Interesting comment...

Given the limits imposed by Job's comment, which parameters the construct, it may be that the set of "B Players" are (failed) A players, who've involuntarily been forced a step down the ladder, or, alternatively, they are C players who've convinced some unspecified hiring intermediary that they're on the rise...

However one becomes a B player, by definition, one is constrained...one can only hire C players...dimming the prospects for success...so, for B, there appears to be little chance of ascending, or re-ascending, to A player status...

Whimsical, but fun to think about...

The right way to think about it is to realize that hiring is a very difficult business, and we all make mistakes. So it's not who they hire, but who they intend to hire. They still miss.

So A players end up hiring B players when they don't want to, and sometimes A players sneak through the B player's filter.

And this is why, when people that are apparently very good leave your company, you have to wonder if you have to much B team, and you are letting them run amok.

Some times A players can fall to B or C due to life circumstance.

Sometimes whole teams are formed with B and C players because company cannot pay A wages/benefits, and it just stays in B or C arena.

I always strive to have people better than me on my team, and support them and keep them happy.

They hatch from the egg in the chicken or egg equation.

when B players found the company. For example software companies started by people who aren't excellent at writing software. And B hires C isn't even a bad outcome in that case, the founders may have other advantages and go on to be successful.

Tangentially, by dumb luck. Or they pretend to be C players and get paid as those.