That’s pretty much what bone does. Make wild claims and then have zero data points to back them up.
So, with Zach back, what changes?
- Thread starter bonefish1
- Start date
Similar to no such thing as basketball IQ! That guy comes up with some really stupid positions.
It was the texture of the surface. How sticky or slick it was.
there are so many variables that could still meet the spec and yet be different...something as simple as different rubber durometer numbers and thickness even under the outside that you mentioned. Showing my age, but I loved Spaulding/Rawlings and hated McGregor due to the wider grooves...then got used to Wilson A.D....but yeah I imagine most players have a preference
I think if you look back at our games at Wisconsin and Maryland we did terrible and they use that awful ball at home.
Why we don’t have 1 standard ball is amazing.
I brought up the subject of the different ball because many teams did complain about it and that it did affect their outside shooting in the tournament. And Purdue used it in a couple of games and shot poorly in those games as well.
100% agree. Anyone that has played definitely has a ball preference. Always preferred a composite vs true leather ball. I preferred the deeper grooves for shooting.
Purdue shot under 25% from 3 in 11 out of there 35 games. It's more than just the ball.
Purdue was a poor 3 pt shooting team entering the tourney. The ball had no impact on making them poorer. You don't think each of players who shot 3 didn't shoot several hundred during practice in the arena leading up to the game, with the game balls?
I mean, I love a good conspiracy theory but this is just silly.
You want data points? Ok....
In the 10 games leading up to the tourney, Purdue shot 27% as a team from 3, with 5 of those games, shooting 22% or worse.
They shot 19% from 3 vs FDU.
So, tell me again how the weird ball theory hurt Purdue's already poor 3 pt shooting.......
All these high basketball IQ guys and Painter still can win in the tourney. Either high Bball IQ doesn't matter (or doesn't exist), or it's just something some Purdue fans love to tag lowly recruited players with to make them feel better.
Ok...so answer me this: In terms of collective team basketball IQ, where do you think Purdue ranks nationally?
This isn't a question about W or L, it's a question about out collective Bball IQ as a team. Are we no 1?
Top 5? Top 15? Top 25?
If not No 1, who is?
Average to below average. If all the guys played with elite IQ, we wouldn't struggle with the press or have as big of scoring droughts when Zack is doubled.
I would agree, which is why I always say that either Bball IQ is a figment of the imagination, or it's irrelevant at this level where athleticism/bball skill will beat bball IQ 90% of the time.
Right, they shot 32% on the season. Had they shot 32% versus FDU they win going away.
Several hundred shots using this ball versus many thousands using the standard ball. Again, not saying it's THE reason, just that it's A reason.
I used to play with the Spaulding T1000, but started to hate it after a while. Way too slick for me. I donated it to the Y and bought a Wilson. Loved that ball. Did it make a difference? In my mind / confidence level...yes absolutely it did.
I don't know if this still takes place in Indiana? Years ago many coaches...and some in smaller schools which were most didn't have a lot of extra money in the athletic department. That said...prior to the tourney and sometimes prior to certain games a team would use a different ball or the ball that was going to be used for those games and the athletic department would buy a few. I can also say that "one" of the scouting points was to always see what ball was in use by what home team. Preparing for that home team and the state ran tourney coaches would swap balls to try to simulate the game conditions as much as possible. Coaches would only do this out of their budget and in preparation if they believed it was to reduce the advantage of a different ball being used...and there were a lot of coaches that did this. The ball, previous use of the ball, air pressure along with rim tightness or spring load all weigh in on shooting. Tolerances exist in EVERYTHING which by definition states there are variances in what is standardized.
The ball effects shooting. The question is how big of a factor is it in a specific game outside of confounded variables by lumping data of many variables (is everygame defense the same as well?) into one conclusion as somehow an attempt to answer the question...that probably is not answerable. Sometimes data gets confusing like when I average my shot 3 feet in front of a duck and then 3 feet behind the duck...knowing damn well on the average I hit the duck as I watch it fly on. To me it isn't remotely debateable that the ball has some effect on shooting, but all that said suggests to score other ways if missing from behind the arc rather than thinking a "given game" will fall inside the anticipated. That lack of adaption or recognition by some probably led to a lower % than otherwise. I mean how hard is ti to make up the 3pt differential if shooting 21 shots behind the arc where hitting 8 is 38% and hitting 5 is 24% or even 4 at 19%.
Define “going away”. Had we made approx 32% of 3’s, would only be another 9 pts min, max 12pts. Perhaps we could have won by 3-5 pts. Got our ass kicked because of piss poor coaching and game plan by Painter.
Ha ha. Yes, that's the Holy Grail. But, in all honestly, Bball IQ is usually tagged to a player who lacks athleticism to make him seem more appealing.
That was something that was always said about Smith, yet, I watched him in game, 33 (or whatever that FDU game was) run into the corner to receive an inbounds pass and immediately get trapped and turn it over. Every basketball player from sophomore in high school on knows you don't do that, especially when the defense is baiting you into doing exactly that.
They shot like, 26% in the last 10 games, with several of those games under 22%. I'm sticking to my guns that they were overall, a poor 3 pt shooting team and Painter got outcoached by playing right into the hands of what FDU wanted Purdue to do. Which was, jack up a lot of 3s and hope water finds it's level.
Yep. That's why he needs more experience and why BBIQ is to be valued, not mocked. Imagine if he had Larry Bird or Magic Johnson's IQ. He'd be really special even at 6 foot. Right?
Bone has a point about the corner, but then I started seeing more teams do it and started to wonder if there was a reason like skip passes many years ago. Got thinking about it and had a possible explanation, but can’t recall why now. 😁
Players make bad decisions at times under pressure. I’m sure he has a high BBIQ but he was just a freshman in a high stress moment on the biggest stage. I’ll give him a pass.
Oh, I'm certainly not down on Braden...just commenting that I saw others do it...more than expected by some good teams. Thought about it and had a thought, but can't recall it now. Perhaps next year when I see the D and alignment... and the results I'll remember?
I think it's really simple: the D is going to try and funnel the guy to the corner, even though that's not where he wants to be, but that's where the open space is. That's why I say that 'bait' him into believing that's the open space where he can receive the inbounds pass, but by definition, they're just 'setting' the trap.
It's not that I'm not giving him a pass, everyone make mistakes. But I don't think Smiths BBIQ is any higher than any other crafty player who sees the floor, makes good decisions and good passes. I mean, that's what good players are supposed to do.
Is a good decisionmaker and a high BBIQ player the same thing?
Making good decisions is a sign of a high IQ. I believe Braden probably knew it was a trap but believed he could overcome it.
I get that. I used to have the defender on the trigger man in the 1-2-1-1 or 1-2-2 shading half a body to the center so everybody knew where the ball was going which was the short side of the court to do exactly what you said. Somewhere in watching last year I saw something that made me think it may be more than that, but I can't recall what it was. Since it was the 2-2-1 that was more problematic for PUrdue I'm guessing it was that zone press... and it may have been something as simple as really loading the 2-2 front end tight in the middle of the court to only leave the corners open with 4 defenders in the middle third of the court? I just know I was frustrated with it and saw other good teams go to the corner as well. Maybe, I'll recall later, but yeah that was an old no-no to do on offense and something the D wanted to do.
Going off memory which could be a bad thing, but seem to recall an "OLD" book on D from a man that coached the fathers of Jon and Ted Kitchel years ago and it seems the press strategy actually wanted the ball on the right hand side (good for right handers) when there were only two refs due to the ref's coverage of lack of...
Anyway, I'm sure I'll see it again and perhaps get rid of some cobwebs...
Last edited:
Lenny and TJ make good points.....saw a lot of good teams do it as well....and also, if you have no other option and/or teammates aren't helping out......then what?
Boilers did start bringing a big into the backcourt at times....I think they know/knew what to do, but just did not execute or stay poised......why? don't know....
They will continue to see it next season.....
Braden Smith has plenty of BBIQ.....got a crash course from the school of hard knocks last year.....and made some frosh mistakes......all in all he had a really good year in my book, but it was a tough finish, no question.
Here is the balls for the big ten. The ncaa tourney was a wilson ball. So that makes 5 of 11 that I can quickly confirm were different balls than we play with. We did however shoot below .250 on 3s in four home games 🤷🏽♂️ (W vs maryland, L vs IU, W vs austin peay, W vs florida a and m)
Nike: Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Minnesota
Adidas: Indiana, Nebraska, Rutgers
Under Armour: Maryland, Northwestern
Wilson: Wisconsin
Nike: Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Minnesota
Adidas: Indiana, Nebraska, Rutgers
Under Armour: Maryland, Northwestern
Wilson: Wisconsin
Last edited:
I think bball IQ matters, but without dynamic playmaking and shotmaking ability to go with it, your ceiling is limited. That is, too often, Purdue’s problem with Painter in charge.
Similar threads
