[throwaway2016a]

There is a third measurement. Experience. And the superstar developers tend to have more of it, although not exclusively.

Specifically they have probably seen and done the problem you are trying to solve already and don't need to spend as much time learning and researching.

Less seasoned developers take a lot of mentoring and not every company can do that. In fact the words "mentor" and "train" are nowhere in this article.

Granted you don't have to be a superstar to have experience. And also, on some projects (like CRUD as someone else mentioned) less experienced developers have plenty enough experience to do the job.

There is also the added benefit of experienced developers being able to see when something is being done the hard way. I've seen many cases in my career where a less experienced developer didn't know a tool or technique and would have (or did) go down the more expensive and time consuming path.

What this article should be (and i think might be getting at slightly) is "you don't need superstar developers if you have superstar mentors." If you have neither you're in for longer development time and higher cost over time.

The flip side of the coin is that superstars also have a tendency to favor projects that are mentally / academically challenging which leads to over-engineering or boredom and attrition.