I recently read and watched “Moneyball”, and enjoyed both greatly. It’s a great story in and of itself, but I also found it to be an interesting parallel to the state of the “web software” industry today.
Moneyball starts in the week before the 2002 baseball draft, with a set of meetings that pit Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane against his team of scouts. The scouts’ primary mechanism of evaluating players was visual – did the guy look, walk, and talk like a major league baseball player? On the other hand, Billy, with his assistant Paul DePodesta, had a largely objective system for evaluating baseball players based on things like how often they got on base.
Billy won the fight over talent selection and picked players that met his system, even if his scouts disagreed. This pattern continued throughout the season, and the A’s went on to set a league record for consecutive wins.
When I started writing I thought if I proved X was a stupid thing to do people would stop doing X. I was wrong.
—Bill James in his 1984 Baseball Abstract
In many ways, the “web software” industry is still where these scouts are. For most people, the primary way of evaluating their software is with their own eyes and emotions. Over the years, people have tried to bring some objectivity or framework to do thing this with things like “personas”, but the process is still a largely subjective one, just like a scout looking at how a player swings and never really looking at whether he gets on base.
The reality, of course, is that this is no longer necessary. Just like baseball in the years since Bill James coined “sabermetrics”, we have the tools now as an industry to do better. We can identify the outcomes we want to see, and we can objectively evaluate a design in the context of those outcomes.
It’s never been easier to test your designs and find out what works where the rubber meets the road. You can use a tool like Optimizely for any site or something like A/Bingo in a Rails app and have a test running in a matter of minutes. Measuring and understanding behavior in other ways has also never been easier—there are new tools and startups helping to do this every week.
For Billy Beane and the Oakland A’s, using data was about leveling the playing field between their meager salary budget and the huge budget of teams in places like New York and Boston. For the web industry, the playing field is already fairly level – it doesn’t take much more than a web browser and a text editor to build something. What data does for web software is reduce the role that blind luck plays. You’re more likely to – on average – find success if you evaluate your work using real data about the outcomes that matter.
You can choose to keep working like those scouts did and go on gut instinct alone. It might work for a while, but I think most people would say that baseball’s moving forward now, and the people who haven’t made the switch are being left behind. Our industry will move forward too—do you want to be left behind?
michael
on 06 Feb 12Check this out: http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/76799/Startup-Lessons-From-17-Hard-Hitting-Quotes-In-Moneyball.aspx
Noel Welsh
on 06 Feb 12I agree with the sentiment but disagree with the choice of technology. A/B testing is significantly suboptimal because it doesn’t use information as it arrives. I try to explain why in a bit more detail in this blog post:
http://untyped.com/untyping/2011/02/11/stop-ab-testing-and-make-out-like-a-bandit/
Here’s are some simulated numbers showing how 37Signal’s A/B tests would compare to using a bandit algorithm:
http://mynaweb.com/blog/2011/09/13/myna-vs-ab.html
[In case it isn’t obvious from the above, I’m working on a startup bringing bandit algorithms to the masses: http://www.mynaweb.com/]
Caleb
on 06 Feb 12http://37signals.com/svn/posts/307-what-do-you-want-to-know
To which Jason Fried responded:
How has this changed in the last 5 years? If so, why did it change? What is your approach now?
NL
on 06 Feb 12@Noel – I think worrying about algorithm in this case is missing the forest for the trees. The point is to open yourself up to objective facts. How you do it is a secondary (smaller) concern.
Kendall
on 06 Feb 12First, let me say that I love that baseball is mentioned on SvN. I’ve been a baseball fan way longer than I’ve been a developer.
And not to be overly pedantic, but Moneyball isn’t necessarily about “leveling the playing field”. Moneyball, the idea comes from taking advantages of market inefficiencies.
At first, finding guys who got on base was the inefficiency in the market. That has changed over the 19 years since the moment in question. Now everyone sees that a player with a high OPB is valuable. Teams have looked for other areas to find value. Teams look at advanced metrics like UZR, WAR, ERA+, OBP+ to find value where other teams might not be able to see it. That’s at the heart of Moneyball.
I think that exploring and taking advantage of market inefficiencies is also applicable to the “web software” industry.
NL
on 06 Feb 12@Kendall – not pedantic at all, you’re absolutely right. In a baseball context, it is about taking advantages of whatever inefficiencies there are, which in the case of the A’s in 2002 had the effect of minimizing the impact of a substantial budgetary gap.
Huund
on 06 Feb 12Google is known for doing design by numbers. This is fine for small decisions but doesn’t answer the big questions and frustrated their designers (http://www.montparnas.com/articles/page/5/). I hope you are not there yet.
Rob Colburn
on 06 Feb 12@Caleb – costs & difficulty have shrunk dramatically (hence this article), also 37s’s coffers have grown. They actually announced small changes in stance a long while ago on this blog.
If I’m not mistaken, their stance is now: A/B and careful Multi-Variant for Marketing sites where the sole goal is conversion. Analytics, customer feedback, and eat-your-own-dogfood for Products.
Something I felt was missing, is that you do need a descent amount of traffic to things like conversion patterns.
Ben
on 06 Feb 12Minor correction: It’s Paul DePodesta
NL
on 06 Feb 12@Ben—oops! Fixed now, thanks for the correction.
S&P 500
on 07 Feb 12thanks for nice share on that. I have never read “moneyball” before. however, it seems that is useful to read. I will check out soon.
Tim Viec Lam
on 07 Feb 12well! I think most of us love baseball is mentioned on SvN. I’ve been a baseball fan way longer than I’ve been a developer. However, moneyball is a new term for me.
Chris
on 07 Feb 1237Signals is a very un-moneyball company.
And that’s OK. They are like the Minnesota Twins or Atlanta Braves of web development. Heavily relying on instincts and broad ideals is fine if you happen to have some of the best people with great instincts.
But from everything I’ve read, 37S is unlikely to be on the cutting edge of data-driven web development in the same way that teams like the A’s and other teams were innovating 10 years ago. 37S is successful at what they do. Some other startup without the talent and resources that 37S has access to will figure this out.
By the way, all the complaints about Google’s design by numbers sound exactly like scouts’ and traditionalist sportswriters complaints about Moneyball circa 2000. I’m not saying that Google has it figured out. But the tension and arguments are very familiar to baseball fans who were payong attention to innovation 10-15 years ago.
Bill McNeely
on 07 Feb 12It’s too bad the Tech industry does not apply MoneyBall techniques to hiring talent. Just yesterday I applied to a SF area startup focused on getting veterans to maximize their GI Bill benefits.
At least 3 times in the job description the company stated they wanted talent that attended/graduated from US News and World Report ranked schools, regardless if the candidate had the other qualities they were looking for.
It makes it difficult when folks (veterans, bankers etc) try to follow the advise in the media and move out of industries where talent/skills are commoditized to an industry where this is less the case.
Adam
on 07 Feb 12I second Huund’s comment about designing by numbers. It’s one thing to resolve a design argument or test a hypothesis with A/B testing, but statistics are no substitute for a solid grasp of design fundamentals.
A thousand monkeys typing for a thousand years may eventually produce the works of Shakespeare, but it’s a lot easier to just hire a good writer. In the case of Google, their design was a complete disaster until they gave Andy Herrzfeld a free hand with Google+.
The analogy to Moneyball is a poor one.
This discussion is closed.