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

131–140 of 178 posts

Re: Moneyball teams

#131

Post by mighty_atomic_c »

runeks wrote: post #110

Only hiring the best is inherently unsustainable, because it implies a need for "other companies" to train people into being the best, and only then are you willing to hire them. The greatest companies are those who offer an atmosphere in which good developers can grow into the best developers. The worst companies are those who believe they can hire people from great companies, and consequently transform into great c…

This is an interesting point. Companies that try to "hire to greatness" have a steep fee to pay for their hiring approach, and it might not work for reasons that cannot possibly be squashed into, and recognized from, the sloppy "greatness" scalar used to score the possible team members.

As you said, cultivation of expertise is a better approach, and I'm happy that where I currently work fosters this carefully and deliberately.

Re: Moneyball teams

#132

Post by nilkn »

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.

That's an argument for snatching up one of these people per team, but not an entire team of them. The analogy being made I believe is that there's simply no benefit to having two or three quarterbacks on a single football team. It doesn't even make sense.

Re: Moneyball teams

#133

Post by conjecTech »

asdfasdf32r3 wrote: post #124
conjecTech wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire offensive side of the game pretty clearly violates the notion of independence. In particular, the value of a batter with particular stats is dependent on the batters that come before and after him. This is the reasoning behind stacking people with high on base percentages in front of sluggers. If it were not a team sport, you'd see no clear patterns in line-up. This applies at the team selection level as w…

"In particular, the value of a batter with particular stats is dependent on the batters that come before and after him. This is the reasoning behind stacking people with high on base percentages in front of sluggers." This is the older, common wisdom that has essentially been refuted by modern analytics (SABRmetrics, if you will). Team-dependent statistics like R + RBI (and pitcher ERA!) are dependent on the performa…

It seems like we're more or less in agreement...Team performance and individual performance are interdependent, particularly in naive statistics like the ones you've mentioned are traditionally used. You're talking about making team-independent estimations of player value. That's completely valid. What I'm also saying is that in a similar vein, when you are considering how a player's addition will impact a team, you need to correct for his interaction with the team as well.

Re: Moneyball teams

#134

Post by jph »

pklausler wrote: post #111
jph wrote: post #18

Moneyball and Six Thinking Hats are excellent approaches to for people and roles. But they aren't enough. The key driver of top-tier teams is excellent ongoing safe communication. To build communications, use team goals (e.g. OKRs & KPIs), team ways of working (e.g. TEAM FOCUS), and team positions (e.g. scorecards). My notes about these are open source: https://joelparkerhenderson.github.io/ Edit to explain abbreviat…

CARGO CULT BUZZWORD OVERLOAD

Ha! You're right, these can sound like cargo cult if someone doesn't know what they mean.

These teamwork ideas are worthwhile IMHO. YMMV. :)

Re: Moneyball teams

#135

Post by alwaysdoit »

Rylinks wrote: post #96
avip wrote: post #39

My model for ideal hiring are the Spurs. They consistently hire for talent and potential, provide the proper mentoring and conditions for the potential to fully materialise. "As you sow, so shall you reap". But few have the patience to sow nowadays. We rather buy ready-made in the grocery store.

Most companies cannot have their employees sign multi-year contracts. Outside of sports, there is a much bigger risk of your competitors poaching people after they've developed.

Sure, you can't prevent your employees from leaving, but you can definitely structure the compensation so that they are highly incentivized to stay, which is what many companies do via stock grants with vesting periods.

Re: Moneyball teams

#136

Post by dionidium »

badloginagain wrote: post #120
dionidium wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not true. You can take a look at the Rangers right now, whose only true "superstar" is the goalie- Lundqvist.

OK, but that's my claim. My claim is that you'd still rather have Crosby, because there's a much bigger talent gap between him and his hypothetical league-average replacement at center than between Lundqvist and a league-average goalie.

Re: Moneyball teams

#137

Post by walshemj »

georgeecollins wrote: post #11

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…

I do like the Belbin Team Inventory as a way of looking at team dynamics I was Plant Chair Shaper when I took it a few years ago,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Role_Inventories

Re: Moneyball teams

#138

Post by dionidium »

Will_Parker wrote: post #90
dionidium wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, fair enough! Though, has anyone ever analyzed this question rigorously with data? I.e. is there a Bill James equivalent in the ice hockey world? The larger point is that individual stars definitely matter a lot in pro sports. And recruiting and retaining them with extremely disproportionate amounts of money doesn't seem to be irrational for most sports.

See my link to an attempt at a hockey WAR (wins above replacement) elsewhere in this thread.

Re: Moneyball teams

#139

Post by afpx »

The 'best' is so subjective as to be meaningless. I have worked with probably 500 software engineers, and I have been the best of all of them. (Well, one guy was probably as good as me.) But, maybe this is only because I value things that a lot of other people don't? My criteria are just different.

I have led teams that developed software resulting in 4 successful (another subjective word, but in this case, acquired) startups. I designed and implemented 14 products. All together these products were used by hundreds of millions of people. Some of them are still used 10+ years later.

But, I still can't always convince hiring managers to hire me. I don't have a blog (don't care). I don't have a github (don't have time). After being turned down some say that I'm 'too mellow' or that I'm too abstract or too specific or that I didn't answer their questions (usually one specific) the way that they wanted me to. Again, it's all subjective.

At the end of the day, it's just a fashion show. And, when it comes to work, I'm not into fashion (I have a laser focus on the product, its market suitability, its functionality, and and its market success).

Basically, people hire the ones that they like. And, I believe the evidence shows that most managers prefer to hire people who are worse than them, or at least only better in certain ways. Corporations are just glorified hierarchies, remember.

So, if you get turned down a lot, take it as a compliment.

Re: Moneyball teams

#140

Post by peteretep »

afpx wrote: post #139

The 'best' is so subjective as to be meaningless. I have worked with probably 500 software engineers, and I have been the best of all of them. (Well, one guy was probably as good as me.) But, maybe this is only because I value things that a lot of other people don't? My criteria are just different. I have led teams that developed software resulting in 4 successful (another subjective word, but in this case, acquired)…

    > I have been the best of all of them
What's your metric for that? How would you have known if you weren't?
Post reply on HN