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

81–90 of 178 posts

Re: Moneyball teams

#81

Post by cookiecaper »

dvt wrote: post #12
GavinMcG wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't have said that Moneyball is all about intuition vs. evidence, with intuition trumping evidence. Rather the other way around: the A's acquired talent that the evidence suggested was underpriced, disrupting the traditional intuition-based scouting approach. It seems like you've got that backwards.

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…

I'm coming in only knowing what those two links say (having no experience with the Moneyball media franchise or concept), but based on those, it sounds more like DePodesta is saying that the subjectivity was involved in selecting the relevant data points, and that once those data points were selected, they were used as the basis of evaluation -- they didn't override their formula to benefit "gut feelings".

From later in [2]:

>"We turn to data as our flashlight in the cave – our guiding light,” DePodesta said. “We said ‘unless we can prove it, we’re not going to believe it.’"...

Essentially, from these articles, it seems that scouting used to be a random occurrence based on the biases (or "intuition") of the scout, and that DePodesta's "innovation" was an attempt to link that process to something measurable. This "innovation" is so obvious in other fields that it's not even mentioned, and that people who depend wholly on unjustifiable random chance deserve punishment and/or ridicule.

Like most things, it boils down to subjectivity, because while you can find ways to quantify and analyze virtually anything, there is still a human who has to make a subjective judgment call as to what quantifications are significant to achieving their end goal. DePodesta says they would make those determinations and then refuse to change the criteria over undefined feeling-based intuition. That's, uh, good, I guess?

Re: Moneyball teams

#82

Post by hardwire »

I hate these opinionated pieces about what works and what doesn't mainly BECAUSE they're not backed up by rigorous analysis (it's all a bunch of assumptions and untested conclusions) nor statistical proof.

So grow up HN, and stop this trend of B.S. articles about what works and what doesn't that have no associated analytical or statistical proof.

You can have an all-start team that kicks ass and you can have a bunch of mediocre developers kick ass. Same for a mix of both. In the absence of analysis or statistical proof, why do I care to listen to your opinion?

Re: Moneyball teams

#83

Post by stupidhn »

waterside81 wrote: post #64
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.

I like the Spurs (San Antonio) as a better goal to work towards than the oft-cited A's because ultimately, Oakland didn't win the World Series, and lost in that year to the big spending Yankees. Even though the idea of "Moneyball" has merit in many applications, it always bugged me as a sports fan because Oakland never won any titles with that approach.

>It always bugged me as a sports fan because Oakland never won any titles with that approach

There is too much variance (and too much league parity) in the Playoffs short series format.

Moneyball gets you there, where all the gate is gravy.

Re: Moneyball teams

#84

Post by grzm »

hardwire wrote: post #82

I hate these opinionated pieces about what works and what doesn't mainly BECAUSE they're not backed up by rigorous analysis (it's all a bunch of assumptions and untested conclusions) nor statistical proof. So grow up HN, and stop this trend of B.S. articles about what works and what doesn't that have no associated analytical or statistical proof. You can have an all-start team that kicks ass and you can have a bunch…

> So grow up HN, and stop this trend of B.S. articles about what works and what doesn't that have no associated analytical or statistical proof.

Be part of the solution. Participate in the community in a constructive, productive way. Submit articles you find substantive. Contribute good comments. Upvote submissions and comments you find useful. Flag submissions you find not useful. Each of us has a role to play in curating HN content.

Re: Moneyball teams

#85

Post by OpenDrapery »

cpsempek wrote: post #57

This reminds me of Reed Hasting's culture deck (he even uses a baseball team as a metaphor when describing Netflix's hiring practices). To further the analogy, Netflix would best be described by the Yankees--pay top-of-market for those who have proven they are the best at their role. This has been effective, for both the Yankees and Netflix. But, the interesting caveat, as alluded to by the OP and the moneyball A's (…

I think the Yankees model is a (possibly reaching) metaphor for capitalism. All the capital concentrates in a few hands. But where are all the "best" people supposed to prove themselves?

That's why you see so many posts in this thread like "I worked on the perfect team for a short period, but alas, it was short lived." Building the gestalt is always going to flame out. Right at the moment when you realize you've assembled something special is when your team members start getting traded to the Yankees.

That's why the only sustainable model is culture, culture, culture. Always be striving for the perfect combination of team members. Keep the talent pipeline active, and if you have someone who doesn't fit, get them out of there.

Re: Moneyball teams

#86

Post by acdha »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #77
acdha wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yeah, it's hard to talk about this since we're using a single term to convey multiple complex concepts.

Re: Moneyball teams

#87

Post by [deleted] »

sharemywin wrote: post #65
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…

But, that's leveraging A talent across an entire organization. Why pay for 2-3x for all A players(that are going to piss all over each other anyway) across the entire org when you could with 1/2 hr of help a day use a bunch of B and C players. and save a lot of money.

[deleted]

Re: Moneyball teams

#88

Post by Macsenour »

Boss: I only want to hire the guy who worked on XXXX Project. me: That project was 2 years late and 1.2 million over budget. Boss: Still, he did something right.

Re: Moneyball teams

#89

Post by cubano »

cookiecaper wrote: post #62
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…

Yes, people really need a well-organized environment to thrive, and the environment needs to be tolerant of humanity. You can build a supercluster of massive computers, but if the coordinators are not able to map good tasks onto the appropriate resource or reduce the output into something coherent and comprehensible, your cluster is going to be sitting at 99.9999% idle time. And just as you can't stick supercomputers…

Ahhh sure very nice...of course a "meta-selecting" system would almost surely outperform over time, but my experience seems to tell me that employers aren't really into "ebb-and-flow" productivity...they want consistency and dependable "X done in y time" workers.

Re: Moneyball teams

#90

Post by Will_Parker »

dionidium wrote: post #73
Will_Parker wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Post reply on HN