Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moneyball teams

bg-blog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 178 posts

Re: Moneyball teams

#71

Post by ChuckMcM »

I am a bit surprised if this is new information to anyone who has managed teams and/or thought seriously about the challenges that job has to face. When ever I hear an executive making the assumption that "software engineers" are a fungible resource and they will just move 6 over from the project that is on track and humming along to the group that is behind and in trouble I know they are clueless about managing high performance teams. Every team needs a mix of people and when done well the talents and skills of the individual members complement each other and create an effective whole. Too many people trying to drive, or too many people unwilling to drive as an example can both leave the team floundering and unproductive.

When someone asks me what I think their priority should be as a manager, their day to day job if you will, it is looking for ways to improve this spread of talents to minimize overlap and cover gaps.

Re: Moneyball teams

#72

Post by dionidium »

ssharp wrote: post #63
patejam wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're out on the ice the entire game, and usually the only person on the team that can play that position at any acceptable level. That on top of goalies being your last line of defense, having to take 25-35 shots per game. The same reason your team fights a lot when the other team messes with your goalie; can't afford an injured goalie.

I'm not a fan of hockey, so I'm asking this question out of pure curiosity and ignorance. I'm assuming advanced analytics have made their way to hockey. Have the analytics supported this?

No, not really. Top-line centers are usually the most valuable player on a team, followed by other scoring forwards. Scoring is a premium in the NHL, which means that a very good scorer is harder to replace than a good defensive player, all else equal.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/new-war-stat-for-h...

Re: Moneyball teams

#73

Post by dionidium »

Will_Parker wrote: post #49
BurningFrog wrote: post #40

Earlier 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.

On the other hand, a star quarterback or goalie has a disproportionate positive effect on the team's winning chances, and chances to win championships.

This is probably true of a quarterback, but it's not generally true of hockey goalies. You'd much rather build your team around Sidney Crosby than any goalie to ever play the game.

Re: Moneyball teams

#74

Post by OpenDrapery »

sanswork wrote: post #58
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One of my most enjoyable periods while working for someone else was at CapGemini when I was between teams and lent out to do short term fixes for teams where they didn't have enough developer resources/the right resources. Typically just a week or two to go in figure out what was going wrong and patch their systems then get swapped. I don't know if it was the change of pace or the fact that you kind of got to feel li…

Are you still doing consulting? I find that the upside of consulting is that there is a well defined finish line before you are deployed.

When you land in a role that has no finish line, it kind of removes the benefit of being a consultant.

Re: Moneyball teams

#75

Post by OpenDrapery »

yazan94 wrote: post #55
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How do you measure and quantify a team's quality when joining? Especially if you are moving from a different company, I feel like it is probably impossible to know as you may only meet a small subset of the team you work with, if you even get to meet anyone on your future team at all.

You can't measure it before you join, just as they can't measure your effectiveness before you join. The best you can do is hit the eject button after 6 months after you've assessed what's really going on. Same goes for the employer's side.

Re: Moneyball teams

#76

Post by Tenhundfeld »

sanswork wrote: post #58
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One of my most enjoyable periods while working for someone else was at CapGemini when I was between teams and lent out to do short term fixes for teams where they didn't have enough developer resources/the right resources. Typically just a week or two to go in figure out what was going wrong and patch their systems then get swapped. I don't know if it was the change of pace or the fact that you kind of got to feel li…

I had a similar stint helping teams with system performance issues. I think I found it so enjoyable for two reasons:

1) Solving the problems involved the focused exercising of all of my software dev knowledge – often around database access, sometimes around garbage collection and memory allocation of the specific platform.

2) The impact was highly visible and appreciated (by the team, management, and system users), and the result was usually objectively measurable, e.g., the global search now completes in 1/50th of the previous time.

That said, when I reflect on the 10 or so projects I helped in this time, they were all problems the senior dev(s) on the team could have figured out. So, it wasn't really that I was some rockstar who had special knowledge. It was more that I was given time to focus on the issues, while the regular devs on the team had bugs to fix, features to work on, etc.

Like you, I now work for myself, but if I were offered a job doing small-medium performance optimization projects (without travel), that would be tempting.

Re: Moneyball teams

#77

Post by AndrewKemendo »

acdha wrote: post #52
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #2

Presumably 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…

> 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. 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” ten…

Yes, fair point. Ended up stepping on myself there a bit.

Maybe "Top of their discipline" would be a better way to say it.

Re: Moneyball teams

#78

Post by sanswork »

OpenDrapery wrote: post #74
sanswork wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my most enjoyable periods while working for someone else was at CapGemini when I was between teams and lent out to do short term fixes for teams where they didn't have enough developer resources/the right resources. Typically just a week or two to go in figure out what was going wrong and patch their systems then get swapped. I don't know if it was the change of pace or the fact that you kind of got to feel li…

Are you still doing consulting? I find that the upside of consulting is that there is a well defined finish line before you are deployed. When you land in a role that has no finish line, it kind of removes the benefit of being a consultant.

Not really. I moved more into product work but I have one existing contract still going for a few hours a week. No finish line but it's a steady income stream and minimal hours so I've not minded it. It helps that the client is fantastic.

Re: Moneyball teams

#79

Post by debacle »

Will_Parker wrote: post #49
BurningFrog wrote: post #40

Earlier 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.

On the other hand, a star quarterback or goalie has a disproportionate positive effect on the team's winning chances, and chances to win championships.

With exceedingly diminishing returns.

Re: Moneyball teams

#80

Post by lordnacho »

It happens now and again that the best team has very few of the best players:

- Denmark at Euro 92. The only world class player, Michael Laudrup, decided he was boycotting the coach. His brother was a fairly decent striker, and future Man Utd legend Peter Schmeichel was in goal, but everyone else was a journeyman.

- Greece at Euro 2004. Nobody from a top team in a top league, but Otto Rehagel managed to coach them to victory. Not amateurs, of course, but certainly not superstars.

- Leicester City last year in the Premiership. Nobody on the team was a real target for a top club, except maybe Schmeichel junior, also in goal. But they played a great season and one of them got voted player of the year. And Vardy beat the scoring streak record. What's interesting is how they fell apart this season under the same coach, who then got sacked and replaced by someone who has partially brought back the magic.

The rest of the time, the winners are built around a small number of world class players, and competent squaddies. This is typical of US teams, where you have a salary cap, meaning the superstars will be spread out, and you need to be efficient in paying for the squaddies that are appropriate for that star's game.

Post reply on HN