Euh ....What ? Quoi ? Was ?

This is ralley a response to your Wages of Wins comment that responded to mine:Apparently, I?ve missed a lot during the weekend.Notimetoread,You state:?As for IS and Nick?s idea that there are in fact intangibles that do not lead to better box scores. I can pose pretty much the same questions.?I cannot speak for IS but this idea was never my idea.To recap:In this thread, I was making a simple point. Berri was making a fuss that Thorpe had measured ?intangibles? which, Berri states, by definition cannot be measured.In fact, Thorpe didn?t measure intangibles. He didn?t tabulate a quantity. He used a point system to express his evaluation of the intangibles, but he didn?t measure them.Berri was apparently confused by the numbers, however, since he stated:?But it?s odd to see someone assign a number to something that by definition, isn?t tangible.?The error here is that Berri appears to think that use of numbers always implies measurement. It does not.So Berri?s criticism on that point (that Thorpe had measured something that cannot be measured) was off. Thorpe had done no such thing.My point went no further, and I certainly wasn?t defending Thorpe?s larger point about the importance of intangibles when evaluating a player?s productivity. In fact, I stated:?I think it?s perfectly fair to say that evaluating intangibles isn?t likely the best way to identify the most productive player on the court because intangible things like hustle or leadership do not have any great effect on productivity outside of what is already translated into the box score. I?d agree with that for the most part.?So generally that was a fine comment on your part, but it didn?t respond to mine. IS and I are talking about different things.Your comment missed that.