Why do you care what they call it? Why does it matter to you? They should be able to get married and do what they want so long as it doesn't infringe on your rights.
Normally I agree with you Nik, but not this time around. I think that "basketball IQ" encompasses a much larger subject than just "floor sense" or "feel for the game." Someone with a high basketball IQ understands the offensive and defensive schemes that their team is trying to run. They get it. It doesn't have to be constantly explained to them. They know when to pass and when to shoot. That's not "floor sense," that's just common sense. If you are being guarded by 2 or 3 guys, and someone is wide open, you pass the ball. Travis seems to lack this common sense. They understand that they shouldn't leave their man wide open when he's an excellent shooter. These are all things that one could, in theory, improve upon. Surprisingly, after six years, Travis really has not. I'm not ready to speculate whether Cunningham is better than Travis, but I do not agree with the argument that Cunningham can not possibly be better than Outlaw, simply because he was drafted in the second round. Plenty of very good basketball players have been drafted in the second round. Arenas, Rashard Lewis, etc.
I watched some youtube clips of Cunningham and the one thing I noticed is his ability to create space, and recognize how the floor is spaced. He also has a nice looking shot, quick, and a nice touch. Does this mean he will be an NBA player? I have no idea.
Saw some youtube stuff on Hot Sause . . .without question he is better than The Professor. I wonder if there is a place on this team for Cummingham . . . Rudy would say no.
I agree, but primarily because an intelligent quotient is derived these days from a standard line of questioning, be they verbal or written, as well as a generally accepted set of criteria that is tested to find one's 'IQ'. In basketball, there is no way to quantify a number that would become one's 'IQ'; therefore, we get the extreme of either a "low basketball IQ" or a "high basketball IQ". It basically takes the graded approach to 'IQ' and dumbs it down to a black/white or good/bad paradigm. So, I like the idea of "court sense", which is what I use. I actually cringe when I read about a player's "low basketball IQ". It makes no sense to me unless a number is attached to the critique, and to me, it reflects on the poster more than it does the player being praised or criticized. As for IQ being static, I agree 100%, and look at what a player like Hakeem Olajuwon became on offense after being a dunking/rebounding/defensive player when drafted. The same could be said for Patrick Ewing as well. Did their 'IQ' improve? Or did they become much better at understanding the complete game as they were exposed to more coaching/situations that complemented their incredible athletic gifts? I'd go with the latter.
Is Travis really that good? Do you really want to use a 1st round pick on an average player with low BBall IQ, poor rebounding and occasionally great shooting? Personally, I hope for more than that out of a first rounder, that sounds like second rounder territory and so IMO we're comparing apples to apples (2nd round quality player to 2nd round pick). Gramps...
I think there could just as easily be a test to determine a basketball IQ based on understanding of offensive and defensive sets, and/or situational awareness. Nobody has done it, so in the meantime, we just rely on "low" or "high" when talking about someone who either does or does not grasp the inner workings of the game of basketball.
Well, the end result now is a totally subjective approach to assigning 'IQ', which basically makes it an opinion, and is basically unproductive in terms of arguing about. An intelligence quotient is not opinion, so for basketball, subjective words like "sense", "feel", or "understanding" are more appropriate terms. That is, until a quantitative approach to assessing a real and valued 'IQ' is generally accepted.
The problem is, I don't know if such a test could be administered by a writer, fan, etc. simply by watching a game or practice. The teams would have to do it, or the league, and I highly doubt they would want to subject their players to that kind of humiliation.
How about, "Travis Outlaw is a shitty basketball player because he constantly misses rotations on both offense and defense. He only helps a team if he is making jump shots. He is a below average rebounder because he doesn't get possitioning, although his coaches have tried to show him how to do this for 6 years now?" Is that ok to say?
My larger point is using the idea of an intelligence quotient, when really, there is no way to find out the objective answer to that question. That, and I'm really bored right now.
Yeah, nothing wrong with that at all. A subjective opinion that doesn't try to pass itself off as objective.
On a slightly different topic, would something like the Wunderlich test at the NBA combine be a good or bad thing? Would you want to know what the scores were? If there were a correlation to "heady" play, or "common sense", or whatever?
RR, you really need to stop saying "you fail" after your posts. As for the topic, I think Outlaw is better, but I don't like him for the team.
I think teams would want to know..... but I don't think they would release the information. How would you feel if a test came out saying you're a stupid basketball player?
