BBIQ ( was RE: Will Powe Go?)

[Kim Malo]

At 03:07 PM 10/12/2007, Ryan W wrote:
>Kim,
>
>That's a great definition, thank you.  My question is
>how can one objectively determine a basketball
>player's BBIQ?

Now that's a great question, and part of the answer is that you, the 
person trying to judge, have got to have some yourself to know the 
difference. This is a classic takes one to know one and is part of 
why I'm not as big a Ricky Davis fan as some and a bigger fan of 
Gomes than some others were. You've got to have some of the same 
analytical ability to tell if he did something good just because he 
did something good or did he mean it : ) I don't think someone 
without BBIQ themselves could tell the difference.

>There are so many factors to take into
>account, including the player's health, experience,
>mental strength, the opponent on any given day,
>teammates, coaching, offensive and defensive system,
>the officiating, that seem to influence the perception
>of basketball IQ and one's ability, as you said, to
>"see the court/game as a whole and understand the game
>in the broadest sense."

Well no. IMO Basketball IQ isn't all those things, it's more about 
how you deal with them and everything else. Again, understanding and 
analytics not execution. And probably something that has to be viewed 
over time rather than on a per game case basis. For instance, back in 
his playing days, I used to regularly say (true, honestly, not just 
sucking up to Egg <g>) that his teammates could all have a bad game 
but Danny was the only one amongst the regulars capable of having a 
dumb one. That one bad game for someone like DJ on an off night might 
look like low basketball IQ play, as shots and passes clanged and he 
got called for foul after foul going for steals, but anyone who'd 
seen a larger body of work would know that it was just an off night 
and that DJ was one of the smartest players we've ever had. While 
Danny, even on a night when the shots were falling, rarely played 
what I would call a notably smart game. He usually looked like the 
ritalin had about run out. Although I think compared to most players 
today he'd have probably been genius level BBIQ.

>  Case in point, Tony Allen
>looks a hell of a lot smarter when he's completely
>healthy, because the crazy shit he tries to pull off
>on the basketball court has a much better chance of
>happening when he's healthy.

Ah, and this may be hair splitting, but to me he looks a lot more 
effective then, rather than necessarily smarter. I think he has a 
higher BBIQ as it relates to how to play defense than many on our 
team because he understands what technique to use when and on whom to 
stop them - it's not all physical ability as gets said here 
sometimes. There's clear thought behind some of what he does. And in 
fairness, he's also smart enough in BBIQ terms in other ways to 
understand the need to work on some of his not fun fundamentals like 
not trying to dribble the ball through the floor if he wants to be 
able to do some things. But he's someone I think of as mostly doing 
it on instinct and training and ability.

>   Likewise, Paul Pierce is
>going to look a whole hell of lot smarter on the court
>this year because he's going to be playing with a
>bunch of great veterans.

Mmm, this is a more borderline case. Look, Antoine for all his 
faults, except when it came to his own play, actually has a high BBIQ 
IMO. His passing is an example - when he's not showing off, it's 
almost always the right sort of pass to the right person and the 
right play for the situation. He's got superb court vision and he is 
far from stupid. Unfortunately there's that LARGE problem about his 
not being able to apply it to his own play and / or letting his ego 
get in the way of it. Pity, as he could have been almost as great as 
he thought he was. Paul has some of that, just without the same level 
of pigheadedness for the sake of being pigheaded. He's not someone I 
think of as a high BBIQ player in the first place, vs someone who can 
be a very effective one and who sometimes lets his ego get in the way 
of that too. A high BBIQ player would have seen from the start the 
benefits of running and involving more teammates both to the team and 
to himself in getting him a lot of easier, high % shots and in 
cutting down on the wear and tear. A high BBIQ player who can drive 
the way Paul can and draw fouls and is strong enough to stand doing 
that wouldn't take so many outside jumpers that kill momentum, don't 
draw fouls (and those have benefits beyond the free throw in terms of 
affecting what the opposing team can do and who they can play), and 
frankly, miss. Etc.

>   There are obviously players
>that 'get it' just like there are players that don't,
>but my question would pertain to the ones in the
>middle (since that's where most reside).  How much of
>BBIQ is system and situation and how much is inborn
>and unchanging?  For the greats, it doesn't seem to
>matter, they can succeed in any system.  But what
>about everyone else?

Well if you're asking if I think it can be taught / developed, the 
answer is yes. At least to some degree. Although not everyone has the 
same ability to do so, or the same need. Some of it can be inborn, 
making someone "a natural" to get it, but even that requires training 
and direction, at least initially. Michelangelo had art teachers, 
such as Ghirlandaio, but moved far beyond what he was taught and 
whatever the situation he was given. Russ gives credit to his coaches 
at University of San Francisco but studied the game intensely himself 
to take his BBIQ far beyond what they did for the raw player he was 
when he arrived. Red helped with that, and Red's system helped take 
the maximum benefit of Russ, but Russ studied the game to raise his 
BBIQ in ways that had nothing directly to do with Red's system, 
except that Red took advantage of the results.

And honestly, IMO, if it's just the system and situation, it's not 
BBIQ. It's training and instinctive response, based on that training. 
Effective, but for different and somewhat more limited reasons. BBIQ 
is simultaneously analytical and creative - it's not just what 
(system and situation) it's why.

Have I put everyone to sleep yet?
Kim