BBIQ ( was RE: Will Powe Go?)

[Alex Goldblatt]

Kim, great post as usual!.. ;-)

I just wanted to remind what Doc said recently on Posey: it goes something
along the lines that the best thing about him is not just that he knows
where he should be on the floor, but even when he does not know - he's still
in the right position.

Generally accepted definition of the BBIQ is that this is a buzz term that
rates a player's decision-making, knowledge of the game and intangibles. Is
it a universal definition though? I don't think so - there is much more
subjective rather than objective approach to it. Actually, this very thread
is one walking proof of this statement...

Btw, it also depends on what position do you play, or even if you're a
coach. For each and every one of them there is a different definition of
what do we mean by BBIQ. Starting with the help D intangibles, rebound
positioning, right pas at the right time, anticipation and reading the game,
etc., etc. - all the way through to the substitution patterns and even
trades to improve your team (yep, I can go that far).

To me - BBIQ is an intuitive, natural deep understanding of the game, and a
great deal of experience. Books and WEB sites will not cut it, you have to
experience this first hand to understand that.

One can argue that this is a quality that can be improved, and I can agree -
to some degree. Unfortunately, this is only the last part I listed above -
experience. You can easily mistaken it with the real BBIQ, but a lot of
players fail because of it once they are taken out of the system they used
to. Simple and very close example - Blount and the OB-ball. High BBIQ is not
bound by any particular system. Posey will be a great asset for any team,
just like Ray and KG. But that's a great quality of maybe 5% or even less of
the NBA players.

Just my 2C....

AG

On 10/12/07, 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
>