65 replies to this topic

[number9]

Okay, so we have all these stats and facts that we use to argue our points. But there is something else to take into consideration as well. It's called intangibles.

It's hard for me to explain what intangibles Pasha brings to the table, but you know in your heart that they exist. It's what brings his game up to the next level, and makes him that much more valuable. You can't put a finger on it, but you know it's there and without it, he's just another player. I've never found those intangibles in Ovechkin. I'm sure they are there, but I've not seen them.

I don't know if that makes sense or not, but take it for what it's worth.

they both bring different intangibles....datsyuk has things like crazy dekes that you can record on stats....and ovechkin plays a more intimidating hardnose style that you cant account for in stats

[toby91_ca]

Okay, so we have all these stats and facts that we use to argue our points. But there is something else to take into consideration as well. It's called intangibles.

It's hard for me to explain what intangibles Pasha brings to the table, but you know in your heart that they exist. It's what brings his game up to the next level, and makes him that much more valuable. You can't put a finger on it, but you know it's there and without it, he's just another player. I've never found those intangibles in Ovechkin. I'm sure they are there, but I've not seen them.

I don't know if that makes sense or not, but take it for what it's worth.

I believe it is called "bias" or some may use the phrase "being a homer"

they both bring different intangibles....datsyuk has things like crazy dekes that you can record on stats....and ovechkin plays a more intimidating hardnose style that you cant account for in stats

I think you may misunderstand the term "intangible." What you have described for both are "tangible" traits. Just because something doesn't show up in "stats" doesn't mean it's intangible.

[Kira]

I beg to differ. The things that Pasha brings to the table are things that you cannot measure by stats. And though you might accuse me of "homerism" or "bias", I still believe that there are qualities and characteristics that cannot be measured in stats.

But, as I say, take it for what it's worth, which in my case isn't a whole lot.

[toby91_ca]

I beg to differ. The things that Pasha brings to the table are things that you cannot measure by stats. And though you might accuse me of "homerism" or "bias", I still believe that there are qualities and characteristics that cannot be measured in stats.

But, as I say, take it for what it's worth, which in my case isn't a whole lot.

But what are these "things" you speak of? When someone really thinks a particular player is better than an other for some reason, but they just can't put their finger on it, it's usually because of "bias"....for whatever reason, you just "like" one player more, so you will trick yourself into thinking he's better. This is fact and it's impossible to avoid bias in this case.

I'm not saying Datsyuk doesn't have more intangibles than Ovechkin, but if you can't really determine what it is, it's probably bias.

The most common intangible I can think of is leadership. I don't see Datsyuk as some ultimate leader, but he certainly appears to have much more leadership capabilities than Ovechkin (but that could change over time).

[Kira]

If I could explain it, I'd be a genius.

[darkmanx]

OP should add a poll so we get a generalization of the results. I think Pasha is the better overall player, even he still makes us Red Wings fans say wow after we seen him do so much that is already ridiculous.