[Grades] Grades v. Warriors 10/29/2014

What grade would you give Boogie for this game?


  • Total voters
    76
  • Poll closed .
At some point, we're going to have to go over what a motion offense actually is. But in general, no matter the type of motion offense we might run, it's not going to be Cuz who's going to be cutting/slashing all over the offensive end. What you'd want to look for is movement/cutters/spacing off Cuz, or off Rudy, our focal points.

Back when I was teaching and coaching the freshman basketball team we ran a motion offense and my job was to get the kids into the system so that they'd carry that over to J.V. and the varsity team. And for that first week it wasn't pretty but we focused on four basic concepts (1) Set good screens (2) if you just got a screen (and didn't get the ball) then you immediately set a screen for someone else (3) recognize the shots you should and shouldn't take and (4) make or miss, hustle back and set up on defense.

As the season goes on you add in all the other pieces: zone and press defenses, set pieces, specific plays, more wrinkles and refinement. You can talk about Flex, or Princeton or 4 out 1 in or 3-2, triangle or what we always called "passing game" the reality is that all you need for a motion offense is a basic strategy, the players to buy in and for you to practice it until the the players have a high level of familiarity, confidence and trust in their teammates. Obviously freshman basketball isn't the NBA but it's still about putting in the work to get the level of execution you need.

It's no coincidence that Adelman's practices with the Kings were always described as almost all offense, with drill after drill practicing cutting, screening, curling, passing and shooting. There are only so many practice hours. I know Malone is talking about moving the ball, but how much time is actually being devoted to doing exactly that?
 
Last edited:
It's still only one game.

I'll give it 10 games before I decide whether Rudy has decided to be Toronto Rudy again.


See I was thinking we will start to see improvement 30 to 40 games in. By then the fellas will be used to one another. Stauskas and Moreland will start to contribute more. Hopefully Malone will have settled on his top 8 or 9 guys. Heck PDA may even trade for a solid Vet at PF or SG:)

I hope the patience exists:rolleyes:
 
See I was thinking we will start to see improvement 30 to 40 games in. By then the fellas will be used to one another. Stauskas and Moreland will start to contribute more. Hopefully Malone will have settled on his top 8 or 9 guys. Heck PDA may even trade for a solid Vet at PF or SG:)

I hope the patience exists:rolleyes:

I think the difficulty here isn't the fans' lack of patience, although I do think the response to the first game has been a bit over the top. I think the difficulty is in ownership's impatience, and possibly Cousins' impatience. Waiting 30-40 games to clock in just isn't going to fly in important corners of the organization, let alone with the team itself. I'm not even sure if we play well and keep on losing due to the brutal schedule that that won't rather unfairly land on Malone's head. I'm considerably convinced if we play poorly and keep on losing it will. I don't see ownership as terribly realistic about this process, and as great as this summer's Team USA thing was for Cuz, it absolutely puts us on notice, because he's had a good basketball experience, he's won, he's earned praise. If we suck so hard all that is taken back away from him, he's going to resent it. We need to progress, and if there is ever any doubt we are progressing, people are going to look for a scapegoat, and scapegoat's are never the guy in the mirror. They're somebody beneath you you have power over and can blame and punish safely.
 
I would like someone to definitively tell me how bbiq is measured. I've never seen test results. IQ also insinuates that it is something you're born with that can neither be lowered or improved.

I'd also like to know how Gay's bbiq seemed to increase last year with the Kings as well as on team USA, but has gone down this year and with Toronto last year.

I just can't seem to nail down this bbiq thing.

If I have to hear about bball IQ one more time... It's not a real thing you can measure. It's not an advanced stat. IQ, in the usual sense, is fixed. Yet apparently in basketball it goes up and down, sometimes from game to game. Somehow Rudy and Cousins were basketball genius' for team USA, but are too dumb to play once they put on a King's uniform.

It absolutely is code for "I don't like that guy. But instead of a coherent argument, I'm going to call him stupid." It's such a condemning statement. It implies that player is too dumb to play basketball and probably always will be. Sometimes a forced shot is just forced shot.


My friend basketball IQ is real and should be involved when putting a team together. Basketball IQ is basically knowing your game and knowing other people game. Example josh smith/Gay taking 3s or long 2s with 20seconds on the shot clock. VS Parsons/Iggy you never see them take those shots unless there open cause they know there own game. Another IQ is knowing when to shoot when not to shoot. Example Westbrook/Irving will pull up a shot without looking for there teammates or not running the offense. Paul/Parker will run the offense first only time they force to score is when they see the team needs it. Another way to easily spot low IQ is the other night when a poor shooter Gay has an elite shooter who is 2-2 Nik open for 3 what does Gay do shoot the 3 and say my bad later. You know who else would have done that ( JR Smith, Westbrook, J.Smith and Melo). You know who would have past it ( Bron, Parsons, Batumn, and even the Spash Brothers would pass it) what do the 2 groups have on common?
Basketball IQ separates Carmelo and Lebron, cp3 and westbrook.
Seriously melo is just as talented as lebron but then you add on the IQ factor and you get lebron knowing he has to get his teammates going and playing defense vs melo thinking I have to out score this guy every time.

Let's say we replaced JT/Gay/Ben with high IQ players at the same talent or below
Collison/Ben/Gay/JT/Boogie VS
Collison/Nik/Batumn/Diaw/Boogie

I can put anything on the 2nd team winning a 7 game series cause that team will move the ball around and play like a team.

Oh and about Gay and team usa every other forum I'm in complained about him shooting every time he touched the ball and it's true some in here just had the king colored glasses on and scolded anyone who brought it up there were a few of us calling him out.
 
Welp...yep, feels like another Kings season is underway already.

off-target.jpg


5-15
1-3
4-14
0-5
4-12
3-10
3-5
1-4
1-3
0-3
1-3
1-1
-----
24-78

Ballgame.

We sure do know how to compete with a Game 7 World Series victory don't we?

Given the game was televised in India, no doubt through Vivek's hard work, we may also have just set back the cause of basketball in an entire subcontinent by several decades too.


Boxscore

Stats: 34min 14pts (5-15, 0-2, 4-5) 9reb 0ast 1stl 1blk 3TO
Gay ( D ) -- ok, well, cause for concern as the malaise that was there throughout the preseason has carried over into the season now. And the type of malaise is the problem: this was the iso focused tunnel vision, tough forced drive into traffic and long jumper off his own dribble mess that Toronto was dealing with at the beginning of last year. Because he's highly talented there were a scattering of spectacular takes to the hoop, mostly on the break or semibreak. But the reason they were spectacular was because they were right into the teeth of the defense and beating 3 or 4 guys to get those finishes. And far more often what we got was just team killing lazy jumpers directly resulting in Golden State fastbreaks. On multiple occasions he missed, as in just didn't see or acknowledge open guys on go 1 on 1, and he seemed almost annoyed or determined to take over, except he didn't. Gets a little credit for some defensive hustle plays on the break, he was on the glass, and Barnes/Iggy didn't do anything against him the other way. But this was a flat bad and worrisome performance because of how/why it was bad. Important he buys in and clicks into gear here pretty quick.

Stats: 21min 2pts (1-3, 0-0, 0-0) 7reb 0ast 2stl 1blk 4TO
Thompson ( C ) -- if it hadn't have been for the sloppiness (there is no excuse for notching 4 TOs when you only take 3 FGAs) this would have been an ok little roleplaying effort. Offensively he got an early post move, and then that was it. He was done and gone and contributed nothing but turnovers and clumsy offensive fouls thereafter as he appeared to be sort of fighting his offensive irrelevancy and wanting to do something he could not. One particular clumsy drive into a defender for an offensive foul on the break particularly stood out as fitting in with the general theme of the night that guys weren't making the extra pass. Had some trouble with Draymond Green's stretchiness, but he was active on defense and on the glass, and at a time when Cuz was not winning the battle of the big bodies inside JT was often the guy cleaning up in there and being physical. He was less settled when he returned, and we were treated to DeMarcus Cousins, level head, coming over to counsel him when JT picked up a technical. Came up with some good open court rim protection when Cousins went out in the third with foul trouble, but with us completely unable to score after half Malone went away from him while searching for more offensive punch.

Stats: 31min 20pts (4-14, 0-0, 12-18) 11reb 1ast 1stl 0blk 6TO
Cousins ( C- ) -- well, if you know the history of the Boogie/Bogut matchup you were worried about something like this. because Andrew Bogut has been bar none the most frustrating center opponent in the league for Boogie. He's taller than Cuz, physical to the point of dirty, can hold his position, block shots up top, and damage his calm with cheap little elbows and chucks, and for all his physicality Boogie still likes to dish it out more than he likes to absorb it. So anyway, fast forward to tonight and in the early going you had DeMarcus not taking his time and throwing up too quick junk reminiscent of his rookie season, looking like he just wanted to get his shot up before something bad happened. He was 0-6 by the mid first quarter. But this wasn't just about Bogut. Bogut only played 18 min on the night. This was about a Steve Kerr strategy that appeared to involve instructions for every one of his bigs to hack and foul and bang Boogie with reckless abandon all night long. Bogut had 4 fouls in 18min, Ezili 4 fouls in 8 minutes, something called Kuzmic had 4 fouls in 6 minutes, and the result was Cousins living at the line, where unfortunately he has been a little off all preseason. Tonight it was frequently 1 of 2 for him as he hit 12 of 18 from the line to account for the bulk of his offense. And the physicality and early Bogut fright appeared to have Cuz just off offensively until late in the game. He made several nice moves but just lacked the touch around the hoop he normally has, on one play he held his hands in fornt of them and looked at them like they were betraying him. He missed his jumpers. He just was not comfortable/himself. And even on the glass the first half was a frustration as guys were banging him and getting over his back and double teaming him and the rest. So why was this not a complete disaster? Well, because this is the new and improved more mature Boogie now. This game was very physical, but he didn't lose his cool in an outrageous way. He wasn't perfect, he almost went for a derisive arm wave that would have got him teched up, but pulled it back. There was some aggressive swiping of the I'm going to get a foul now variety after several plays, and a back and forth hard foul sequence with Ezili. But in a game where he hit the floor a lot and a couple of years ago absolutely would have taken himself out of it, he hung tough for the most part, continued to display the defensive improvements, took charges, cut off penetration (several times allowing his man to step in behind him for a dunk -- was trying to figure out if it was his responsibility to get back or if somebody (Gay?) was supposed to rotate) and in general made contributions. After the 0-6 start, and despite the terrible touch he had on the night, he shot 4-8 the rest of the way. Despite losing the early board battles, he eventually notched 10 on the night. When he finally was out there with a "shooting guard" who can actually shoot (i.e. not Ben) he zipped a crosscourt pass to Stauskas for an open three. He made a loose foul to get himself back into foul trouble again, but there was still focus therafter, and while it sometimes hurt us when he let Speights go around him to avoid picking up more fouls, that was smarts he didn't used to have to stay on the floor. And you looked up and at the end of the game he had fuglied his way into a 20-11 night with some defense. Late in the game he finally seemed to start clicking into gear and making a series of Cuz plays, but it was too little too late. This was obviously a poor performance, but there was something of grit about it, of hanging in there and finding ways to contribute, that was nonetheless encouraging. He didn't quit and he didn't give in. He just wasn't very good.

Stats: 26min 0pts (0-5, 0-2, 0-0) 2reb 1ast 1stl 0blk 2TO
McLemore ( D+ ) -- last year Ben was a disaster. He was terrible on offense AND terrible on defense. You don't see that very often because most guys who pair those two traits don't play, but we were determined. Well this game...Ben was not terrible on defense, and he was...well, pretty terrible on offense. First the good, or at least ok: Ben stuck with Klay, did nto directly stop him so much as stayed in his area and challenged most of his shots. He was still out saavied by Klay on several occasions and baited into fouls, but on a night when bad defense would easily have thrown his opening night grade straight into F territory, Ben was at least competitive. Now for everything else...there was no everything else. Ben simply cannot shoot. A waste of perfect shooting form, but then again you have to be careful about perfect shooting form. Peja Stojakovic threw the ball up with a funky twist, Kevin Martin looked like he was taking every ball off a ball rack, but things went in. Ben looks like a textbook, and then he shoots like me. Incredibly frustrating when Cuz draws a tripel team, kicks it right to your "shooting" guard wide open with nobody with 10 feet and clank. Just kills you. Once mysteriously just decided to come down and quickshoot a long three off his own dribble. He never does that. Frustration with himself or the offense? His handle is less keystone cops at this point, but when they put Iggy on him it was no match and I did not understand why we even bothered to let Ben touch the ball at that point. Perhaps his most egregious play happened on the final play of the half while we were somehow still ahead. Speghts threw up one of his long jumpers, Ben was right underneath the hoop on the left side where the ball came off, and yet he barely moved for the ball and didn't get his hands above his waist as Speights lumbered on in in front of him, grabbed the ball away and laid it in for a free hoop he never should have had if Ben chases that ball aggressively. So, less disastrous defense, but come on here, another year of Ben having flame outs at SG? Really? On a night when you cannot score getting 0 points out of a scoring wing spot isn't helping.

Stats: 36min 13pts (4-12, 1-4, 4-6) 4reb 8ast 5stl 1blk 1TO
Collison ( B ) -- finally a good grade. Despite joining in the teamwide shooting woes looked good. But also looked like what he is: a good support player who isn't going to step up and carry you when the main guys aren't clicking. Was using his speed to make plays on both ends in the early going, and throughout the game made a series of nice smart dropoff and pocket passes to Cousins that if Cuz had been on should have led to more points. Was basically the only player on the roster who really looked like he got this whole passing thing. Which you should just expect out of your PG, but obviously its been a while for us. Like the rest of the team never did get his won offense really going, continued his preseason FT struggles, and could not hit his threes from his spots until finally breaking through with a aside/corner three in the lead third as we were fading. Didn't lead anywhere though, and attempts to join the 1 on 1 party and carry us in the early 4th while Cuz and Gay were both out proved futile. He's just not that guy. What he was though was 13pts 4reb 8ast 5stl with only 1TO and most definitely not the problem on this particular evening.
 
I will go totally against my norm and point out the positives.

Defense was good with the starters. Collison and McLemore played pretty good defense on the Warriors all-star backcourt. Any coach would be happy with the percentages Klay and Curry shot.

Collison was good overall and filled up the stat sheet. Stauskas had a decent first game for a rookie despite his defensive struggles. JT had his dumb plays, but was a positive overall. Cousins fought through a terrible shooting night.




and that's it

I'm probably most concerned and bothered by the way Rudy played. He looked disinterested in what the rest of the team was doing.
 
If I have to hear about bball IQ one more time... It's not a real thing you can measure. It's not an advanced stat. IQ, in the usual sense, is fixed. Yet apparently in basketball it goes up and down, sometimes from game to game. Somehow Rudy and Cousins were basketball genius' for team USA, but are too dumb to play once they put on a King's uniform.

It absolutely is code for "I don't like that guy. But instead of a coherent argument, I'm going to call him stupid." It's such a condemning statement. It implies that player is too dumb to play basketball and probably always will be. Sometimes a forced shot is just forced shot.
Most the time even when Rudy Gay plays well it's still low IQ/terrible basketball (he's making stupid shots) hence why a team that should have been a contender with him got rid of him and somehow got better every time he was injured or moved on, it has nothing to do with not liking someone I wish all our players on the Kings the best but the reality is the way some of them play they will never get the best out of themselves and the team.

Not sure what your talking about during the team USA thing go back and have a read and you will a number of us calling out Rudy Gay for the same crap he did all preseason and opening game with his persistent tunneling and lack of ability to make anyone else better, it's just Team USA was so stacked they his game play really didn't mean anything.
 
Most the time even when Rudy Gay plays well it's still low IQ/terrible basketball (he's making stupid shots) hence why a team that should have been a contender with him got rid of him and somehow got better every time he was injured or moved on, it has nothing to do with not liking someone I wish all our players on the Kings the best but the reality is the way some of them play they will never get the best out of themselves and the team.

Not sure what your talking about during the team USA thing go back and have a read and you will a number of us calling out Rudy Gay for the same crap he did all preseason and opening game with his persistent tunneling and lack of ability to make anyone else better, it's just Team USA was so stacked they his game play really didn't mean anything.
 
No it's not, you can't tell me Rudy Gay, Ben Mclemore and Derrick Williams are not low IQ players, they never make any play that makes there team better, Rudy Gay is literally on the level of JR Smith when it comes to shot selection for the majority of his career (it just he's physically so talented every now and than he makes those). Players that for no reason make consistently dumb choices and plays are low IQ players and we have had a surplus of those for a long time. How can you actually have a "system" when so many of these players have no idea wtf they are doing aside from relying on there natural athletic ability.
That still comes across as too convenient and fluid a definition. I mean, it seems like you can just point to any one aspect about basketball that you don't like, and attribute it to "low bball iq." There isn't anything in your post that explains how the term isn't shorthand for "That player I don't like, " or "That player that does that thing I hate."

Like, I'm sure that all the players you like all happen to have "high bball iq." I'm equally sure that that's just a coincidence.
 
this is worth pointing out, but i wonder if kings fans can recall how demarcus picked up what i believe was his third foul; ben mclemore decided to hoist a three-pointer early in the shot clock, which he unsurprisingly missed, and demarcus was the only king back on defense. he proceeded to commit a foul in order to save a basket. it was a heads-up play. the reach-ins are certainly the opposite, of course. DMC is foul-prone. we know that. he has to work on it. but this team just doesn't get it. not yet, anyway. until they stop playing like five individuals tethered to one another and pulling in separate directions, there's not much hope for success. granted, it was the first game of the season, and there are going to be a lot of growing pains in pursuit of a less selfish style of basketball...

If it were some other player on this team, I would agree with you. But with Cousins I just don't want him to make any "voluntary" fouls. He just makes too many involuntary (and sometimes boneheaded) ones. There would probably be exceptions to this rule for Cousins, but in general he should stay away from fouling, period.
 
My friend basketball IQ is real and should be involved when putting a team together. Basketball IQ is basically knowing your game and knowing other people game. Example josh smith/Gay taking 3s or long 2s with 20seconds on the shot clock. VS Parsons/Iggy you never see them take those shots unless there open cause they know there own game. Another IQ is knowing when to shoot when not to shoot. Example Westbrook/Irving will pull up a shot without looking for there teammates or not running the offense. Paul/Parker will run the offense first only time they force to score is when they see the team needs it. Another way to easily spot low IQ is the other night when a poor shooter Gay has an elite shooter who is 2-2 Nik open for 3 what does Gay do shoot the 3 and say my bad later. You know who else would have done that ( JR Smith, Westbrook, J.Smith and Melo). You know who would have past it ( Bron, Parsons, Batumn, and even the Spash Brothers would pass it) what do the 2 groups have on common?
Basketball IQ separates Carmelo and Lebron, cp3 and westbrook.
Seriously melo is just as talented as lebron but then you add on the IQ factor and you get lebron knowing he has to get his teammates going and playing defense vs melo thinking I have to out score this guy every time.

Let's say we replaced JT/Gay/Ben with high IQ players at the same talent or below
Collison/Ben/Gay/JT/Boogie VS
Collison/Nik/Batumn/Diaw/Boogie

I can put anything on the 2nd team winning a 7 game series cause that team will move the ball around and play like a team.

Oh and about Gay and team usa every other forum I'm in complained about him shooting every time he touched the ball and it's true some in here just had the king colored glasses on and scolded anyone who brought it up there were a few of us calling him out.
Well thank you for the lesson. I know what it is. What I'm saying is you use it as a cop out. You let me know what stat describes IQ and let's go out and get those guys. But there isn't one. It just seems that it easily slides into guys kingster likes, and guys he doesn't like. You loved IT and he has the bball iq of a rock. Explain that to me. You can't, cause you liked him for whatever reason and just ignored the fact he was a midget gunner who made no one better.

And Melo is not as talented as Lebron.
 
Most the time even when Rudy Gay plays well it's still low IQ/terrible basketball (he's making stupid shots) hence why a team that should have been a contender with him got rid of him and somehow got better every time he was injured or moved on, it has nothing to do with not liking someone I wish all our players on the Kings the best but the reality is the way some of them play they will never get the best out of themselves and the team.

Not sure what your talking about during the team USA thing go back and have a read and you will a number of us calling out Rudy Gay for the same crap he did all preseason and opening game with his persistent tunneling and lack of ability to make anyone else better, it's just Team USA was so stacked they his game play really didn't mean anything.

So basically nothing Rudy does well ever be good enough. Ok, I got it. We've already been over the Memphis thing. They got worse the next season after dumping Rudy. He started 42 games on a 56 win team. then they won 50 the next year without him. They were a low 20 win team when he was drafted and a high 50 win team when he left. He made then worse? Really?

I'll never understand how the same people who defended everything IT did now attack Rudy for doing the same exact things. And look, Rudy takes terrible shots, I'm not denying that. But you all take it too far and act like he kills teams. He doesn't. We got better when we got him, remember?
 
So basically nothing Rudy does well ever be good enough. Ok, I got it. We've already been over the Memphis thing. They got worse the next season after dumping Rudy. He started 42 games on a 56 win team. then they won 50 the next year without him. They were a low 20 win team when he was drafted and a high 50 win team when he left. He made then worse? Really?

I'll never understand how the same people who defended everything IT did now attack Rudy for doing the same exact things. And look, Rudy takes terrible shots, I'm not denying that. But you all take it too far and act like he kills teams. He doesn't. We got better when we got him, remember?
We will just ignore that Memphis beat the #1 seed Spurs once he we went down to injury and they beat the Clippers with Prince who they lost to with Gay the year before in the playoffs but yeah..........What about Toronto? If you ignore all that than yeah I guess Rudy Gay did make them better. It has not been a one off thing, all I want Rudy Gay to do is get back on defense and stop taking stupid shots which annihilate our offense and any desire of his teammates moving without the ball to watch him chuck.

Why would the Grizzlies who were in a position to compete for a championship get rid of such a "good" player for a washed up SF?
 
Well thank you for the lesson. I know what it is. What I'm saying is you use it as a cop out. You let me know what stat describes IQ and let's go out and get those guys. But there isn't one. It just seems that it easily slides into guys kingster likes, and guys he doesn't like. You loved IT and he has the bball iq of a rock. Explain that to me. You can't, cause you liked him for whatever reason and just ignored the fact he was a midget gunner who made no one better.

And Melo is not as talented as Lebron.

There is no stat for IQ its an eye test that you could see and that's the scouts job. In college you could tell Ben had none and Nik has IQ.

I never liked IT unless he's coming off the bench and I have to support him cause it says kings across his chest. But just like you said he has low IQ how did you know probably the eye test.
 
We will just ignore that Memphis beat the #1 seed Spurs once he we went down to injury and they beat the Clippers with Prince who they lost to with Gay the year before in the playoffs but yeah..........What about Toronto? If you ignore all that than yeah I guess Rudy Gay did make them better. It has not been a one off thing, all I want Rudy Gay to do is get back on defense and stop taking stupid shots which annihilate our offense and any desire of his teammates moving without the ball to watch him chuck.

Why would the Grizzlies who were in a position to compete for a championship get rid of such a "good" player for a washed up SF?
Well, he's always been a chucker. That's what we acquired. You may not like his style but he is what he is and he's been as advertised. He can play efficiently. He's been on winners. I was of the opinion you can only have one bomber, and that guy is gone. So Rudy being rudy is ok with me within reason. But when 2 of your other starters are below average passers, like Ben and JT, you're just not maximizing what Rudy excels at, and that is score. We saw an efficient Rudy last year. When he gets he ball in the right spots, he's a major asset. When he gets the ball at the top of the key and no one moves, he's gonna fire away. We had a pg who did the same thing. I'm not here to defend it from either player.

Toronto got better cause we filled out their entire bench with our players. It's very simplistic to say remove Rudy, win games. But you also have to remember Memphis doubled their win total, and then some, over the time he was there. It's not like they were really good, he showed up, and ruined them. He was there all along as they were getting good too.
 
You need a stat to tell you jr and josh smith have low IQs. Or cp3 and lebron have high iqs

Maybe we could compile a list of high IQ players, average IQ players, and low IQ players and see what the commonalities are? I don't think we're going to come to any kind of consensus though. It's a convenient descriptive term sometimes because everyone sortof knows what it means or what it hints at anyway, but it also hasn't been clearly defined so you can use it how you like. I don't think the concept itself is wrong, some players are better aware of what's going on around them and able to make plays that the average player wouldn't conceive of. Steve Nash won consecutive MVP awards doing a lot of the same things PGs have been doing forever, he just did them better. It wasn't athleticism or superior skills, it was a system designed to score a lot of points led by a PG who knew the system inside out and was able to anticipate his teammates moves with extreme precision. That is a real skill and not a lot of players have it. But I agree with the general theme in this topic which is that the term has been used by so many different people to mean so many different things that it's usefulness as a rhetorical device has been reduced to nothing. If you want to criticize a player for having a low basketball IQ, that's fine. But don't assume anyone else knows what you're talking about unless you can define the term how you intend to use it. Without taking that extra step, it's just lazy analysis.

For instance, Josh Smith has played most of his minutes at PF before last season and he's averaged about 4 assists per game for years. That's right at the top of the league for a front court player. And actually, even if you expand your search to full-time SFs, Josh Smith is consistently near the top of the list with Paul Pierce and Lebron James in assists. Somebody who's consistently able to find his teammates in good position to score the ball is not a player that I, personally, would characterize as having a low bball IQ. Conversely, JR Smith is a guard who's career assist averages are well below the league average for his position and the one skill he excels at (3pt shooting) is the exact skill that Josh Smith has never been able to master. I'm struggling to see why you would pool those two players into the same category, aside from the coincidence of them sharing the same last name. Chris Paul is a skilled ball handler who's very good at surveying the floor and finding open teammates with the ball. He's also infamous for baiting the referees into phantom foul calls. Some people would call this crafty, others would call it poor sportsmanship. Lebron James is arguably the most athletically gifted player in the NBA and what makes him unique, even among the hall of fame elite, is his willingness to look for the right pass even in high leverage "NBA title on the line" situations. He's also been criticized yearly for deferring too much instead of using his elite athleticism to overpower opponents at will when his team needs a basket.

What I'm trying to say here is that the very subjective opinion of which players do or do not have a high basketball IQ does not appear to simplify down to easily identifiable criteria even among the examples you've chosen. So without further elaboration on your part (and by no means am I meaning to target you specifically -- this same issue applies to a lot of posters, and I'm probably even guilty of it myself) it skews less toward helpful analysis and more toward slander.
 
I don't need a stat, nor do I need a meaningless term like bbiq to describe a players strengths or weaknesses.

I'm not speaking for anyone else, but when I talk about basketball IQ, it refers to my general assessment of a player's ability to understand the complexities of the game. Any playground bozo thinks he knows how to shoot the ball. I'm speaking about guys knowing how to switch on defense, how to read the floor, how to pass because it's better than always going iso, etc. In my years of watching the NBA, it's the smarter players who understand all of this and put their teams in a position to win. Dumb jocks, on the other hand, can still be dumb jocks even if they're making obscene amounts of money.

It is my one-game conclusion that we currently have at least a handful of players who simply don't get it. They don't understand the importance of playing TEAM ball. They don't comprehend or don't care about setting up someone else because they don't see the big picture. Those guys are the ones I personally refer to as lightweights in the basketball IQ battles. I do not think it's a meaningless term. I think it's just used incorrectly.
 
I'm not speaking for anyone else, but when I talk about basketball IQ, it refers to my general assessment of a player's ability to understand the complexities of the game. Any playground bozo thinks he knows how to shoot the ball. I'm speaking about guys knowing how to switch on defense, how to read the floor, how to pass because it's better than always going iso, etc. In my years of watching the NBA, it's the smarter players who understand all of this and put their teams in a position to win. Dumb jocks, on the other hand, can still be dumb jocks even if they're making obscene amounts of money.

It is my one-game conclusion that we currently have at least a handful of players who simply don't get it. They don't understand the importance of playing TEAM ball. They don't comprehend or don't care about setting up someone else because they don't see the big picture. Those guys are the ones I personally refer to as lightweights in the basketball IQ battles. I do not think it's a meaningless term. I think it's just used incorrectly.

YES
And is very important. Your last paragraph is addressed to Gay a vet should know by now!!

Come to think of it I can't remember the last time a team won with low IQ impact players.
 
Well thank you for the lesson. I know what it is. What I'm saying is you use it as a cop out. You let me know what stat describes IQ and let's go out and get those guys. But there isn't one. It just seems that it easily slides into guys kingster likes, and guys he doesn't like. You loved IT and he has the bball iq of a rock. Explain that to me. You can't, cause you liked him for whatever reason and just ignored the fact he was a midget gunner who made no one better.

And Melo is not as talented as Lebron.
Wow whaat? Midget gunner who made no one better? How do you determine this? How do you determined that he made no one better? Would the same apply to Cuz and Rudy? Seems like this is getting a little personal...*abandons thread*
 
Wow whaat? Midget gunner who made no one better? How do you determine this? How do you determined that he made no one better? Would the same apply to Cuz and Rudy? Seems like this is getting a little personal...*abandons thread*

There is a whole thread in the NBA forum devoted to Isaiah Thomas.
 
YES
And is very important. Your last paragraph is addressed to Gay a vet should know by now!!

Come to think of it I can't remember the last time a team won with low IQ impact players.

You and I have vastly different opinions on Rudy Gay. My last paragraph was in NO way directed at him.
 
I'm not speaking for anyone else, but when I talk about basketball IQ, it refers to my general assessment of a player's ability to understand the complexities of the game. Any playground bozo thinks he knows how to shoot the ball. I'm speaking about guys knowing how to switch on defense, how to read the floor, how to pass because it's better than always going iso, etc. In my years of watching the NBA, it's the smarter players who understand all of this and put their teams in a position to win. Dumb jocks, on the other hand, can still be dumb jocks even if they're making obscene amounts of money.

It is my one-game conclusion that we currently have at least a handful of players who simply don't get it. They don't understand the importance of playing TEAM ball. They don't comprehend or don't care about setting up someone else because they don't see the big picture. Those guys are the ones I personally refer to as lightweights in the basketball IQ battles. I do not think it's a meaningless term. I think it's just used incorrectly.

Meaningless may have been the wrong term. I find bbiq to be a catch-all phrase and I get frustrated with the term because it doesn't provide enough description for me to have a conversation or debate about a player. So I end up defending a player as a whole, which is not what I want to do.
 
Basketball IQ is all about timing. A high basketball IQ player will make the right play at the right time at a far higher rate than a low basketball IQ player. It has nothing to do with the success or failure of any particular play. Sometimes low basketball IQ plays are successful just based of sheer luck or talent of the player. Sometimes high basketball IQ plays aren't successful because of bad luck or some other circumstance. But for the most part, a high basketball IQ play will succeed far more often than a low basketball IQ play. Sometimes a low basketball IQ player will make a high basketball IQ play, but will do so at a far less rate than a high basketball IQ player.

There's no real stat for basketball IQ because a high basketball IQ play can be anything, really. A shot, pass, defensive rotation, choosing not to attack instead of driving wildly into the lane... virtually anything.


0:25 into the video is an example of a high basketball IQ play. Nothing crazy or complicated, but timing was perfect.
 
Meaningless may have been the wrong term. I find bbiq to be a catch-all phrase and I get frustrated with the term because it doesn't provide enough description for me to have a conversation or debate about a player. So I end up defending a player as a whole, which is not what I want to do.

There are two terms that I think are often bandied around without the poster necessarily knowing how most people would define/use them. "BB-IQ" is one of them, and "handles" is the other.
 
But, I would say that that is a problem, wouldn't you? If you have a term, and you can't come to a consensus on what the term means, then what sort of value does the term have?
 
Wow whaat? Midget gunner who made no one better? How do you determine this? How do you determined that he made no one better? Would the same apply to Cuz and Rudy? Seems like this is getting a little personal...*abandons thread*

How do you determine Rudy Gay has low bbiq?
 
But, I would say that that is a problem, wouldn't you? If you have a term, and you can't come to a consensus on what the term means, then what sort of value does the term have?

Hrm... how to say this diplomatically ...

Most of the people whose opinions I respect around here seem to have no difficulty using the terms correctly. ;)
 
Back
Top