I wasn't around for the Namath days so won't comment. But about a team weakening vs a player losing intangibles? Did Brady lose intangibles, or did the way the Patriots teams were built differ? Did Peyton gain intangibles, or did he a have complete team for once? Did LeBron gain intangibles, or did he learn a post game? You see where I am going with this? I think the difference between intangibles(and clutchness which is included in intangibles) and actual team talent/build is a very thin line. To go on, MJ had a very unhealthy ego. Did he have intangibles, or was he just the best player who worked on his game 24/7? Do we say what Bill Russell had was intangibles, or was it him caring about team accomplishments more? Is caring about the team over oneself intangibles, or understanding how legacy is written? Did Wilt Chamberlain lack intangibles, or did he wants his career to be written about his personal records? (I am much more knowledgeable about bball history than football. Ranking 1-10 my football history knowledge is 0 and basketball 2/10 ) There definitely intangibles, and of course the name itself means we can quantify how much they impact a game, but we can differentiate if something intangibles or just luck or just practice. The Yankees practiced the "flip" play that Jeter executed. Is that intangible for Jeter to recognize it? Is it focus on the coach to practice that play just in case? Is it luck Giambi didn't slide? Was it just a player being aware and letting the muscle motions practiced kick in? Most likely all of the above, but do we write it off as intangible because that fits what we want to think about Jeter over someone working hard? I am rambling quite a bit, I just find the perception of intangibles interesting, espcially after someone who wasn't "clutch" just dominated the NBA regular season, the NBA playoffs, and the Olympics.
And I enjoy a good brain strain and having answers for your musings is definately that. It seems to me that the more a sport requires the collective effort of players to have successful phases, ie. a down in football as compaired to a time at bat in baseball, intangables have different impacts. If a baseball player has good intangables that would manifest itself more in work ethic than helping improve a different batter's average, except for the preperation aspect of performance. With football and basketball as examples, it seems easier to define how good a players intangibles are and how much impact they have on that players team. Although NEVER an exact determination. It think Jordan is an excellent example of an athlete that maintained good intangibles for a long time. Chrisma is a word that is used in describing good intangibles often. PS: I don't think being a good trash talker necessarily means having an unhealthy ego. I believe it can be true that a player that knows he is good doesn't mean his ego isn't healthy. As long as that player doesn't think he is better than he actually is and his ego based behavior is reasonable within some constraints. Getting into your opponents head is part of the game. Refer to my pawning of Deirking in a previous comment in this thread. Edit: I didn't address many of the aspects of your musings. Maybe we can isolate some of them for an easier discussion, some time. Brain strains are by definition, a strain.
We know Dierking. It will be OK. I'll tell Tim to give you your unicorn back first thing in the morning. Here's your binky, now lay down and try to get some sleep. I'll leave the light on.
Jordan was a great trash talker and had an unhealthy ego and unhealthy competitive fire. He almost fought Scottie Pippen in practice. Different sport though.
You know, you may be correct. It is also true that sometimes a team sport athlete can be so superior to their peers they can carry their team. It doesn't happen often but it happens and in Jordan's case it may have happened. At worst Jordan was IMPACT. If you've watched Tim over the years, you've seen Tim give similar performances, albeit much harder to do with football teams and even more rear. Tim's intangibles include his willingness to try to carry the whole team to get the win. Many would say that is a bad intangible. Either way, his team mates often play harder because of it, and is the main reason I'm a Tim fan.
This is a very interesting and thoughtful thread. When I was a kid my Dad was a Celtics fan, and he used Larry Bird as an example to motivate me to work hard. He said Bird was born with talent, but also practiced free throws 6 hours a day. Bird made a high percentage of his free throws, and I think he had "intangibles" too. Intangibles are really hard to define ... guess that's why they're intangible! I know you guys are gonna laugh at me, but I thought Favre had intangibles too
That's an interesting one. Favre is very interesting case about intangibles Well according your own religion you are ever knowing and seeing so you really dropped the ball on that game
