BBIQ ( was RE: Will Powe Go?)

[Alex Goldblatt]

Hmmm... my turn?... :))

>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.

I was just pointing out the general use of this term nowadays, with
the significant degradation of the average BB knowledge (did I mention how
much I hate slam-dunk contest?.. ). That's why I followed up with my own
definition.

>I disagree on this. IMO BBIQ doesn't depend upon position.

Kim, I probably have to blame my shaky explanation: I just meant that in the
most of the cases people treat this definition in respect to the specific
position. But even if you talk about any specific player yourself, you'd
praise some specific qualities that can show/define his BBIQ. Again - this
is all very subjective.

>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.

First of - yes, a lot of people thought that such effective game in such
difficult D scheme like Harter's shows his potential and BBIQ. And that was
exactly my point - drilling it all the way down over the years has nothing
to do with BBIQ, or even player's real level. He was a 3rd string backup, he
is a 3rd string backup today.

>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.

Good point, no arguing here.

But I'm actually surprised you did not alter my own definition, is it
possible we're on the same page here?!!!!... LOL.. :)))))

AG

On 10/13/07, Kim Malo <kmalo17 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> The Boston Celtics Mailing List
> celtics at igtc.com
> http://www.igtc.com/mailman/listinfo/celtics
>