I often see intangibles like off ice leadership, presence in the room, charcter etc, written off as not that important and dismissed quite easily on CP.
I totally understand that there's a point where a better player is a better player, or a bubble player isn't good enough to take up a spot despite anything else he brings.
But I feel like sometimes it's brushed off too quickly and isn't weighted heavily enough in a player's value, and I assume a lot of that has to do with the stats crazy hockey world we live in where everyone wants to make definitive statements and rate every player, and feel like they're a hockey "expert" without actually having any connections to teams.
Not a huge gripe, however we had a thread on Deryk Engelland last week and I saw a lot of "bah intangibles, he's a crappy player, get him off the team" (not in those words) and a stark contrast was this article yesterday by Wes Gilbertson with Pens players speaking to Engelland's time in Pittsburgh.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/02/05...calgary-flames
Quote:
|
He’s one of those guys you always miss having around,” said Penguins centre Brandon Sutter. “He’s just a heart-and-soul player. He works hard. He’s not the most talented guy in world. He might not be the fanciest guy to watch play. But he’s a team guy, and he plays the game the right way, and he’s tough as nails, too. He’s the first guy to stand up for a teammate, and things like that just make him a valued part of the team.”
|
Quote:
|
“That’s a big part, I think, of what’s got me to this level — just be a good teammate, be a good guy, stick up for my teammates … ” Engelland said. “Whatever I can do to make someone better or help someone out, I do. To hear people say that to a team that you’re going to, it’s a good feeling to have. It’s a great feeling to know that you left that impression on them.”
|
I don't know if it's really thread worthy, but just something to think about when dismissing intangibles in a hockey player.