zlacker

>>azhenl+(OP)
This is Berkson's Paradox. Even if coding competition performance correlates positively with job performance in the general population (which it certainly does, given that most people can't code), selecting for this attribute in the hiring process leads to a negative correlation among those hired.

Great write-up by Erik Bernhardsson, CTO of Better, here: https://erikbern.com/2020/01/13/how-to-hire-smarter-than-the....

>>jaredt+g2
Simple analogy. There is no correlation between height and salary across NBA players.[1]

The naive conclusion would be that height has nothing to do with basketball ability. The real answer is that markets are efficient and are already correcting one important feature against other predictors. Steph Curry wouldn't even be in the NBA if had the shooting ability of Gheorghe Mureșan.

[1] https://rpubs.com/msluggett/189114

>>dcolki+L3
It should be mentioned that Steph Curry was drafted behind Hasheem Thabeet, Tyreke Evans, Ricky Rubio, and Jonny Flynn, among others.

Hiring is always a crapshoot. Pro sports teams spend a lot more time and money on talent evaluation than tech companies and still get it hilariously wrong all the time.

>>_qulr+V7
On the flip side, every NBA player who has won league MVP in the lottery era (>1985) was drafted in the first 15 picks. Steph Curry of course has won MVP twice and was drafted behind the 6 players you mention, but then he was drafted next out of every other eligible player. I'd argue that through this lens, NBA teams are really good at "hiring".

Some teams draft for current skill, others draft for absolutely maximum possible potential, others draft for some combination of both. Some teams are willing to risk a "bust" if there is the potential of ultra-elite league-best skill. And considering that no player who has reached the MVP level has fallen further than 15th, I'd say as a whole the NBA teams are doing very well.