That's B.S. and it's you trying to bring race into a discussion where it doesn't belong. I describe Yogi Ferrell as scrappy and having a high basketball IQ. I think of PJ Thompson the same way. If you can only think of white guys who fit that description, then that's your bias. Don't expect everyone to think as you do.
A change in philosophy
- Thread starter BBG
- Start date
I know this is
I know this is not to me, but I do not think "great plays or not great plays " have anything to do with a high basketball IQ. It is not so much a measure of success in the end result as in the decision making process that leads to things on the court. The high IQ people are generally appreciated by the coaches for the mental part of the game which was commonly referred to as 4:1 over the physical. Today, with the rule changes that ratio has been reduced, but still greater than 1:1 I see high IQ as smart plays whether they result in scoring or not preventing a score...just cerebral decisions, not the ability to stroke it or jump over five people to dunk it or block shots and steal balls...the mental part of the game...and that IQ varies between people's thoughts...
I know this is not to me, but I do not think "great plays or not great plays " have anything to do with a high basketball IQ. It is not so much a measure of success in the end result as in the decision making process that leads to things on the court. The high IQ people are generally appreciated by the coaches for the mental part of the game which was commonly referred to as 4:1 over the physical. Today, with the rule changes that ratio has been reduced, but still greater than 1:1 I see high IQ as smart plays whether they result in scoring or not preventing a score...just cerebral decisions, not the ability to stroke it or jump over five people to dunk it or block shots and steal balls...the mental part of the game...and that IQ varies between people's thoughts...
So does this thought of going with a smaller more offensive minded lineup increase the odds of Purdue looking into possibly playing zone?
I think people are overreacting to what Bonefish said. He didn't imply anything racist, he simply said that the term is generally reserved for unathletic white guys. Draymond Green had an amazing Bball IQ but that term wasn't often used when discussing him. I think Swanigan has a pretty good IQ yet that term is generally reserved on Purdue for Mathias.
I agree with this. To test the claim that high basketball IQ is normally associated with white players, I googled "high basketball IQ players" and saw several lists all but one of which were dominated by African American players, with even the one exception having a majority of black players. (In fact, the only American white player that showed up on more than one list was Kevin Love.)
There may not be a statistical way to accurately measure basketball IQ, but all coaches assess it, subjectively. I've heard Painter talk a lot about it with guys like Vince Edwards, Dakota Mathias, Ryan Cline, Jon Octeus, and PJ Thompson. Just this year, I heard him talk about how much not getting Chasson Randle hurt because of how smart Randle played. He also talked about the need to recruit more of it after the last place finish two years ago.
By the way, if someone doesn't recognize that the 12-13 and 13-14 Purdue teams played with less basketball intelligence than Painter's other teams, I don't really have anything to say because that person hasn't been watching the same Purdue teams that I have.
Through media, sportscasters, etc it has been noticeable when they describe different players (think that's what he meant anyway)
It was discussed here before, but the League TV show when it was in its prime and still funny, had the white knuckler(!) Episode. They began with "a class act".
There are so many.
http://theleague.wikia.com/wiki/The_White_Knuckler
It was discussed here before, but the League TV show when it was in its prime and still funny, had the white knuckler(!) Episode. They began with "a class act".
There are so many.
http://theleague.wikia.com/wiki/The_White_Knuckler
Last edited:
I think we will still be man to man... maybe some zone mixed in, but man to man has and probably always be our go to D
I think you all are confusing bball IQ with what I would call someone just being a 'good player'.
I certainly wouldn't describe PJ as having a high basketball IQ (if that's what you want to call it). How many times did he get baited into a trap when trying to break the press? How many times did he get baited into driving the open lane (which was open for a reason) only to end up getting his shot blocked?
Tell me someone with a low bball IQ?
Do you think the NBA is going to draft a player with a 'higher' basketball IQ over someone with a higher talent level? Of course not.
Again, you could have a player with a high bball IQ, but if he's playing against a guy who can run faster, jump higher and shoot better, the guy with the better talent is going to win that battle 95% of the time.
Wouldn't it also be assumed that the player with the highest basketball IQ would also be the best player on the floor, as well as the leading scorer? Because, I would argue, if he's not, he must not have that high of a bball IQ.
no not at all. First, I tried to separate results and basketball IQ and yet you pretend I didn't and then present a position I never had. Of course less high basketball IQ's could beat high IQ...like the girl with the prettiest eyes may not win the beauty contest.
Troy Williams has been mentioned. He has a ton of talent. He is nowhere in the mock drafts. Jared Utoff on the other hand hasn't nearly the level of talent and is at least projected second round.
How about Troy Williams compared to Jared Uthoff?
Uthoff can't run as fast as Williams. He can't jump as high as Williams. He isn't near the athlete Williams is.
Which one would you pick? Which one do you think the NBA will pick first?
Those two aren't nearly the same player.
Uthoff is a 6'9 guy with good handles who can stroke the 3 and block shots. He's got a lot of physical talent. Just because he's a tall skinny white guy doesn't mean he doesn't have physical talent.
Williams is a 6'8 guy with a questionable jumper, but is a good slasher, can rebound and get out on the break and finishes well.
Williams not having a consistent jumper doesn't mean he has a lower bbal IQ, it just means he doesn't have as good a jumper. Period.
They're different players, different skill sets. I don't think one has any higher bball IQ than the other. They're just good at different things.
Williams shooting percentage last season was .513 compared to .448 for Uthoff. They have nearly identical 3pt % with Uthoff at 38% and Williams at 34%.
Rebounding is similar as well at 5.8 per game for Williams and 6.3 for Uthoff.
You say they have different skill sets yet they have nearly identical stats and are the same size. Williams is by far the most athletic yet one is projected to be drafted and one is not. Perhaps the difference in skill sets is actually the one thing you say doesn't exist.
That is what led to the turnaround for IU from their early season struggles to winning the B1G. They dropped that ridiculous scheme of changing from man to man to zone defense in a single possession and improved quite a bit from there on out.
The reason Bonefish thinks they are of such different skill sets is that Uthoff KNOWS WHEN to make certain plays. His on-court decision makiing is far superior to Williams. He also does a much better job setting up his team mates for success. THAT is basketball IQ.
all of your points demonstrate that you and I disagree on the fundamental definition of talent. I believe it to be an aggregate of physical attributes, understanding of the game and how it works, and an individual's drive to use both to defeat his opponent. B ball IQ is higher in some than in others without question. I can teach a kid the technique to dribble, and shoot, and pass, etcetera, but if they don't learn when to do those things and why they don't have the full package. If the other guy has equivalent physical tools but my guy has the superior understanding (B ball IQ), meaning he "just gets it", my team wins. I absolutely believe it is part of talent.
Y
Yes. And now they have recruits signing up because Crean is a developer of players. Maybe he is. Maybe he just got a little smarter regarding how much he asked them to do.
[
If we did it have any size at the five or four spots we would be in a much more serious size situation and zone might become necessary.
i talked about this somewhere else but anyway, my thought is that it will be less likely to zone with a physically smaller team. We still have some serious size, you just may not see it at both the 4 and 5 positions together as much. It's tough to rebound out of a zone because it is harder to find and block out the appropriate player. This combined with less of a position by position size advantage leads me back to Man to Man D. We shall see though as there are many ways to play the game and none of them are inherently right or wrong.
If we did it have any size at the five or four spots we would be in a much more serious size situation and zone might become necessary.
Last edited:
Well, obviously you'd love to have a player with a lot of talent who also makes the right decisions most of the time. Those are the types who end up in the NBA.
But, my point is that a high bball IQ (again, whatever that is) is not going to compensate for a lack of physical talent. And usually, the term is reserved for a guy who doesn't have great physical capabilities but we assume he's successful because he's outsmarting his opponent. Actually, that might happen a time or two, until of course, the other team makes an adjustment.
A perfect example would be watching PU tying to break the press last year. Because we were often out quicked by more athletic teams when they started to press, but apparently, our guys lacked the bball IQ to adjust and quit turning the ball over.
But, it wasn't a matter of not knowing what to do, it was a lack of physical ability to do it.
Basketball IQ often is used to describe the thought process of a coach's kid. Someone who mentally anticipates what is going to happen next, both by the D and by his teammates. It is real and it makes player quicker because his mind is already ahead of the actual action. It can apply to any type of talent and athleticism, although you could be right in that it may be used as an excuse to play someone with less talent or athleticism. There could be race correlary in that a large percentage of coaches are white. These are only my shot at answers to your questions, not my opinions on those thoughts.
It is not specific to coach's kids nor do all coach's kids have it, but a mental understanding of a game that depends highly on very quick decisions based on what a players sees happening is definitely a positive and does make that player better. He makes fewer poor decisions and he makes much quicker decisions by anticipating the immediate future action.
Not that you ever have to agree with me, or me with you, but I'll try again. Let's look at two famous football players. QB 1 had superior physical skills, bigger arm, bigger frame, standard QB good looks, the whole package which you define as talent. QB 2 was not bad physically but not quite up there with #1. Scouts questioned his deep out and go route arm strength and he was a bit skinny.
QB 1 threw tons of interceptions and had very few positive plays such as touchdowns. QB 2 threw the picks early but adjusted rapidly. QB 1 was gone from the league before his second contract. QB 2 is a first ballot HOF player. Which is more talented, Leaf or Manning?
Does the winner have better cleavage? I think that might be key in this debate.
If you can't see the Bball IQ delta between Williams and Utoff I don't know where to go from here. Williams consistently makes the wrong decisions which frustrates even the staunchest of IU fan. Utoff plays within the framework of his offense and defense and consistently makes vastly better decisions than Williams.
The only 2 players on the PU roster I wouldn't trade for Williams are Biggie and Vince. Because he brings a lot of things to the floor that PU doesn't have.
and this has what to do with the difference between Williams and Utoff?
Never mind. I feel this conversation outlived its usefulness about a day ago. I shall retire from it.
Last edited:
OK, so let's look at potential lineups given what Matt discussed in the article (playing Mathias and Cline together) and assuming Caleb leaves:So reading the article on the front page about Cline and Mathias playing together more next season tells me a few things:
There are more things I am sure I am missing, but off the top of my head those are some of the takeaways I had from the article. Biggest one being CMP seemingly focusing more on being a offensive team as opposed to defensive minded. Sure losing Davis and AJH had an impact no doubt, but I also think he looked at the data from the year, saw the impact the new rules had and then changed accordingly. You can also see it in the type of player he is recruiting (guard heavy almost).
- Contrary to the belief of some on here, Painter is open to change and appears to be trying to focus more on offense than defense.
- The theme I got from that article is that there is a small chance Biggie comes back. While losing him is a big deal, I truly think Vince will have a big year and make us "forget" biggie
- If Biggie comes back and the addition of Spike, it seems like CE might be heading for a redshirt
Just my perception, as flawed as it is.
Article here
1. PJ/Spike/Carsen (did I spell it right this time?)
2. Ryan/Spike/Carsen or Maybe Basil
3. Dakota/Basil
4. Vince/Basil
5. Isaac/Jaquil/Basil (emergency center)
Observations based on this suggestion from the coach...
1) Coach thinks Caleb is staying in the draft.
2) Wow. Jaquil better be ready to go!
No one said anything about the NBA draft proving or disproving basketball IQ. Your point is still unclear.
Jacob Lawson says hello.
I have also had this same discussion about player intelligence and such with Bonefish, and he just doesn't get it. That's okay. He is welcome to his own.
I respectfully disagree with you regarding Larry Bird's "lack of athleticism". Bird dunked regularly, his dribbling skills for a 6'9 forward were exceptional and he routinely led the fast break with his dribbling, could shoot and dribble/pass with either hand, passing skills second to none, played solid to great defense, and evolved to be the best 3 point shooter in the league for several years. To me, that is one helluvan athlete.
The point is, we all agree you need NBA talent to consistently be successful in the tourny. The NBA drafts players based on talent and potential, not basketball IQ. Are some players in the NBA really smart, see angles others don't, etc? Of course. But those same players are also very physically talented. (Most of them at least: you might have an outlier here and there. Deladadova).
But, you're not going to hear an NBA team draft a player who isn't very physically talented but is thought to have very high bball IQ.
Therefore, my point is, I don't think BBall IQ is something that translates to more wins or tourny success. Because if it were, then Purdue doesn't sign guys with enough Bball IQ.
Take Mathis: I like DM and am glad he plays at PU. I think most would also agree him to be a smart/crafty player. But, will he play in the NBA? Would he start at the 2 for most final four and national championship teams?
I also realize though that not every team is going to have a starting 5 with NBA talent, but just using DM to demonstrate the point.
Actually, one hell of a basketball player. I agree with all you said but none had anything to do with athleticism
Last edited:
I don't know why you keep harping on this and moving the goalposts. It's pretty clear you are the only person to reply that thinks basketball IQ doesn't exist.
I would guess you also think musical IQ doesn't exist and that Eddie Van Halen is a better musician because he plays faster then Clapton.
I gave you a perfect example of two player the same size, with nearly identical stats, and the player who can run faster and jump higher is not considered to be a better basketball player. But you refuse to accept it.
Nobody said a person with a high basketball IQ can't be athletic as well. What we are saying is, when everything else is relatively equal, the guy with the higher basketball IQ is considered to be better.
Good grief.
Not too mention it is often used to describe players by announcers and coaches. So yes, it most certainly does exist.
You're sort of making my point; obviously, with all else being equal, the better decision-maker is the player you want. But my original point is that you really don't hear guys with NBA types of qualities always referred to as having high Bball IQ. Some do, some don't. Some are just really good basketball players. It's usually guys who are less than great athletes but are thought to make up for it with smarts or whatever.
But to your point, are you going to take the more athletic of two guys with similar Bball IQ? Of course you are.
I just thinks it's a very subjective measure, kind of like ones opinion of art or food.
Actually. Your original point was that basketball IQ was a fancy way of describing a player who isn't athletic or skilled. You went on to explain how you didn't understand what it meant.
Nobody ever said it had anything to do with athleticism and that it describes a person who understands the game.
Sure it's subjective. But there are plenty of examples of how someone with less athletic ability, runs slower, jumps lower, that indeed are considered better players due to their basketball IQ.
Of course I understand what Bball IQ means, or what the intended meaning is. But let's not get ourselves into thinking Bball is this cerebral game that a player or coach has to be really smart to play. It's pretty basic in terms of trying to identify mismatches and then exploiting them. I think it's more important to have the players with the skills to do so.
I think football and baseball take more strategy than basketball.
Most people would probably argue people like Knight, Smith, Wooden, Coach K, are really, really basketball smart. Would you make the same argument for Izzo, Self, Calipari, Pitino and Boeheim? Afterall, all these guys are top tourney, final four and national championship level coaches.
Which group does Painter fall into? How about Crean?
Bball IQ isn't going to make a MAC level player a Big 10 level player if he doesn't have the athletic skill to win at the Big 10 level. Purdue has a couple guys right now who fall into this category.
Maybe what I'm getting at is that Bball IQ, without the accompanying physical skills, is only going to get you so far when you're at the high major level. However, higher basketball skills and 'less' of a Bball IQ (assuming you can still dribble, shoot, pass, etc) is going to win the battle between those to individuals.
In reading through this, I'm reminded of "When Harry Met Sally......"
If someone's not a very talented basketball player, they're always described as having a "high BBall IQ....
No.....if you asked me, how do they play? and I said......they have a high BBall IQ......that means they're not very talented........but if I just happen to mention they have a high BBall IQ......that could mean either.....they could be talented with a high BBall IQ or not talented with a high BBall IQ.
So....which is it?
Talented.....
But not a Hall-of-Famer, right?
Fine....you take your high basketball IQ players with less athleticism and I'll play against you with my lower basketball IQ but better basketball/athletic skills and I'll win 8 out of 10 times.
Over the course of time, it's not about the X's and the O's, it's about the Jimmys and the Joes.
Over the course of time, it's not about the X's and the O's, it's about the Jimmys and the Joes.
Okay. Two on two. I'll take Kramer and Uthoff and you get Ronnie Johnson and Troy Willimams
Similar threads
