BBIQ ( was RE: Will Powe Go?)

[Kim Malo]

At 09:00 PM 10/12/2007, Alex Goldblatt wrote:
>Kim, great post as usual!.. ;-)

Ah well, despite the flattery, you didn't really think I'd leave well 
enough alone, did you? <g>

>Generally accepted definition of the BBIQ is that this is a buzz term

Nope, buzz term is a put down and I don't think it deserves it. 
You're talking about something real IMO that's been talked about for 
decades, not just the latest popular label.

>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).

I disagree on this. IMO BBIQ doesn't depend upon position. The 
specific body of knowledge you have to apply your BBIQ to may (and 
only may), which puts a lower ceiling on your BBIQ from the start. 
But the knowledge is only part of the equation.

>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.

But did anyone ever consider Blount a high BBIQ player? Not that I 
ever heard and I certainly wouldn't. An effective player within that 
system, yeah. And maybe this seems like hairsplitting (maybe it 
is...) but that seems to be a big confusion - BBIQ vs effectiveness. 
I don't think they're the same thing. You can be effective because of 
someone else. BBIQ is something you do / have yourself.

And the more this emphasis on system continues, the more I think it 
is almost the opposite of BBIQ. At best it's SIQ - i.e. understanding 
of a particular system, and even that's shaky since I think BBIQ is 
more than just knowing stuff. While your saying it depends upon 
position might be called PIQ, with the same caveat. But they're not 
BBIQ, which seems to me inherently broadbased and something that you 
apply to position, system, etc and derive knowledge to add to it 
through them, but not something wholly or inherently dependent upon them.

Kim