It's not that hard to observe someone blocking a shot, it was never considered an intangible. Do you know the meaning of the word tangible? Intangible means it's not in the physical realm, like leadership and basketball IQ and such things.
If anyone back in the day ever called the act of blocking a shot intangible, then they were an illiterate and not to be taken seriously.
Do leadership and basketball IQ make you score a little more, or defend a little better, or more importantly help you win? If the answer is yes, which it is, then it is measurable. If the answer was no, then they would be useless.
the way it's used in the nba has very litle to do with physics. plus/minus is not a physical entity but is considered a "tangible" stat today. at some point in the past, plus/minus was "intangible".
Once we can begin to measure that which is beyond the physical plane, we will have transcended the tangible. Then, there will be no stopping the Rockets!
I don't see how you get from A to B. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's tangible. If what you're saying were true, then the word intangible would not exist. No it was never intangible, it's not hard to observe a guy scoring a point.
actually, yes, that's exactly what it means. tan·gi·ble [tan-juh-buhl] real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary: the tangible benefits of sunshine. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tangible
here's a little bit more: - capable of being clearly grasped by the mind - having a physical existence - capable of being perceived - definite; not vague or elusive in summary, anything that exists, and can be shown to exist, is tangible. some things, which exist, yet have not been properly perceived or recorded, can be considered intangible.
i know that words with multiple meanings can be confusing. reading and writing can help you understand proper usage. i know that sounds condescending, but what else can i tell you. you either understand the definition of the word, or you don't. i can't plant knowledge into your brain. you have to be willing to listen and to learn.
...says the idiot that told me my definition was wrong by citing it as one of the possible definitions. Take your own advice.
But hey, keep believing these things. I'll take Daryl's word for it when he says that "numbers should go hand in hand with leadership, talent, and role play(chemistry)".
your usage is wrong. here's an analogy. say you have one of those fancy multicolored pens, one button click and it uses blue ink, another button click and it uses red ink... now, you are taking an intelligence quiz, and it says "draw a red circle on the left, and a blue square on the right" ... what you have done is drawn a blue triangle on the left and a red star on the right. some people are wrong just because they don't understand, some people are wrong because they don't care, and some people are adamantly enthusiastically wrong ALL THE TIME almost as if they are doing it on purpose. which one of them are you?? self reflection is the only way to grow and learn. peace, brother. may the force be with you.
So tell me Einstein, which one of your vast array of definitions meshes with a blocked shot being intangible? Isn't really that elusive or incomprehensible? Just stop, you're not a very good troll :\ Anyway, I answered CXibby improperly. I should have said that just because something exists does not mean it's measurable. There can exist tangible things that aren't measurable so that was poor response on my part.
it takes a good man to admit his mistakes, so kudos to you. i'm sorry if i seemed mean in my posts. i wan't trying to be mean i was just having a little fun. cheers bud, have a good night.
I'll agree that tanking is a dicey affair, at least in terms of getting yourself a Chris Paul or a Carmelo, but it doesn't have to be a slam dunk to make it the best course - it just has to be a more likely route to acquiring a star than the alternatives. If Houston were a destination city like Boston or LA, I'd agree that we should try to stay competitive and wait for a superstar to demand a trade to our city, but that's not going to happen for H-town. Tanking is a better option for two reasons - first, although the lottery is riddled with blown picks like Marvin Williams and Hasheem Thabeets, it's usually crappy organizations making these picks, which is why they're in the lottery to begin with. OKC came out of three lotteries with Durant, Harden, and Westbrook, which I think is closer to what would happen if Houston were picking that high. Second, you don't have to get the star in the draft. You just have to get a player that other teams really want. Derrick Favors might be a bust, but it doesn't matter to the Nets because they turned him into Deron Williams. Al Jefferson is just OK, but the C's were able to flip him for Garnett. A young, high-upside guy is a great chip to have in pursuit of a superstar. Anyways, it's all a moot point because Les would never allow it.
Al Jefferson wasn't a lottery pick, and PPat could very well be regarded as highly as he was when he got sent to Minny.
This is so funny to me. When did Boston become a destination city? They spent virtually all of the 90's and 2000's toiling and unable to attract much of anything. Now they're a "destination city." Houston, with no state income tax, is the offseason home to lots of pro athletes, NBA players included. This idea that our city is holding the franchise back does not comport at all with the idea that: 1. it didn't keep Barkley or Pippen from wanting to play here (as examples) or Steve Francis from extolling its virtues; and 2. so many players live here in the offseason, anyway, on their own initiative.
