i've seen several comments like this and this is my reaction that's the point of this thread you morons. i am asking the question, are intangibles actually intangible? or can wizards like Morey turn intangibles into tangible metrics. especially in the context of sports and specifically basketball? -edit- one other note for the morons, intangible comes from latin intangibilis "that may not be touched" and is several hundred years old. since then there has been advancements in all areas of mathematics and perhaps now they can be touched.
I tend to avoid saying words like "never" simply because I've seen too many things I thought I'd "never" see. I catch your drift about practical vs. philosophical though. The old article I read on Battier's intangibles was a good example of newer ways to measure what, not too many years ago, were called intangibles.
It's a topic I find really interesting. Everyone knows it's essential. Described as "motor" in draft profiles. It's one of those things, you kind of know when you see it. (Although people have also pointed out some good ways of trying to measure it.) MJ had it. Kevin Durant. Derrick Rose and CP3 have it. On this team, I think harden definitely has it -- it is just that is is lurking under his cool cat exterior. Parsons, I think, also has it -- it's the thing that impresses me most about him -- even though he's not the most naturally gifted player, pretty boy pushes himself to take chances and get to the next level. Howard - you know, it is genuinely hard for me to tell. He's got determination, and desire, even heart, dedication, and effort and intensity sometimes. But does he have really deep down mental toughness and drive, I am not sure. JLin - I also honestly don't know. One of the things I am most curious about is how he will respond to being treated somewhat like s*** in parts of this season by McHale. I know people think he is becoming a ball hog too, and complain that his assist numbers are down. But I am waiting to see what this bodes for his evolution as a player. Can he become a player that can thrive regardless of whether he is getting love and adulation from the fan base and his team mates. Does he have it in him to turn a team to his will, and demonstrate his talents, even when noone is believing in him? Yeah, and PBev , definitely, strong motor. Not sure about leadership as such. (Actually not sure if any of the players on the team right now are ready to be a leader this year.) But definitely, PBev has effort intensity desire -- and real skills. Someone you want on your side.
Most of the things you mentioned effect the stat sheet directly. Leadership might be a hard one though.
Dude lighten up. If you put it that way, the only stat in the NBA that is "tangible" is the points stat. EVERYTHING else is an "intangible" stat. There's no difference between, say, a rebound and positioning yourself correctly in the P&R and force a mid-range jumper. Or an assist vs. "hockey assist" vs. a good pass that leads to a miss vs. bad pass that leads to a made shot. All stats that aren't about points simply do something which help or hurt the team create points. Hence, "intangible" because they cannot be measure in the result of the game, which is of course the score. Measuring intangibles by your definition would simply be "are they finding new stats?" The answer, of course, is yes for every team in the NBA. How useful these stats are is a different subject.
See, the interesting thing is I don't quite agree with your list. And I doubt you'd find a lot of people where they 100% agree with each others' lists for anything (motor, leadership, energy, etc.). In terms of current players, I'd say Kobe, Durant, Duncan, post-2012 LeBron, Garnett, Melo, I'd say guys like that have motor. CP3? No way. Guy flops too much during important situations, rather than just demanding the ball and forcing a no-contest win. D-Rose I would've said yes, but ever since his injury who knows - he definitely had other priorities and other things to think about during that time, and he just got injured again so he hasn't had a chance to prove otherwise. Lin I think does, but he suppresses it (similar to how he suppresses his ego) - based on the documentary at one point he had a huge head and always demanded the ball because he was that much better than everyone else on the court, but at one point he got injured and his team lost the championship game without him, and he took that as some sort of sign from God that he needed to be less of a selfish douche (or something?). But there are tons of guys with motor who aren't good enough to support it. Iverson is a good example of a player who I think walked that line (and crossed it) quite a bit - if he was just a little less driven to do things himself he would've been up there with MJ as one of the best players ever. But at some point, you can have all the motor in the world but if you suck balls then you're just that crappy ball-hog that criticizes everyone else and nobody wants to play with.
I believe the intangibles are the small things that don't show up in the box scores. A lot of these little things are not measured.
... Kobe, Duncan, post-2012 LeBron, Garnett. CP - I know what you are saying about his flopping, but I admire how excellent he is as a floor general. D-Rose - yea, I meant pre-injury Rose. (Hard to draw too many conclusions about post injury Rose since he went down so soon again.) For me, pre injury D-Rose exemplified motor, leadership, desire, effort.
I don't think that is true. Howard has shown more intensity in the last few games which is great. He is not a leader though. Some games he has desire and effort but it is not all there. Plus we can't see or hear everything players say, so the eyetest only works what we see on TV.
