"One home run is much better than two doubles."

The late Steve Jobs once said, "Quality is more important than quantity.  One home run is much better than two doubles."  I don't know if I completely agree, but more on that in a second.  Let's look at this strictly in baseball terms.  A home run occurs when a player hits the ball out of the ballpark (or alternatively, runs around all the bases on a hit that never makes it out of the park) and scores a run for his team.  A double occurs when a player hits the ball and makes it all the way to second base.  Notably, two doubles, particularly if they occur in the same inning, frequently score a run too.  So if the end result is the same, which is preferable?  A home run or two doubles?  Certainly the home run is more exciting, but most baseball purists wouldn't care either way, as long as the team scores a run (this approach is often called "manufacturing runs" by these same baseball purists).  To this end, I have always heard that the really good baseball players have just as many doubles as they do home runs.

All of this reminds me of a scene from the 2011 movie "Moneyball" starring Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill.  The movie is based on the non-fiction book by Michael Lewis, which tells the story of how the Oakland Athletics' general manager Billy Beane (played by Brad Pitt) built a winning baseball team, in spite of a low budget, by selecting under-valued (i.e. cheap) players using a statistical technique known as sabermetrics.  Beane is meeting with several of his baseball scouts, who are trying to select free agents using their traditional approach.  Specifically, the scouts are trying to replace three key players who signed with other teams during the off-season (Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon, and pitcher Jason Isringhausen).  Beane tells the scouts that they keep trying to replace Giambi with a comparable free agent player.  He tells the scouts, "Guys we can't do it.  Now what we might be able to do is recreate him in the aggregate."  He proceeds to tell the scouts (who are very skeptical of his new approach) that they can find three players who would be a lot less expensive whose combined on-base percentage would equal Giambi's.  Using Beane's new approach, the 2002 Oakland Athletics won the American League West Division with an overall record of 103-59, despite having one of the smallest payrolls in baseball that year ($42 million - notably, the New York Yankees had a payroll of $125 million that same season and also won their Division).  

Now, back to the quote by Steve Jobs.  Is quality better than quantity?  I would argue that the answer depends on the context.  In most cases, I would agree that quality is better than quantity, and at least in this specific example, Jobs was referring (I think) to the product release of the iPhone.  I suppose then, that if you are talking sales, leading the market with one "home run" kind of product like the iPhone is a lot better than having two good products that aren't necessarily leading the market.  But is that true in other contexts?

Let's go back to baseball.  If you were putting a team together, would you rather have a team of mediocre players and one superstar who hits a lot of home runs or a team of really good players who aren't necessarily flashy but get on base a lot and can "manufacture" a lot of runs?  I would choose the latter.  And I think the same is true for organizations in general.  Which would you have on your team (and I mean any team, not just in the sports context)?  Several above average performers or one superstar employee?  I talked a little about this in an earlier post, "I play not my eleven best, but my best eleven..."

When you are leading a group or putting together a team, resist the temptation to look at everyone's individual strengths and weaknesses.  Instead, try to look at the aggregate strength of the entire team.  Also look at the superstar employees.  Is that individual going to make us better or worse?  If you can answer that question honestly, it's an easy decision.