BBIQ ( was RE: Will Powe Go?)

[R Howe]

BBIQ - great topic, great answers from all us
old/young C fans and students of the game. I would
only add there is BBIQ as an individual in maximizing
your performance, harnessing the skills you have (vet
savy, athleticism, size, pure BB skills...) in order
to get on the court in the first place; there is also
BBIQ in understanding what to do to win a game,
understanding in-game situations, match-ups, opponents
weaknesses and the like.

 Finally to me there is BBIQ within a team context,
putting it all together, blending your skills, with
your teammates, knowing your roles, without ego, where
your joy is in successful execution and winning, this
where your see glimpses of magic on the court, ball
movement and genuine passion of the players playing
what is after all just a game. It is what we fans want
to be connected with and how we would want to play the
game if we could.

On other thread topic, for the end of the bench and
future development I would keep Powe, Wallace, Big
Baby, Pruitt, after that let the camp shake it out.

Liking the "Love" that Perkins is getting on the
boards and Media of late.  

Go C's

--- Ryan W <ubiquitous_am_i at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Kim,
> 
> That's a great definition, thank you.  My question
> is
> how can one objectively determine a basketball
> player's BBIQ?  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."  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.  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.  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?  
> 
> Ryan
> --- Kim Malo <kmalo17 at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> > At 12:24 PM 10/12/2007, asterix ninetynine wrote:
> > >The lexicon of basketball intelligentsia
> continues
> > to amaze (and 
> > >somewhat perplex) me.  "Long" players with
> > tremendous "Upside"?  And 
> > >now we can add the term "BBIQ".
> > >
> > >   What exactly is basketball I.Q. and what does
> it
> > describe?  I 
> > > presume it means that a player exhibits solid
> > fundamentals, but I 
> > > would appreciate hearing how others define this
> > term.
> > 
> > Not so much just having or even exhibiting
> > fundamentals. Exhibiting 
> > them can just be because you're well trained and
> > mindless enough for 
> > that to be remarkably effective, while BBIQ
> doesn't
> > just involve 
> > fundamentals anyway. And you can have BBIQ but not
> > be able to execute 
> > - Scal will often clearly understand the right
> thing
> > to do but can't 
> > do it. Hell, I'm much better at understanding the
> > game than I ever 
> > was as a player, where I mostly took advantage of
> > smarts, 
> > ruthlessness, persistence, a solid frame... and
> > getting my growth 
> > spurt several years before the boys I was playing
> > against <g>. Of 
> > course amongst the local girls I was da man...
> > (hmmm, something wrong 
> > with that statement)
> > 
> > The key word here is understanding - it's being
> able
> > to see the court 
> > / game as a whole and understand the game in the
> > broadest sense, 
> > along with what you're seeing now, to know what
> the
> > most appropriate 
> > thing to do is in basketball terms, to take best
> > advantage of what 
> > you see and minimize the disadvantages. Which may
> > involve exhibiting 
> > the fundamentally sound thing but may also mean
> > doing something 
> > outrageous but perfect, as Bird so often did. And
> he
> > had one of the 
> > highest BBIQ in action I've ever seen. As did
> Russ.
> > His shot blocking 
> > was fundamentally sound, his deciding to block it
> so
> > as to start a 
> > break for his teammates vs out of bounds (where it
> > couldn't be 
> > rebounded or tapped back in but if you were the
> last
> > one to touch it, 
> > it might well lead to an easy basket anyway on the
> > inbound),  when no 
> > one else did it that way, was high BBIQ. Your
> > understanding of the 
> > game certainly involves fundamentals, but if it
> > never moves beyond 
> > having them, I don't think it's a high BBIQ any
> more
> > than doing well 
> > on spelling tests because of a photographic memory
> > or teacher who is 
> > very good at drill means being a brilliant
> creative
> > thinker.
> > 
> > Someone mentioned Gomes. BBIQ might tell you that
> > the best thing for 
> > you to do in a given situation is nothing direct,
> > simply move without 
> > the ball NOW because you see 3 defenders taking
> the
> > first step to 
> > close in on the guy with the ball, which means
> > there's going to be a 
> > lot of open space somewhere and an urgent need to
> > get the ball to 
> > someone else before he gets trapped. Vs. simply
> > standing and watching 
> > or moving to the open space, but too late because
> > you waited for it 
> > to already be there with the trap locked down and
> > couldn't think 
> > beyond oh, there's an open space, maybe someone
> will
> > pass it to me if 
> > I go there. Or, in a related situation (and this
> is
> > a MAJOR pet peeve 
> > because it is so easy and so basic and so obvious
> > and we are SO bad 
> > about it) going enough  to the ball when someone
> is
> > trapped or about 
> > to be, to give them a visible and safe outlet
> > target, even if it's 
> > just for a moment before passing the ball right
> > back. And even if 
> > it's not part of the original play call (following
> a
> > script doesn't 
> > take BBIQ). It's making a bounce pass not just
> > because it's more 
> > appropriate for the part of the court, who you're
> > passing to and the 
> > overall situation than a chest high bullet, but
> > understanding why 
> > that's true, not just doing so on instinct and
> > training. You could 
> > see Jefferson starting to raise his, at least on
> > offense, last season 
> > when he was making his moves more situationally
> > appropriate vs acting 
> > wholly on instinct and raw talent and a prayer.
> > 
> > Kim  
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > The Boston Celtics Mailing List
> > celtics at igtc.com
> > http://www.igtc.com/mailman/listinfo/celtics
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>        
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! -
> their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo!
> Games.
> http://sims.yahoo.com/  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The Boston Celtics Mailing List
> celtics at igtc.com
> http://www.igtc.com/mailman/listinfo/celtics
> 


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7