let me know when you figure out a way to "count" leadership. i can observe beauty...i can't quantify it. i can observe leadership...i can't quantify it. i have no problem with the collection of observations and data....i do have a problem with the notion that it's a panacea.
stick around. if your starting place is that anything observable is measurable, you're halfway there to begin with.
Just because something is measurable doesn't mean we know how to measure it. The reason why an apple falls off a tree used to be an intangible. Now we call it gravity and it measure to 9.81 m/s^2.
Eh, gravity is just a theory. (I'm kidding) Perhaps you're right and one day we will be able to measure leadership. But at this point, I'd say it's immeasurable. So for the purposes of discussion about how these qualities relate to virtually any discussion in the GARM, I'd suggest we stay away from theoretical math.
Well, gravity is not theoretical math. It is fact. But you are right, let's get back to basketball. I think a better example would be "Mr. Intangible" - Shane Battier. For many, he is the poster boy of the term. But in reality, it is really a misnomer, or disingenuous. What Battier does is actually quite measurable. The only reason why people view it otherwise is because what he does goes beyond the conventional boundaries of tangibility- the boxscore. However, with advanced statistics -really just a fancy way of saying keener observation- we can measure the other things he brings to a team. Most notably, where traditional boxscores fail to measure the most- defense: 1. We can easily measure the charges he draws. The deflections he gets. And the extra possessions he produces from those. 2. We can measure his individual defense by observing the offensive efficiency of every shot the player he is guarding takes. 3. We can measure his team defense by measuring his team's defensive efficiency while he is on the court, and compare it to it's defensive efficiency when he is off the court with a comparable lineup against a comparable opponent. We can also measure his "intangible" contributions on the offensive end: 1. His hockey assists allowing the offense to flow. 2. We can measure the rebounding rate of the team with him on the court compared to off the court against comparable opponents with a comparable lineup- where he may box out his man to allow a teammate to grab the rebound. 3. We can measure the offensive efficiency of the team with him on the court compared to without him against comparable opponents- to show the byproduct of the "spacing" he generates standing in the corner. And most importantly, we can measure his contributions to winning by observing the entire team's net performance with him in the lineup. Those are all things that are viewed as "intangible" that gives him his moniker. But in reality all measurable. I mean, quite frankly, do you think Daryl Morey, the king of numbers, or "Tron" as you like to rib, would be so enamored with him based on whims, or feelings, or actual "intangibles"?
Wait...I want to be really clear about my position here. It's been misunderstood, frankly. I appreciate the opportunity to provide some clarity on it, so here goes: I do not think Darryl Morey is Tron. Nor do I give him Tron as a nickname. I only assume he's a big fan of the Tron movie series, the Tron video game and other Tron-related accessories.
Thanks for clearing that up. Most assuredly as an aficionado of all things Tron, I very much doubt Daryl Morey would be into the whims and fancies of the world of the intangible. Of course that is unless he can put a number on them.
i was going to mention patterson, morey absolutely stole that pick but the counterargument is you can't expect other gms to always be that stupid.
people quantify beauty all the time (or atleast they try). you've never compared beautiful women against one another? you've never heard guys talk about and rate girls like she's an 8 or a 7 or a 10 etc... of course those measurements are not very accurate, mostly because they are being done in an unscientific manner. but if there was a serious legitimate scientific project undertaken, where say 1 million people from each country and ethnic group were extensively interviewed and asked to rate their top 100 most beautiful women, eventually enough data would be collected where a reliable aggregate would be produced. then after examining the data, perform more experiments/surveys and focus on details like eyes, nose, lips, etc... eentually you will begin to see a picture of what value is placed on particular types of assets. this is the same type of thinking that can be applied to assess other qualities like leadership or other "intangible" qualities. of course, morey and co don't have the luxury of examining 1 million basketball players in laboratory experiments. the reliability and accuracy of the data is relative to the sample size. but still, they have more data than they had before, and this dataset is constantly growing, thus increasing in accuracy over time. nobody said it is perfect data, but any edge you can get is a good thing. nobody said moneyball is a replacement for traditional scouting. morey has plenty of those on his staff too.
