacity and the limiting factors will continue to be coordination between people, ability to maintain clean separation of responsibilities, etc.
Think about something like LLVM – there's a ton of really hard work in compilers and optimization, it's had a significant impact in multiple parts of the industry, and while there are some people who rightly deserve a great deal of respect for work on those hard problems, a key part of the success which hasn't been virtuoso work at that level but rather keeping a design which is clean and extensible enough for so many different organizations to use and contribute to.
Re: Moneyball teams
#53Earlier 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.
Well the US Olympic Basketball Dream Team did crush it.
Re: Moneyball teams
#54One 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…
Which implies something major that everyone is glossing over: If the "right people" aren't the same as the "best people" are the criteria we're using for "best" correct?
Let's continue to use hockey as an example, because I love ill-fitting sports analogies and I also love hockey. For sure, we already know we need 3 forwards, 2 defensemen and a goalie, so for the sake of argument, even if your 6th best skater is Wayne Gretzky, he's going to sit because you need to put Neuvirth in goal (to pick on my own team for a second). But let's think about forward lines only for just a second. Pittsburgh has Crosby and Malkin centering different lines, even though they're the best two guys on the entire team - they do the same job, they're playmakers first, goal scorers second (even though Crosby is the league's top goal scorer). Washington has Ovechkin playing the wing with Backstrom, because even though he's their best player, his job is to take a pass and fill the net.
That's a really long-winded way for me to say that "best" has a situational component, and teams have compositional elements that often involve roles. The 10 best people at that level in the company may all fill the same role, but on a team of 6, maybe there's only 3 of that role, and the other 3 are complementary parts. Best is situational.
Re: Moneyball teams
#55I 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…
At a former (large, organizationally deficient) company, there was this small team of 5 people with very different specialties (and personalities). They were a "strike team" of sorts, tasked with helping out at a technical level different projects that were in trouble. They were excellent. They saved my team's integration of a camera co-processor in an SoC. But finally a re-org came around and some high-level manager…
Re: Moneyball teams
#56One 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…
Which implies something major that everyone is glossing over: If the "right people" aren't the same as the "best people" are the criteria we're using for "best" correct?
Re: Moneyball teams
#57Re: Moneyball teams
#58I 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…
At a former (large, organizationally deficient) company, there was this small team of 5 people with very different specialties (and personalities). They were a "strike team" of sorts, tasked with helping out at a technical level different projects that were in trouble. They were excellent. They saved my team's integration of a camera co-processor in an SoC. But finally a re-org came around and some high-level manager…
Re: Moneyball teams
#59Re: Moneyball teams
#60For every 10 attempts (at bats), he "failed" 6.5 times.
Moneyball teams are really about hiring professionals who consistently bat .300.
If each player is batting .300, then the results will compound (more RBIs and runs for the team).