Moneyball Model

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

12 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Statistics tell you nothing about mood swings, player personalities, how each player will fit in with the different players at your specific club, how they respond to your man management skills, how they will respond to your training schedules, how they will react to being subbed in a crucial game, how they react when they have problems at home, how resilient they are to playing with weaker players around them when you lose a goal at home, how their personal habits will be received by your own players, how quickly they will recover from a bad result or a specific injury, whether they are positive or negative influences around the club or whether they fancy playing in rain on a Tuesday night away to Arbroath at Christmas time when their families are hundreds of miles away.

In short, any statistics driven program is yet more expensive shite which tries to reduce a player to that of a robot with a set of Top Trump fixed attributes which you are told will allow you to simply select the correct lpayer for your club. Humans personalities do not fit into nice like boxes and any attempts to do so are simply flawed. Most of the biggest companies in the world use psychometric testing to assess job candidates and most of the biggest football clubs use some form of statistics to select players to recruit. They are all flawed because their is no real science behind what they are attempting to do.

Large companies are routinely confused when they find they have stuffed their departments with staff who don't work well together or are oall of too similar characteristics and football clubs are renowned for spending millions on players who can't seem to kick a ball in a straight line. What surprises me is how bemused people are when this happens. It's f**king obvious.

Statistics show a level of performance first point. Second point this is followed up by watching said player on a few occasions hence Mr Gus McPherson.  Third point. Then the manager watches said player. Forth point , once permission is granted said player talks/ interview  to the manager. From all that a decision is then made. From today's world of social Media it is easy to find out what kind of character you will bring to the dressing room. Good due diligence carried out. 

 

[Wendy Saintss]

Is there a stat for the guy that's wins the ball that turns defence into attack ?
 

Aye, they do stats for tackles won, blocks, interceptions, etc.

[Wendy Saintss]

Going back to my Leicester City example, they used stats to find Vardy, Kante and Mahrez.

Worked for them.

[David Mc]

In Mahrez's case number of kilometres cycled presumably 

[oaksoft]

55 minutes ago, Wendy Saintss said:

Going back to my Leicester City example, they used stats to find Vardy, Kante and Mahrez.

Worked for them.

You will always find examples where things work.

The question is how many successes compared to failures do you get.

That will tell you the cost per player bought which you could then normalise to take account of inflation etc. You can then directly compare that with more traditional methods where only a human is involved in all stages. I'd be genuinely interested in seeing that statistic if it was available. Certainly I know that many companies are increasingly concerned at how ineffective their recruitment is using these tools and we can all list many examples of dud footballers who are hired.

Edited November 16, 2018 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

From today's world of social Media it is easy to find out what kind of character you will bring to the dressing room.

 

If you genuinely think that a person's social media presence is a remotely accurate depiction of their true selves then I don't know how to help you.

[faraway saint]

1 hour ago, Wendy Saintss said:

Going back to my Leicester City example, they used stats to find Vardy, Kante and Mahrez.

Worked for them.

Did they? 

[St.Ricky]

A number of interesting points being made about recruitment in the football world and in the wider world. Huge changes are currently underway in the recruitment field using big data. A stronger emphasis is being put on attitude than on qualifications in many cases. The question is how to arrive at a rational judgement of attitude/outlook/character. One organisation that sees itself as leading the way on providing these tools is LinkedIn. This isn't yet fully developed but when used correctly is a great aid to the job seeker and company. The driver is to reduce initial recruitment costs, establish a better fit for organisations with greater impact on results and on retention.  Big topic. No room on here to debate.

Bottom line is that the manager continues to have the sign off and is key to the initial input otherwise..rubbish in..rubbish out.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

If you genuinely think that a person's social media presence is a remotely accurate depiction of their true selves then I don't know how to help you.

Your hitting the Dinosaur button Oaksoft.  In the real world future employees are vetted online there are lots  of companies out there who do the work for you for not a lot of money. Now I may think it's silly , you may think it's silly truth is it's a fact it's a huge business. So much so individual's now counter by having their social media deleted by companies for a fee. Why ? Have a wee think in our that. 

Edited November 16, 2018 by Isle Of Bute Saint

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Your hitting the Dinosaur button Oaksoft.  In the real world future employees are vetted online there are lots  of companies out there who do the work for you for not a lot of money. Now I may think it's silly , you may think it's silly truth is it's a fact it's a huge business. So much so individual's now counter by having their social media deleted by companies for a fee. Why ? Have a wee think in our that. 

The impact looked for by recruiting companies using big data is to change their arithmetic along the following lines.  Now... identify 300 candidates and telephone to reduce to 30. Interview 30 to reduce to 10 to be presented to the client.  Future.. Identify the 30 without telephone. Interview 15 and present 10 to the client.  (But with an improvement in "fit" with the values of the organisation as well as the educational and experience levels required).  

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, St.Ricky said:

The impact looked for by recruiting companies using big data is to change their arithmetic along the following lines.  Now... identify 300 candidates and telephone to reduce to 30. Interview 30 to reduce to 10 to be presented to the client.  Future.. Identify the 30 without telephone. Interview 15 and present 10 to the client.  (But with an improvement in "fit" with the values of the organisation as well as the educational and experience levels required).  

I'm not actually talking about recruitment agencies. If major companies can get that level of accuracy they would do it themselves and save 20-30% of the first year salary commmissions needed to pay off an agent. There are not many agents trusted to interview candidates properly either.

What a company will miss out on is the benefits of a diversity of employees. When you seek a "fit" to your company you inevitably bias the algorithms to recruit the same types of employee. That is a disastrous approach and it's a large part of the reason why companies recruit so badly. The big 4 accountancy firms have already ended their insistance on an Oxbridge education with good A level results because they inevitably end up with a workforce which is male, pale and stale. At least one of them actively discards degree qualifications and will recruit school leavers directly. You cannot train an algorithm to search for diversity. It's only when you meet candidates face to face that you can spot where someone can fit right in to a position you didn't realise could be made to open up for them. Again I have to say, if you are using a tool which puts people in boxes you are doomed to failure or doomed to hire clones of what you already have because most people span more than one box. For example, I can be extrovert or introvert depending on my mood when I fill in the test. Tons of people are like that. No algorithm is going to help there.

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Your hitting the Dinosaur button Oaksoft.  In the real world future employees are vetted online there are lots  of companies out there who do the work for you for not a lot of money. Now I may think it's silly , you may think it's silly truth is it's a fact it's a huge business. So much so individual's now counter by having their social media deleted by companies for a fee. Why ? Have a wee think in our that. 

It's always a pleasure trying to interpret your warblings IOBS.

It took me 4 reads before I managed to follow what the hell you posted but I think you are claiming that because people pay companies to remove their online profiles that somehow leads you to believe that this means their online profiles are a true reflection of themselves. You are also assuming that because you can find a handful of people to back your point that this somehow negates the opposing view by making it look as though I said ALL people lie online. It's a fascinating tactic used the world over by conspiracy theory nutjobs, global warming denialists, anti-pharma fanatics and religious fruitcakes. Wilfully misrepresent what someone says and then use "reducto ad absurdum" to "win" the debate. It's pretty pathetic and utterly transparent.

If that is your way of seeing things then good luck to you. We are way beyond the point where I point at laugh at how naive you are. It's almost offensive that you'll believe any old shite you read off the internet but when an actual expert in a particular field passes a fact your way you'll do everything in your power to pour scorn on it.

People lie IOBS. They post bullshit on the internet. They doctor their photos. They post only the positive highlights of what they do. They post opinions which they don't hold but are designed to either hurt someone or make people laugh at them.

ETA. I feel obliged to be clear that I am NOT saying that EVERYONE LIES ALL THE TIME. I would have thought that was obvious but you seem to leap on this tactic so often that I'm unwilling to leave the question open to debate.

 

Edited November 17, 2018 by oaksoft

[Wendy Saintss]

You will always find examples where things work.
The question is how many successes compared to failures do you get.
That will tell you the cost per player bought which you could then normalise to take account of inflation etc. You can then directly compare that with more traditional methods where only a human is involved in all stages. I'd be genuinely interested in seeing that statistic if it was available. Certainly I know that many companies are increasingly concerned at how ineffective their recruitment is using these tools and we can all list many examples of dud footballers who are hired.

Leicester watched these guys in action before signing. They just used the stats to identify players that might be of interest but whom bigger clubs may have missed.

I think what you are highlighting is where big organisations just rely on the stats to recruit employees and ignore all else.

[St.Ricky]

12 hours ago, oaksoft said:

I'm not actually talking about recruitment agencies. If major companies can get that level of accuracy they would do it themselves and save 20-30% of the first year salary commmissions needed to pay off an agent. There are not many agents trusted to interview candidates properly either.

What a company will miss out on is the benefits of a diversity of employees. When you seek a "fit" to your company you inevitably bias the algorithms to recruit the same types of employee. That is a disastrous approach and it's a large part of the reason why companies recruit so badly. The big 4 accountancy firms have already ended their insistance on an Oxbridge education with good A level results because they inevitably end up with a workforce which is male, pale and stale. At least one of them actively discards degree qualifications and will recruit school leavers directly. You cannot train an algorithm to search for diversity. It's only when you meet candidates face to face that you can spot where someone can fit right in to a position you didn't realise could be made to open up for them. Again I have to say, if you are using a tool which puts people in boxes you are doomed to failure or doomed to hire clones of what you already have because most people span more than one box. For example, I can be extrovert or introvert depending on my mood when I fill in the test. Tons of people are like that. No algorithm is going to help there.

Okay. My experience has been that the largest companies use agencies.  Where they don't,  they are seeking to use the big data approach themselves. Strangely perhaps,  One of the things they want to avoid is recruiting clones of what they already have.  Looking outside the box but with shared values is what they want to do.  Spac  here doesn't allow for fuller discussion. 

[oaksoft]

On 11/17/2018 at 1:04 PM, St.Ricky said:

Strangely perhaps,  One of the things they want to avoid is recruiting clones of what they already have.  Looking outside the box but with shared values is what they want to do.  Spac  here doesn't allow for fuller discussion. 

That bit in bold is where the flaw is. It doesn't make sense. Are you talking about the STAR thing?

Also, it's impossible to have everyone in a company sharing the same values. People need to work to pay the bills. If your website says you want to recruit people who are environmentally conscientous then applicants will fake interest in that, plant some trees, whatever it takes to get the job. People don't generally care too much about the company they work for per se. The directors might delude themselves into thinking that they do but they are wrong. I guarantee you that in any large company you'll find 20% of the staff wanting to leave. There are no "shared values" really.

You need humans to sift through all of this. Machines can never do it properly.

Edited November 18, 2018 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

On 11/17/2018 at 9:42 AM, Wendy Saintss said:

 

Leicester watched these guys in action before signing. They just used the stats to identify players that might be of interest but whom bigger clubs may have missed.

I think what you are highlighting is where big organisations just rely on the stats to recruit employees and ignore all else.
 

Yes that last sentence is true but when you use a computer to do the first screening, by default you are filtering out diversity before you even start. That's regardless of whether you then have a human do the rest of the work or not. In a company that leads to the disaster of having homogenous staff who are selected for their ability to "fit in" i.e. not question or inadequately challenge the hierarchy.

In terms of football, you run the risk of ignoring the likes of David Beckham, James McFadden etc who can turn a game but on average don't necessarily stand out for large periods. We all love a mercurial player. Using software again, encourages the play it safe approach. Again disastrous for a team which suddenly finds itself struggling and needing a bit of flair.

[St.Ricky]

42 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

That bit in bold is where the flaw is. It doesn't make sense. Are you talking about the STAR thing?

Also, it's impossible to have everyone in a company sharing the same values. People need to work to pay the bills. If your website says you want to recruit people who are environmentally conscientous then applicants will fake interest in that, plant some trees, whatever it takes to get the job. People don't generally care too much about the company they work for per se. The directors might delude themselves into thinking that they do but they are wrong. I guarantee you that in any large company you'll find 20% of the staff wanting to leave. There are no "shared values" really.

You need humans to sift through all of this. Machines can never do it properly.

Values driven leadership and organisations are what modern organisations are seeking to become.  The values are set by the employees ,at all levels, within the organisation.  A useful book on the wider topic is The Vth Discipline by Peter Sense. Written, I think, around 1992 he was envisaging the future "learning organisation ".

 Companies which come close to this enjoy well above sector productivity , performance, and tend to fill vacancies through  internal promotions and staff satisfaction and retention levels are high.I have dealt with multi nationals with up to 300,000 plus employees. 

Nothing I have said removes the final decisions being made by individuals within the business. 

On your other point...there is a danger in having too low a turnover of staff.

I have delivered a few talks on The Learning Organisation, Stakeholder Management,  The Changing Role of The Professional Manager and other related stuff at various international events.  Doesn't make me right!! 

 

Edited November 18, 2018 by St.Ricky

[oaksoft]

7 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Values driven leadership and organisations are what modern organisations are seeking to become.  The values are set by the employees ,at all levels, within the organisation.  A useful book on the wider topic is The Vth Discipline by Peter Sense. Written, I think, around 1992 he was envisaging the future "learning organisation ".

 Companies which come close to this enjoy well above sector productivity , performance, and tend to fill vacancies through  internal promotions and staff satisfaction and retention levels are high.I have dealt with multi nationals with up to 300,000 plus employees. 

Nothing I have said removes the final decisions being made by individuals within the business. 

On your other point...there is a danger in having too low a turnover of staff.

I have delivered a few talks on The Learning Organisation, Stakeholder Management,  The Changing Role or The Professional Manager and other related stuff at various international events.  Doesn't make me right!! 

 

The problem is Ricky that you are talking like a company director in that first paragraph. Employees don't understand or care about any of that nonsense. I have worked amongst the staff in two of those 300,000+ employee companies and I can assure you that on the ground floor, nobody gives a shit about this. They see no reason to care. They won't personally benefit. Companies who retain staff do so because they pay well, the work is interesting and they enjoy working with their colleagues and immediate managers. Not many do it because they like the company's "values" whatever that means.

That last paragraph is meaningless to anyone below management level.

To understand this you need to stop the corporate-speak nonsense and think like an employee. Why on earth would a cleaner, a programmer or a technician care about "value-driven leadership" or "stakeholder management"? Why would you possibly think they would understand what that meant or why it mattered?

Edited November 18, 2018 by oaksoft

[St.Ricky]

57 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

The problem is Ricky that you are talking like a company director in that first paragraph. Employees don't understand or care about any of that nonsense. I have worked amongst the staff in two of those 300,000+ employee companies and I can assure you that on the ground floor, nobody gives a shit about this. They see no reason to care. They won't personally benefit. Companies who retain staff do so because they pay well, the work is interesting and they enjoy working with their colleagues and immediate managers. Not many do it because they like the company's "values" whatever that means.

That last paragraph is meaningless to anyone below management level.

To understand this you need to stop the corporate-speak nonsense and think like an employee. Why on earth would a cleaner, a programmer or a technician care about "value-driven leadership" or "stakeholder management"? Why would you possibly think they would understand what that meant or why it mattered?

I made it my business to speak with people at every level in any organisation I worked with. Started with the Chairman. Included all levels including cleaning staff.  Vocabulary and context changed. Often staff at lower levels had the clearest understanding of mismatches between talk and action. 

One of my main jobs was to identify miss matches between strategy and it's implementation throughout the organisation through managers at every level. Apart from levels of seniority and education there were often differences in length of service and culture. Age also played a big part with younger staff seeking to identify more strongly with values than older staff. All of them recognised the reality of earning a living but younger staff often wanted more than that.

My findings were certainly not always kind to the directors or managers. Occasionally, it was necessary to be very direct and have to tell the CEO that he/she was the problem.

My job was to find faults and suggest ways that the organisation could fix them. Whether they followed my advice or not was up to them. 

I was fortunate in being able to follow the progress in many of these over 3-12 years and the changes some made were amazing to see.

But..as I said..I'm not arguing that I am right and others are wrong. Merely giving an opinion and some background info.

Edited November 18, 2018 by St.Ricky

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

I made it my business to speak with people at every level in any organisation I worked with. Started with the Chairman. Included all levels including cleaning staff.  Vocabulary and context changed. Often staff at lower levels had the clearest understanding of mismatches between talk and action. 

One of my main jobs was to identify miss matches between strategy and it's implementation throughout the organisation through managers at every level. Apart from levels of seniority and education there were often differences in length of service and culture. Age also played a big part with younger staff seeking to identify more strongly with values than older staff. All of them recognised the reality of earning a living but younger staff often wanted more than that.

My findings were certainly not always kind to the directors or managers. Occasionally, it was necessary to be very direct and have to tell the CEO that he/she was the problem.

My job was to find faults and suggest ways that the organisation could fix them. Whether they followed my advice or not was up to them. 

I was fortunate in being able to follow the progress in many of these over 3-12 years and the changes some made were amazing to see.

But..as I said..I'm not arguing that I am right and others are wrong. Merely giving an opinion and some background info.

You spoke to cleaners to identify mismatches between corporate strategy and implementation?

I am struggling to believe that. In all my many years as an employee at a variety of levels of seniority, neither myself nor any of my colleagues were ever approached by anyone on that score. The cleaners certainly weren't approached.

I'm not going to call bullshit on this but if you managed to persuade directors that you were personally running throughout a 300,000+ employee company talking to every single level of seniority within every single functional department then fair play to you. I, on the other hand, reckon you'd need to approach upwards of 1000 members of staff and spend high quality time with all of them to form a credible view. That breaks my belief point.

[St.Ricky]

36 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You spoke to cleaners to identify mismatches between corporate strategy and implementation?

I am struggling to believe that. In all my many years as an employee at a variety of levels of seniority, neither myself nor any of my colleagues were ever approached by anyone on that score. The cleaners certainly weren't approached.

I'm not going to call bullshit on this but if you managed to persuade directors that you were personally running throughout a 300,000+ employee company talking to every single level of seniority within every single functional department then fair play to you. I, on the other hand, reckon you'd need to approach upwards of 1000 members of staff and spend high quality time with all of them to form a credible view. That breaks my belief point.

Ways and means Okay.  That's how I earned my living. 

Different sample sizes for a whole range of organisations taking into account staff numbers,  structures,  locations etc

Often also with interpreters.  It was tough but also fun. 

Roughly 1.hour for Director Level.  45 Minutes Senior Manager,  40 Minutes Managers,  30 Minutes others. 

Structured but very flexible approach. Around 12-15 people a day.  I rarely bothered with breaks.  

Preferred to finish early  to let people clear up for the day.  Would also lead teams. 

No need to try to persuade you.  It's just what I got paid to do. 

Others do jobs I would have no idea how to handle. 

The driving force for me was to have each interviewee feel free to participate and enjoy it. 

Very few complaints!