MVI = Most Valuable Intangibles LVI = Least Valuable Intangibles I will go with MVI, Shane and LVI, Delonte West. And the rule on this thread is that Brian Cook's name cannot be mentioned.
Pls don't give battier a free pass. Intangibles mean jack squat when we don't have stars to begin with
I can't agree with Delonte with LVI. When the Celtics face the Heat, Delonte's "intangible" might be the difference maker.
Why are we even attempting to measure players by their intangibles? Last time I checked players most affect the game through their stats. I'd take 50 points from LeBron over anybody's "intangibles" anyday.
"we" would implying that you are joining along, which you are not, therefore your argument is flawed.
Once again, your argument is flawed. According to you, "players most affect the game through their stats" This implies that players somewhat affect the game through their intangibles. Since intangibles somewhat influence the game, they must be somewhat worth the short amount of time it takes to measure them by. Does this answer your question?
All players affect the game through their stats. If you don't put up stats, you don't play. Name one player who has a living in the NBA (a steady one) based entirely off of their "intangibles".
Once again, flawed argument. I never made the case that intangibles mean more than stats. My case is that intangibles do play a role in determining a player's value. If they do play a role, than they should be discussed. So please answer the following 2 questions for me: 1. Do intangibles affect a player's value? 2. Should something that affects a player's value be discussed? Answer key: 1.Yes 2.Yes
1. No, or extremely minuscule if at all. If this were true Battier (Mr. Intangibles) could be traded straight up for LeBron James. 2. If the effect is so minuscule, does it really matter? Think about NBA drafts. You are given these choices: a). Raw talent. b). Good intangibles, work ethic, etc; not as talented as choice a. 29 out of 30 GMs will choose option a. David Kahn might be stupid enough to pick choice b, but whatever.
Wow, your username should be FlawedArgumentGuru/ So if what I am saying is true that intangibles play a role in determining a value, therefore Shane Battier's value is equal or greater than Lebron's? How is that a legit argument to my claim? I have a question for you: If intangibles play such a small role, then why is Shane a starter while Allen Iverson was not offered a contract? Stats wise AI was putting up around 12 or 13 points per game last season in philly. How many did Shane have? Stats wise their defense (rebounds,steals,blocks) were comparable.
It's sad when you resort to name-calling to get your point across. If you have good points then you shouldn't have to top that with name-calling. Therefore you reacting in an aggressive fashion in order to overshadow your weak arguments... Intangibles aren't really even intangibles. If a player had intangibles it would translate to stats. The concept of basketball still remains: The team that gets the most points, wins the game. Are you a Shane only fan? Lmao. Shane is in the starting lineup because there are no others that can take the spot, as well as the coaching staff being loyal to him. Allen Iverson didn't get signed because he's old and has a lot of off-the-court issues. Look at his last four seasons. Not his best.
