I am a big fan of the Sports Pope, but I have to seriously disagree with that statement.
Caller was disputing why Jeter was so great and should be held in a higher regard than most players. His argument was that Jeter may not have had the stats of some of his contemporaries but he had "intagibles" and used the "Flip Play" as an example.
Mike says "baseball is not a sport where you can add intangibles to players, because it is so much an individual sport" and that while the "Flip Play" was good you couldn't give 15 more examples of his "intangibles".
I think baseball is a HIGHLY intangible sport. Working a walk in a key spot, swiping a bag to get into scoring position, knowing how to run the bases well, or how to work a pickle properly (haha i know). There is a huge amount of intangibles in baseall. What say you, BBI? Agree or disagree?
The things you're describing are baseball IQ, not intangibles. At least, to me.
Intangible would be stuff like leadership. Not all that sure why it would be less important in baseball though -- just because it's one batter at a time doesnt mean that leadership in the dugout, clubhouse, and spring training is not having an effect.
I think sometimes "intangibles" are a way of saying "I think this player is better than he really is/was.. I just can't prove it with hard evidence (numbers)."
I have no problem giving people credit for their intangibles as long as it is done on a consistent basis In baseball and other sports, the intangibles are always mentioned for popular players when it can be easily be argued that many of the most unpopular players also have those traits. I doubt shortstop Derrick Jeter has more intangibles than point guard Isaiah Thomas
stat sheet for his 2007 regular season - 4 catches for 35 yards and 0 TDs.
Thank god.
"YEAH!" or "oh shit"
Mr. May or Mr November?
Actually watching the game is what its all about.
A tangible is Marvin Harrison making a huge catch in a big moment.
Baseball is an individual sport in terms of pitching and hitting. Are intangibles similar to what White Sox broadcaster Hawk Harrelson said last year in terms of a guy having "TWTW" while others don't.
(TWTW = The Will To Win)
If you can't measure it at all or define it in any actual way, then all one is doing is making an emotional argument without any hard evidence.
Reggie Jackson Post Season Stats - ( New Window )
Pitchers probably require a bit more "intangible" ability because the game rides on their arm every time they play. When it's a big game, some pitchers have the ability to "bear down" and pitch with greater focus. For hitters its a little tough. You're still trying to hit pitches, you still fail most of the time, even when you succeed more than most you still fail almost the same amount, and hitters are so susceptible to streaks. There have been so many clutch hits by players who are barely average at best.
It's hard to label one Jeter strikeout at a key moment as lacking intangibles, and a double down the line to win a game as having tons of intangibles. Its too much about the pitcher/hitter match up.
A-Rod postseason Stats - ( New Window )
Does roid use count as tangible? Or intangible?
What a GOAT.
...but you only had to play a sport a year of your life to know that not everyone wants the ball with 2 outs in the 9th (or down a point with 20 seconds left on the shotclock).
Some degree of 'clutch' absolutely exists... its just a question of degree.
Who cares if you call that tangible or intangible.
Just to compare career OPS+
Arod: 143
Garciaparra: 124
Banks: 122
Jeter: 117
Yount: 115
Ripken: 112
Trammel: 110
Arod is obviously the best hitting SS to ever play the game, hand down. Garciaparra had 3 outstanding seasons around 150 OPS+, Jeter only had 1, but there were roid allegations and he didn't play into his late 30's, which would have diminished his overall career OPS+.
Banks and Yount didn't play SS their whole career.
The high's of some of these other guys are probably better than Jeter's best seasons, but there is something to be said about Jeter's consistency.
But the thing is, it's impossible for fans like us who are never around these guys to "see" those intangibles. How can we possibly know what these guys are really like. Sure we can look at numbers and say this guy is choking or that guy is clutch, but numbers in pressure situations (especially in baseball) can often just be the result of a very limited sample size.
I disagree with Mike and think intangibles play a bigger role in baseball than most sports because of all the dead time in between pitches. Players are just constantly thinking and overthinking in pressure situations happens all the time in baseball. In a sport like football it's much harder to overthink while the play is happening because everything is moving so fast.