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

91–100 of 178 posts

Re: Moneyball teams

#91

Post by AceJohnny2 »

marcofloriano wrote: post #29
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…

What's your criteria to measure "quality of the people", in this context?

Can I communicate with them well? (which is a huge topic in itself) Are the people I talked to focused and flexible? (this is not a contradiction) Do the team members refer to each other, and if so, in positive terms? Are the people interesting and curious?...

Re: Moneyball teams

#92

Post by rsync »

I think we need to be critical of the Moneyball narrative - and not just because Oakland hasn't actually performed that well under the MB regime ...

The understood narrative is that dummies were choosing players based on broken heuristics and that proper, sober heuristics would uncover hidden value.

Put another way: If you remove human decision-making and replace it with algorithms you will achieve better results.

I am skeptical of that conclusion in every other realm and I don't think baseball (or hiring, as is the case in this article) should be exempt from that skepticism.

Having read MB the book (and seen the movie, for what that's worth) I wonder if Billy Beane is missing the potential for deeper insights that only human brains can put together. It is the thing that we are good at, after all ...

Re: Moneyball teams

#93

Post by cubano »

Evolved wrote: post #35

One 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…

There is so much statistical noise in any short series of 5 to 7 events that any coach whom thinks they have some magical eye at picking the "right" players is simply delusional.

Yes it worked out for Brooks this time and god-bless-his-success, but really...the whole idea behind Moneyball is that people totally suck at it.

Re: Moneyball teams

#94

Post by rsync »

asdfasdf32r3 wrote: post #66
conjecTech wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the real lesson - and the premise behind Moneyball - is that when you have a complex objective, you can't evaluate people in a vacuum. You have to optimize at the team level. You can try your damnedest to come up with heuristics and metrics to evaluate individuals, but if you don't allow yourself to consider the context that they'll be working in, you'll miss a lot of potential.

I don't think this is the central thesis of Moneyball. I'm a huge baseball nerd, including on-field and statistical side. The idea behind the WAR (Wins Above Replacement) stat is that you should adjust for context, then evaluate players in that vacuum. Moneyball was about identifying and exploiting market inefficiencies. It actually rejects the team level optimization ("he's a team player" is explicitly rejected as a…

"Instead, Billy Beane identified what components led to team success, then found which of those the market doesn't pay for. Then he got those guys."

Let me ask you - as I am not a baseball nerd - if there is any counter-argument to the BillyBeane/Moneyball/WAR movement ?

I don't mean knee-jerk, irrational objections - but real, reasoned counter-hypotheses ?

Re: Moneyball teams

#95

Post by ghaff »

asdfasdf32r3 wrote: post #66
conjecTech wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the real lesson - and the premise behind Moneyball - is that when you have a complex objective, you can't evaluate people in a vacuum. You have to optimize at the team level. You can try your damnedest to come up with heuristics and metrics to evaluate individuals, but if you don't allow yourself to consider the context that they'll be working in, you'll miss a lot of potential.

I don't think this is the central thesis of Moneyball. I'm a huge baseball nerd, including on-field and statistical side. The idea behind the WAR (Wins Above Replacement) stat is that you should adjust for context, then evaluate players in that vacuum. Moneyball was about identifying and exploiting market inefficiencies. It actually rejects the team level optimization ("he's a team player" is explicitly rejected as a…

Agreed. It's also worth observing for those who might not really be baseball fans that baseball is really less of a team sport than most major sports. Yes, team dynamics can reach toxic levels and sometimes teams seem to outperform their individual roster members. But other than some degree of matching players with positions (pitchers in particular), you mostly want players who would be best/best value on key stats under any coach or any team.

Re: Moneyball teams

#96

Post by Rylinks »

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.

Re: Moneyball teams

#97

Post by cpsempek »

OpenDrapery wrote: post #85
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 asse…

Interesting, to belabor the sports team metaphor, culture does indeed seem to be an alternative to max salaries. C.f., Spurs being one of the most winningest teams in the past couple decades, Tom Brady taking pay cuts in order to maintain and foster a dynasty, and Steph Curry doing similar. In all these cases, a great coach (read, CEO) has fostered a strict but burgeoning cultures which rewards its members through a shared success in what they love and not an individual's compensation.

Of course this analogy can be dangerous. Athlete's get paid extraordinary sums, even while sitting on a bench 99% of the season. Whereas many employees have to worry about their own compensation simply to survive, and such selling of culture as a supplement to compensation won't always put food in your mouth (and thus can be exploitative).

Nonetheless, I appreciate your comment, you brought up an interesting view on workplace culture that I never thought about.

Re: Moneyball teams

#98

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> Most companies cannot have their employees sign multi-year contracts.

No, most companies prefer not to make multiyear commitments to employees. They could enter into multi-year contracts with employees (and they do, with execs, with fairly expensive buyout provisions), but they don't want to for most non-executive employees.

Re: Moneyball teams

#99

Post by ghaff »

rsync wrote: post #94
asdfasdf32r3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is the central thesis of Moneyball. I'm a huge baseball nerd, including on-field and statistical side. The idea behind the WAR (Wins Above Replacement) stat is that you should adjust for context, then evaluate players in that vacuum. Moneyball was about identifying and exploiting market inefficiencies. It actually rejects the team level optimization ("he's a team player" is explicitly rejected as a…

"Instead, Billy Beane identified what components led to team success, then found which of those the market doesn't pay for. Then he got those guys." Let me ask you - as I am not a baseball nerd - if there is any counter-argument to the BillyBeane/Moneyball/WAR movement ? I don't mean knee-jerk, irrational objections - but real, reasoned counter-hypotheses ?

I'm not sure real counter-hypotheses so much as data only takes you so far.

- You can't always predict the future about a given player's performance.

- We're still arguing about what the right measures actually are (although there's more data all the time)

- There clearly are sometimes cases where personalities and attitude mean some player needs to leave even if his historical stats were good.

Re: Moneyball teams

#100

Post by kmonsen »

rsync wrote: post #94
asdfasdf32r3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is the central thesis of Moneyball. I'm a huge baseball nerd, including on-field and statistical side. The idea behind the WAR (Wins Above Replacement) stat is that you should adjust for context, then evaluate players in that vacuum. Moneyball was about identifying and exploiting market inefficiencies. It actually rejects the team level optimization ("he's a team player" is explicitly rejected as a…

"Instead, Billy Beane identified what components led to team success, then found which of those the market doesn't pay for. Then he got those guys." Let me ask you - as I am not a baseball nerd - if there is any counter-argument to the BillyBeane/Moneyball/WAR movement ? I don't mean knee-jerk, irrational objections - but real, reasoned counter-hypotheses ?

Yeah, the counter argument is that you mess up the team chemistry. This is extremely hard to define and measure so can sort of always be used.

Billy Beane is constantly attacked for destroying the looker room chemistry in the local press.

Post reply on HN