4 ms·

That's a great example. I think basketball, especially the NBA, is an interesting correlate for thinking about team dynamics, especially programming teams which

That's a great example. I think basketball, especially the NBA, is an interesting correlate for thinking about team dynamics, especially programming teams which in my experience have often been about the size of a basketball team. I read The Jordan Rules last year about the Bulls' first championship season and before the season begins, Phil Jackson says something like, "If Michael Jordan wins the scoring title again this year, we won't win a championship." This was after they had reached Game 7 of the Eastern Conference finals the year before. If I remember correctly, Jordan did win the scoring title that year as well as his first championship ring. But even in a sport like basketball where there are stats and increasingly sophisticated metrics and data analysis, I find it most interesting reading about the less visible contributors and the crucial roles they often play. (Breaks of the Game, the book that inspired The Jordan Rules, I think does even a better job of getting into this aspect of the team dynamic.) This is also related to the big idea popularized by Moneyball. But where Moneyball struck me as more relevant to hiring, reading about the NBA has led me to think about how teams perform together more carefully where the metrics as you say are often trickier.

JohnBooty 8y ago
Yes. There are a LOT of guys in the NBA who could score 30 points a night (good enough for the scoring title, most years) if their teams offense constantly funneled them the ball, but they'd be scoring those points due to taking ungodly numbers of shots at relatively low shooting percentages, at the expense of their teammates. Basketball analytics have already begun to phase out guys in the mold of Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, or Carmelo Anthony who were great players who scored a ton but did so with (at times) low efficiency.
kamaal 8y ago
>>If Michael Jordan wins the scoring title again this year, we won't win a championship. In the 1990s, in cricket, we would see something like this from Sachin Tendulkar. He would reach 90s, then eat 8 - 9 overs to just get his century. Net result was, he would continue to set new records for maximum centuries scored- but the team would lose. >>This is also related to the big idea popularized by Moneyball. It's fairly obvious to arrive to this conclusion. Having a team full of super stars doesn't win you things. Though this is counter intuitive to understand- Quality exists at various other levels apart from heroism.

JohnBooty 8y ago

Yes. There are a LOT of guys in the NBA who could score 30 points a night (good enough for the scoring title, most years) if their teams offense constantly funneled them the ball, but they'd be scoring those points due to taking ungodly numbers of shots at relatively low shooting percentages, at the expense of their teammates. Basketball analytics have already begun to phase out guys in the mold of Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, or Carmelo Anthony who were great players who scored a ton but did so with (at times) low efficiency.

kamaal 8y ago

>>If Michael Jordan wins the scoring title again this year, we won't win a championship. In the 1990s, in cricket, we would see something like this from Sachin Tendulkar. He would reach 90s, then eat 8 - 9 overs to just get his century. Net result was, he would continue to set new records for maximum centuries scored- but the team would lose. >>This is also related to the big idea popularized by Moneyball. It's fairly obvious to arrive to this conclusion. Having a team full of super stars doesn't win you things. Though this is counter intuitive to understand- Quality exists at various other levels apart from heroism.