(In)tangibles

by Dave on Apr 4, 2007 11:25 PM PDT in News

You couldn't watch last night's Utah game without being impressed by the guts the Blazers showed. They went toe to toe with a good, talented team and emerged victorious. Call it heart, desire, hustle, chutzpah...whatver. It was there.

Which got me to thinking, how much do intangibles matter? Or is there really such a thing at all? I mean, even though I describe it in such terms one of the fine Blazer assistant coaches or scouts could probably sit down and diagram step by step the exact moves and plays that won the game for us. Maybe what looked like "heart" was really just smart execution?

Are there really such things as intangibles or is that just fan-speak for "I don't know the plays but they looked good"? If intangibles matter, how much do they weigh versus measurable attributes (including talent that can be quantified statistically)? Also if they matter, what one intangible do you think makes the most important contribution to winning basketball?

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I wasn't sure how to respond to this

but I think intangibles basically boil down to a dichotomy between fear of failure and desire for success. All the good things like heart, hustle, confidence, and will power are desire for success. The lack of them is fear of failure or perhaps in the case of some veterans ennui borne of repeated failures.

And I think, clearly, they do matter. You can't teach Roy to calmly make crunch time free throws. You can't teach him to not shrink from the last shot. It's innate. Or at least it is in the nexus between personality and lived experience.

or I could be way off, but I'm interested in what everybody else has to say about this.

Shan was eloquent/Kris was intelligent/ the R was all the above with added elements.

by JPop on Apr 4, 2007 11:57 PM PDT reply actions

Intangibles to me

are those things that cannot be taught or are physical attributes (i.e., Dennis Rodman may have had fundamentals and physique, but what made him the greatest rebounder of his time was his uncanny nose for the ball, which could not be quantified or taught).

I think people more commonly speak of them as not measured by statistics, but that seems to me to be broad and indicative of the obsession with scoring points as a barometer of greatness. It's almost a backhanded compliment (he can't score, but at least he makes himself useful). I may be wrong, but when was the last time people spoke of Kobe as having intangibles (his competitiveness is an intangible to me), rather than as just being a phenomenal scorer?

...................................................................................................

Let me put it another way to show what I mean by my definition.
All players have potential to master fundamentals, and progress can be charted by trainers, coaches, commentators, and purists.

All players have the potential to master physical strength and flexibility, within the limits of build, height, frame, etc.
This can also be in some charted through trainers and onlookers (body fat %, he looks fat, he's running out of breath, he's been running back and forth all night and shows no sign of slowing down.

An intangible is over and above both. It is or it isn't; there is no potential, only actual or nothing. There is no quantifying, though it is noticeable, though sometimes it takes paying close attention. examnples would be how driven Kobe and Jordan are, above and beyond mere competitiveness. It can be a sixth sense, like Rodman's ability to find the ball, or Bird's general awareness (following his own miss in the '81 finals, for example). It can be that ability to be clutch beyond all reasonbale preparation, experience, and practice, to hit any shot or make any play in the most trying of circumstances as if it were practice.

This is the best I can think of right now; I am unsatisfied and feel there is more to this definition, but can't seem to wrap my mind around it.

Oh, Nancy! The Superpan is not magical, it will burn you.

by supremepuntiff on Apr 5, 2007 12:28 AM PDT reply actions

There's a difference.

I used to play basketball with a friend. He could move,dribble, drive, make shots... and i sucked.

But... he couldn't beat me.

I would be down 2-10 and then I would somehow find a way to impose my will. I refused to lose and i'd make impossible looking shots and he would start missing. There is no way i should have ever beat him but he rarely beat me.

I think it was focus/heart/killer instinct. Just a basic unwillingness to accept losing. I didn't play better, per say. My form and everything was ugly, but i stayed focus. I'd go into a zone where the world was slow motion. So I think that's where heart really comes from. An unwillingness to bow down and surrender no matter what.

Intangibles are guys doing their job well. I think that's not just good execution of game plan, but also a recognition of where you need to adapt to the changes of the flow of the game. It's a focus on and awareness of team as opposed to self/stats.

My two cents.

by ratbastird on Apr 5, 2007 4:37 AM PDT reply actions

I think

-those 3 posts are the most insightful and articulate I have ever read in an area and subject seldom mentioned.

by bigddydrg on Apr 5, 2007 5:10 AM PDT reply actions

This is a great question.

I think there really is such a thing as an intangible. I think heart/desire/refusing to lose, whatever you want to call it, is worth maybe three to five wins a season.

There is no substitute for hard work and practice, though. Teamwork, busting butt and a good game plan are the things that win seasons and championships.

Looked at in that light, I believe the one intangible that means the most is simple work ethic. Long hours of practice, working to improve the things that need improvement, working to perfect the things that are already in place, turning it all on when the lights come up.

As much as I love Clyde Drexler, I think this work ethic may be the one thing that differentiates Clyde's one championship from Jordan's six.

by ken @ Blazer's Edge on Apr 5, 2007 6:17 AM PDT reply actions

Focus

To me it seems that the intangibles sort of boil down to a greater awareness of what's happening around you in any given moment and what's likely to happen in the next few seconds. It's sort of analogous to chess. What separates the greats from all the rest is their ability not only to see the board as it is, but to predict (either consciously or subconsciously) how the game will develop several moves down the line.
Basketball players like Rodman, Kobe, and our own Brandon Roy have a greater awareness of where everyone is on the court and where they're likely moving to, how the ball is going to come off the rim or backboard, and their own position realative to the basket and other players. That's why the game seems to "be in slow motion" or the basket looks "as big as the ocean" when players are in the zone. IMO the reason these things seem to happen is that the player's mind is processing the sensory input so effortlessly that they truly are a step ahead of everyone else. This allows them to be in the right place or make the right pass before other player can react.
Drive, the will to win, and many other things figure into it, but I think awareness is what allows great players to channel those other qualities into something that ultimately helps their team to win.

by superbatman on Apr 5, 2007 6:48 AM PDT reply actions

Remember the Blazers-Bulls Finals?

Was that 1992? I can't remember, anyway, I remember the Bulls called the Blazers (and I can't remember the exact quote) a dumb team. Phil Jackson and Jordan really were co-kings of mind games in their tenure. But I remember getting really cheesed by that, and then looking back and thinking to myself later that they were kind of right... Drexler was a worker, an amazing athlete, and a teammate, but didn't quite have the transcendent ability to make plays that didn't depend on a mismatch (and few could match up with him). Porter was clutch, but he depended an awful lot on the three point shot. When those blazers dominated, it was either because of effort, mismatches, or because someone got really hot. As a result, it just took a cold spell to get beat by a team who had as much talent and worked as hard.

Brandon Roy is the kind of player that represents the kind of team that could have beaten those Bulls. One of the things about him is, he rarely dunks, even though he easily could, but goes to the rim a lot and finishes just as effectively by laying it in. He's efficient, and in my opinion, retains some energy for crunch time even when he's making amazing plays. He makes hard plays actually easier, not just look easy. He's smart, and it translates to the basketball court. One can only hope that he begins to lead by more than just example, and yesterday.

by ranma on Apr 5, 2007 8:31 AM PDT reply actions

Reaction time in basketball

Reaction time is something that doesn't get discussed an awful lot in basketball. It gets talked about all the time in baseball, because it's so critical to a good batter. More than a few things in basketball that get shoved off in the column "intangibles" are actually all about reaction time.

The ability of a player to get their hands on rebounds before other players would be all about reaction time, for example.

by Blazers Nation on Apr 5, 2007 1:58 PM PDT reply actions

i was at the game

last night and yes intangibles do matter.last night the bounces and hustle plays were 85% blazers.without aldridge*zbo the blazers still showed guts and pride.and as my week stay in portland ended,i've never been more impressed with more sexier woman than the women that paraded at the rose garden the last 3 games. wow what a spectecale my kudos to the women of portland wow !!!! and yes dave intangibles do matter just look at the pistons,spurs,rockets,jazz and the raptors.these teams also do the little things that makes them great..

by fatty on Apr 5, 2007 5:49 PM PDT reply actions

I'd like to put a word in for chemistry

If you don't really like the people you are working with, it's easy to put out less than your best effort. (Unless you are a single-minded me-first-and-only kind of person. Then you are going to attempt to outshine all those dodos you are teamed with. But even then, that's chemistry...bad chemistry.)

But "good chemistry" can also be bad. You might say, "As Jack goes, so go the Blazers." When JJ is down and not doing well, the team catches that mood and doesn't play well. They care about him, pay attention to him ... and slump a little. But when someone is totally missing (not just absent while present) they seem to rise to a higher level. Who woulda thought that a starting lineup with Raef & Jamaal would beat the Spurs? And with a backup center who was about to drop back to the D-League, or back to the Southern Hemisphere. Sure, that's heart and guts but I also think there's some chemistry involved. We don't know much about the mind yet - maybe R.O.Y.'s lottery be damned attitude was actually out there on brain waves - ESP if you will. Certainly not tangible, but certainly possible.

by jorga on Apr 5, 2007 8:58 PM PDT reply actions