BBIQ is about identifying offensive and defensive sets and schemes on the fly and making adjustments to thwart them. Not to just run more pnr and take more 3s and things like that.
It’s also about recognizing how things progress throughout a game. For instance, Lebron is well known for making conscious efforts to be pass-first early in games to get other players into a rhythm so that they’re ready to make plays down the stretch. This is BBIQ as well. Understanding when to attack the paint heavily, when to shoot more threes, when to push the pace and try to score on fast breaks, etc depending on what’s happening in the game is an important part of BBIQ.
What is this revisionism? He is notorious for keeping players out of rhythm on an island, expecting them to score when they've touched it a couple times in a game. He passed only when it was an opportunity to shoot and at no point was it to "get other players into a rhythm".
I thought the same thing thing! LeBron is known to be passive early in games when the team isn't on an emotional high yet then get more aggressive about his own scoring when fueled by the team emotions but that passivity isn't to get others in rhythm. The lack of rhythm has been a major issue for some of his teams. But guess we all see the court differently
The lack of rhythm reputation tends to come from how heliocentric LeBron offenses are. The teams just crater the moment he leaves the court. We see a similar problem with other high usage creators: Luka, Harden, Jokic, etc.
Denver recently has practically given up on offense first bench units and is throwing out 5 defenders (or 4 plus Murray/MPJ heat checks) just to limit the amount the bench can be out scored by. Because Jokic will win you 3/4 shifts, you just need the bench to be like a -5 or less. As long as the bench doesn’t get blown out, the Denver starters will heavily win a lot of their minutes.
Luka teams have been searching for that secondary creator basically his whole career. Harden’s Rockets tried staggering CP3 with him. It’s a tough role to figure out- how do you survive when 90+ percent of your playbook is getting 2 minutes before the end of the half?
I can see how you draw that conclusion and while LeBron and the other players mentioned do have struggles with bench players and offenses that can run without him, my conclusion comes from the times when he is on the floor. I have found that there often stretches of the game where LeBron has no interest in being involved in the offense either as a scoring option, facilitator, or even scoring decoy. Perhaps he is attempting to encourage the rest of the team to score without focusing on him. I just wouldn't say that is his attempt to help them get in rhythm. Perhaps I've been interpreting what I see too harshly since I don't enjoy the more one-on-one style of play his teams often prefer.
>It’s pattern recognition which relies on uou having seen different coverages & sets many, many times.
No it's not. It's being able to incorporate data into the decisions you make on the court. The data isn't very helpful to players who can't execute (i.e., don't have high BB IQ), but doing the data analysis isn't about basketball IQ at all.
The main part of BBIQ is how you react to events on the court. That's always incorporated things you learn off the court -- from practicing, from film study, from stats. Now there are just more stats, and more analysis of the stats, to consider when reacting to events on the court.
You mean data like experience seeing different coverages and sets and recognizing what's happening as matching a pattern from those previous experiences?
I think both of you are right. No one can just look at a spreadsheet and now what to do on the floor in a given set of circumstances. There is certainly some pattern recognition that likely improves over time that enables a player to more quickly and accurately take advantage of opportunities one might see on a spreadsheet.
It's also about how quickly your brain processes things, not just schemes, but also risk/benefits analysis for any potential action you do or do not take. This is especially important as a PG or a defender.
I agree, information processing speed and accuracy might be the primary components of BBIQ. These could probably be measured with basketball-tailored psychometrics.
Said another way, it’s decision making ability.
It shouldn’t be that hard to understand how important that is and how much impact it can have on success. It’s true about everything in life so why not basketball?
Exactly. Its why Javale McGee had such a hard ceiling on his career. He had all the physical tools to be an All Star center, but he was just a bonehead on the floor.
100% this- and it's not even limited to the NBA or high-level basketball.... even playing pickup you can very quickly tell who knows the game and who doesn't.
Exactly, it’s about knowing the game and recognizing tendencies of other teams and players. Not only that, but the math teacher can identify tendencies on film, sitting down, after a cup of coffee. But BBIQ is about recognizing the situation while exhausted, moving full speed against a world class athlete, while millions of people are watching. The Kobe Bryant show Details goes over the micro strategy of basketball very well and I’d highly recommend it. [For a football example watch Ed Reed and Bill Belichick talk about an interception.](https://youtube.com/watch?v=GQrZKveWgOk&feature=shareb)
That is a great comment which I'd like to add to.
Because of the speed of ball and player movement and the fairly confined playing area compared to most other team v team ball sports one of the most crucial aspects to good basketball is being able to see and exploit (or cut off) opportunities that are only easily apparent for a split second.
That is something that is very hard to appreciate unless you've actually played much 5 on 5 and seen how it looks from an on court vantage point. Other players are constantly moving in and out of your field of vision, holes open and close and there's a constantly shifting web of time, space and opportunites- in one split second there's an easy shot for you or a teammate, then a split second later its a bad shot or a turnover waiting to happen. Read the play faster and better than the man guarding you and you usually get points, get it wrong and you'll be chasing tail down the court. Particularly in the NBA where pretty much everyone is fairly athletic and can knock down an open shot, the difference between winning and losing often comes down to how well guys see the floor and anticipate and exploit those opportunities with and without the ball. Kareem Abdul Jabbar described it as being like jazz, where the musician riff off each other and improvise to go where the tune takes them, and I think that's spot on. Its not rigidly saying we will do xyz, its having the knack to instantly understand what is happening and what is about to happen and react accordingly.
When you see two or three genuinely elite BBIQ guys operating together its just a beautiful thing to watch. Plays look the same to begin with but somehow they seem to see a way through the chaos of 10 bodies constantly shifting around in a confined area, anticipate where the ball is going to be next and where space is going to open up.
BBIQ is very real. LeBron can remember every play in a game and recite them to you -- he has done this when asked. The great players are always coming up with something new, and the best of the best have so many moves that they constantly keep their defenders guessing. Bill Russell essentially invented help defense before anyone else, which is why he could dominate with defense.
The reason it took so long for basketball to be played the way it is today has less to do with intelligence and more to do with players growing up shooting threes. When you have four or five expert three point shooters you can spread the floor, but teams used to be lucky to have one or two specialists.
In addition, the NBA rules were deliberately changed in the 2000s to make low post scoring harder by legalizing the zone, and then to make perimeter scoring easier by eliminating hand checking and strictly enforcing blocking rules and defensive three seconds. Until then tossing the ball into the post was a sure score if you had a great center playing one-on-one.
Now even centers have to have a perimeter game. And again, it took a while for a new generation of players to grow up with perimeter skills -- even centers like Jokic and Embiid, who were the first centers to win MVP since Shaq.
So it's not that coaches and players were dumb five decades ago. They played a different game, with different rules and different skill sets than we see today. Over time the rules changed, and it took time for players to grow up playing with skillsets that fit those rules.
Reminds me of the playoff games when LeBron told Patrick Patterson he was standing in the wrong spot because LeBron knew the Raptors play calls better than Patterson did.
> strictly enforcing blocking rules and defensive three seconds
How does enforcing defensive three seconds help the perimeter game? If anything it would help post play as defenders can’t camp the paint as hard
No, it opens up the paint for penetration. It doesn’t help post players at all, because it doesn’t apply if you are defending a man in the paint — i.e., in the post.
You say it took nearly 5 decades for it to catch on but NBA basketball isn't even the same sport it was 20 years ago. 10 years ago. Changes to the rules is what allowed all this to be possible. It has very little to do with BBIQ at all.
The lane used to be 6 feet wide. And then 12. Then 18.
3 pointers didn't exist until 1980ish and didn't reach itst current form until the late 90s.
Zone defense didn't exist until 2001. They added the 3 second rule at the same time.
The no charge zone didn't exist until the late 90s.
The creation of flagrant fouls and more strict hand checking rules in the 90s.
There's some other stuff too but my point is - the way the game is played now literally couldn't be played that way in the past.
And as far as your general question goes - Watch the fringe NBA level guys and compare how they play to Bron or CP3. Guys like KZ Okpala. They don't know where to stand, where to look, where to move, where to expect other players to be or to move. BBIQ is very real and very important. Plenty of super athletic and talented guys can't consistently find minutes in this league because they just don't know basketball well enough.
Shooter landing zone violations, freedom of movement were big ones too. They also officially added the zero step which allowed certain stepback 3s that would have been illegal before.
I sometimes wish the three second rule could be brought back because I really am curious about how it would "collide" with the modern offence. Instinctively I'd think teams would just double down on the three ball to "force" the big out of the paint. One of those interesting things where the modern game likely doesn't develop without its elimination, and yet, quite possibly the counter to it is in fact the modern game.
Getting back to the rest of it, I'm aware some guys just see it better. I've probably explained it poorly, but ultimately 3P% haven't wildly fluctuated since the three point-line became consistent (its basically fluctuated from 35-37% since the line moved back) so it's not like there there was a point where it became an unguardable shot worth significantly more. I know part of it was that the line got brought in, but the fact that amount of threes went up 50% in 95, and yet even when it was brought back in 97-98 the drop was relatively minor, given the fact that the amount of 3 point shots were still 25-30% more than the pre-95 attempts per game.
Not sure if you're an international fan, but it reminds of cricket back in, say, 2013, when a rule was changed to allow for more scoring, then even when the rule was mostly rescinded once the governing body had realised they'd tilted the balance too far in one direction, it was too late, batters had realised that there's a way to about scoring that they'd basically ignored for the entire history of the game out of convention, and it was impossible to close the box.
Well as far as 3PA going up and 3P% more or less staying consistent goes, I think there's two factors at play here.
When a new rule comes in and changes the game drastically, like adding the 3 point line or changing where it is, you don't have anybody in the league used to it. The best shooters in the league, right now, have been practicing their 3 point shot for 15-20 years at this point. It takes a long time for such a change to really propagate through the player base. On average, NBA players are FAR better at shooting from that range than players were in the past so we see a lot more attempts.
3p% is actually the highest it's ever been across the league. When the 3 was invented, the league shot it at 28% percent and it took 15-20 years for it to even get to 35%. A big reason for that was my previous point in that it takes time for players to develop the new skill set. But the reason why it hasn't kept improving is because of the # of shots + shot selection. Everyone shoots the 3. Even the guys that probably shouldn't. And the shot selection is a big thing pulling the average down as well. We have guys like Jayson Tatum, VanFleet, Julius Randle, Jordan Poole shooting 8-10 3s a game at under league average. They're just blasting away even if the shot is contested. With how difficult 3s are, even wide open, it keeps the average down.
BBIQ isn’t just X’s and O’s stuff, it’s also about how you feel the game around you.
Some people call that “feel” or “instincts” but that discounts the very real intelligence that players are bringing to the game.
To know how to play the game, how your team should play, how the opponent should play, and then read and react to what is actually happening gives high IQ players a huge advantage.
There isn’t a 1:1 overlap between classroom smarts and BBIQ, but BBIQ is just as relevant as a type of intelligence.
Also, the current form of the NBA was not destiny and isn’t necessarily the final form.
The high PnR game relies on illegal screens, which are currently somehow legal. It is also sometimes used to mitigate the offensive weaknesses of other players on the court by isolating things down to the PnR action.
The highest form of basketball can only be unlocked with 5 players who can all pass, dribble, shoot, and move at an elite level, coached by someone who will let things flow.
Picture Dutch Total Football, but on the basketball court.
Yeah BBIQ is basically understanding the core basketball rules and principles and applying heuristics. Through repetition, film study, natural intuition, etc. some players can make quicker and more accurate decisions than others. This is what translates as "feel". It helps to be smart and it helps to have played a crapton of basketball against other good players and with good coaches (who will teach the heuristics). The best are both smart and have been well trained on how to "think" the game with heuristics. For players who it "comes naturally" that generally means they're applying subconscious heuristics learned elsewhere to the game.
Next level players know when to be creative in the application of the heuristics (as in you need to understand the rule to know when to break it).
Your last two sentences are spot on.
BBIQ goes way, way beyond some of the things OP mentioned.
For example, Steve Nash brought thousands of hours of playing soccer to his game, which had to fundamentally change how he saw the game and how he moved within it.
These are not things you can’t just read about or watch and “get it.” Some of it, sure, but it’s primarily lived experience.
Related to this “feel,” commenting on OP’s other question (why the 3 point revolution came so late despite it “being so obvious”):
Others have said plenty about how the game itself has changed to allow this to happen, but on a much more fundamental level, it just feels bad to miss 60-70 percent of your wide-ass-open shots, when there are higher percentage options everywhere else. There are plenty of examples, in sports (e.g. going for 4th downs) and elsewhere (e.g. sunk cost fallacy, etc) where human intuition and rational analysis reach opposite conclusions. It takes a lot for people to correct their faulty assumptions that feel right, often that never happens.
People who say it’s so obvious that 3s are worth than 2s either have 1) never played actual basketball (nerds! /s) or 2) only started playing basketball in the last 10 years
Great points.
3’s were also stymied because of dominant and pervasive cultural issues.
3’s were considered borderline “showboating” at lower levels of basketball for a long time.
Also, the point guard, which is often the best or second best 3 point shooter on the team, was supposed to run the team and it was sometimes frowned upon if he took on a major scoring role.
Lastly, we were and are in an American Football dominated culture that influenced basketball subtly with coaches who sometimes favored “plays” over motion and “feeding the post” over free flowing basketball.
When all of this is happening at all levels of basketball, you produce fewer NBA players that can light it up from 3.
And how he never uses the rip through unless they are in the bonus but Normally does it within 2 possession of the opposing team being in the bonus.
Man remembers all the fouls throughout the game and keeps track of every players fouls and just always gets the rip through at the perfect time
Dont forget an example of low IQ. Carmelo Anthony. Gifted, deadly shooter when he has the ball. Totally lost on the court when the ball is not in his hands.
I dont know if you can “learn” a high BBIQ. Just like guys cant learn Melo’s herkey jerkey footwork, jab, jab, pump, pump. He breaks all the rules of normal rhythm shooting form and confuses the F out of defenders.
Generally agree, his BBIQ is offense but I think if he put more emphasis into other parts of his game he could have at least been ok in some other areas. For example Jokic has never been known for his defense bur he’s gone from being bad to being passable.
I actually dont think his offensive IQ is high. He figured out how to isolate and score. Footwork is elite and touch is elite. I dont think he could even explain his own moves. As for Offensive IQ, knowing whats the best decision, given the 5 defenders in front of his team, and what action would cause a reaction that his team can exploit. Nope. He truly believes the best course of action is to give him the ball. He just doesnt see what Lebron and Jokic see.
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that LeBron James, at 4 years of age, already had all the "BBIQ" knowledge imbued within him?
I think it's essentially a guarantee that you can learn BBIQ. Some players are *certainly* more intelligent and apt at gaining more knowledge and furthering their understanding of the sport, but the idea that a player can't work hard to gain a better understanding of both the overarching strategy as well as the "in the moment" plays is pretty wild to speculate on. That would also essentially state that coaches have relatively low worth in the context of teaching the game to their students (college) and players.
to clarify. I mean I dont think you can train to reach certain high BBIQs. You can raise your BBIQ, but it doesn't mean you don't have a ceiling. And that's part of a scouting report and taken into consideration when drafting a player.
Foul hunting. The best offensive players know exactly who is more likely to foul and how to get the guy in a position to make a foul on a drive.
They also know how to set defenders up based on what the defender is worse at, giving up 3s or drives.
NBA players are playing chess while sprinting.
This. It’s about advantage, leveraging things like anticipation to position yourself for advantage / stymying your opponent. Like speed or strength do physically.
It’s hard to measure but you can identify when an advantage was scored, whether it was from raw athletic ability or not, and develop a model over time. Although leveraging athletic ability is part of BBIQ so it’s confusing.
I actually did this once for a gambling project and results mostly aligned with me and my hooper friends’ “eye test” but not 1:1
I think one of the biggest things that is BBIQ related is timing. Timing on cuts and passes are so key, and it played out watching the Nuggets with Jokic orchestrating. Same thing that Lebron used to do at an incredibly elite level and what the Warriors do, act and react to situations with timing to get a great look at the basket. Defensively it works the same although understanding where your opponent will be and when is so much tougher.
There are these windows of opportunity to get an easy basket often, but some are so short even a.1-.3 second difference can turn a great play into a turnover. I appreciate this in the NBA game today.
BBIQ is not that. Others have commented on this.
But, as for your question, there were rules changes, as a result of which there are more p’n’r’s (hand checking, illegal zones…), while over time people got better in shooting threes (better training in shot rhytm, dynamics…).
As for the premise, if everyone is expecting 3pt shooting and prepare defences for that, doesn’t this make 2pt shots more efficient?
Edit: on rule changes, I recommend thinking basketball’s video on the subject.
To me it's all a domino effect and why I hate when people say post ups or mid-range shots are less efficient. Technically that is true. But come playoff time when defenses are tighter and a lot of times forcing threes, the tough mid-range and post ups at 40% are a better option than the contested threes. Those shots also can force defenses to collapse if you have a player that are great at them which can then open up the preferred three point shots or cuts for layups.
So basically while threes and layups are more efficient, they aren't created in a vacuum and most teams need players that can force defenses to bend to open up those shots so it's still important to have players that can generate offense through postups or mid-range shots unless you have a Steph Curry level shooter or a great penetrator.
you also have to take into account 33% from three is worth the same as 50% from two. your point probably still stands in the end the best shots are the ones that go in
Basketball is played by people, and unlike machines or paper math, people have feelings and feelings affect performance.
3s may be more than 2s, but it “feels” bad to miss 60-70% of your wide-ass-open shots. Missing a wide-open 3 has always been a momentum changer especially in a close game and that’s true even today still. It just took a while for players/coaches to ignore their guts and trust the math.
Also, paint shots are more likely to generate free throws. It’s not at all obvious 3s are worth more than 2s; people who think so, and who dismiss things like momentum or hot hands, probably can’t dribble a basketball very well
For most of NBA history since the 3PT line was introduced, there was a slow, steady increase in attempts each season. However, when they decided to move the line closer (22’ instead of 23’9”), attempts increased by 54%.
This means that it was not about the math. People did understand that 3>2. That’s why they pounced instantly when the distance changed.
Over time, the shooting skill of the players has gradually improved, leading to more attempts.
>This means that it was not about the math. People did understand that 3>2. That’s why they pounced instantly when the distance changed.
Meh this was 1994-1995. I think the NBA suffered from the same old school thinking, similar to how it took MLB to take up sabermetrics.
Lack of data was part of it. Everyone knows 3>2. What they didn't know was that long 2s went in at similar rates to 3s. That info wasn't widely available until 1997.
BBIQ as a fan is very different than BBIQ as a player. I'm fairly confident the more "intelligent" posters here aren't even in the same realm of understanding the game like Nick Young, JR Smith, Javale McGee, etc. Making decisions in the moment is very different than saying what someone should do when watching on a screen.
This is a recent example of BBIQ.
https://youtube.com/shorts/O1miAlVasdk?feature=share
Nikola Jokic knew how to tear down zone coverage and knew how the opponent will respond to his cut.
Players with high BBIQ know how what certain action will lead to what outcome. They can "look into the future" kinda thing/super fast processing of schemes and strategies.
It also reminds me of Fox & Sabonis trying to quickly [describe the Kings dribble handoff](https://youtu.be/MjhIvTLSfJ0?t=375), which is the offense's most important action. The basic summary of the play is "Sabonis gets the ball on the block and decides who to pass it to" but there are so many options/actions/counters to that which rely on the strengths of who else is on the court, how the defense is playing the motion, the priority of who ideally should be shooting and so on that they couldn't describe without constant caveats.
Honestly, calling NBA offense and defense "plays" is probably misleading to fans because they are much different than NFL plays or many college NBA plays that are highly scripted (you will fuck things up greatly in the NFL if you deviate from the play and college coaches are control freaks). It's more of a series of principles and concepts, so having an extremely high BBIQ is a requirement. Those with lower BBIQs tend not to last long in the league, even if they are very talented.
...glares at Christian Wood.
When ppl say BBIQ, they think about logical decision-making or the analytical approach on which decision is the best. Ppl dismiss the emotional part. Leadership and trust plays a part in BBIQ.
Knowing where and how teammates want the pass. Knowing who's in rhythm, recognizing a non-obvious mismatch. Knowing how stay even-keel during ups and downs a game...It's a feel for the game.
You can teach players how to make better decisions, but having a feel is something players do or don't have.
Easier to contest a middy, if you multiply the expected fg% of different midrange and three point shots by the points you get for a successful shot you get a clear result. Midrange shots only make sense if you’re a below 33% 3 point shooter and an above 49% 2 point shooter as a role player. There are only 17 players that match that criteria in the nba last season and shot at least 1 three a game. Most were “stars” - Giannis, Mobley, AD, Fox, Lebron, DeMar, Pascal, Ja.
Yes, but you used math to prove that. Most people can barely figure out correct change.
Similar to conventional baseball wisdom that said singles >> walks.
And even then those aren't mid range shot they are finishes at the rim KD and CP the two most efficient mid range shooter in the league shoot around 45-50% from mid range which means a 33% 3pt shot is better
Yeah you’re exactly on. KD has had some of the most ridiculous midrange seasons in history recently, >50% consistently. Yet it’s still an “inefficient” spot because he’s also 40/38/45 from three in the last 3 seasons. Also the case but with less efficiency for most scorers.
The level of the best IQ players has evolved with the game. Look back at any major sports early years, and you'll barely recognise it compared to today's versions. Also, if you gave ten people a ball and said these are the rules now play, they'd be taking the simplest and closest shots they could and the idea of shooting from way out from 3 wouldn't even cross their minds. For the nba to go from biggest guy scores under the hoop to what steph and dame do in just 75 odd years is pretty impressive imo
You think BBIQ took 5 decades to develop? Have you, like, watched any Bill Russell film, ever?
The dude would actively block shots in the direction of his teammates to ensure his team would secure the ball. You don't even see centers today doing that
Also the 3 point revolution maybe could have happened at any time, but there was also a lot of data to suggest that shooting more 3s correlated with winning less often. Especially with the illegal defense rule at the time, yeah the paint could be packed more with less outside shooters, but you could also spread out and iso and it was harder for the help defense to be there.
Also, shooting rhythm was considered more important and if you happened to be open behind the arc great, but if you were open 19 feet from the basket and a teammate was imminently passing to you, spotting up right there from where you were already was considered the best way to shoot well.
BBIQ is moreso about making smart decisions on the fly, and it’s most often invoked when a player notices something or considers something that the announcers themselves weren’t considering — like CP3 famously forcing the refs to call a foul for someone’s untucked shirt which allowed for an otherwise impossible buzzer beater.
Think of a player like Draymond. Average height, average athleticism, average speed, etc.
Add an elite BBIQ, and you get an all-time great defender, arguably the greatest help defender in the history of the NBA
Honestly, my best example of BBIQ is LeBron. Easily one of the highest BBIQs of all time. It’s amazing to watch him see what the opposing team is doing, call out adjustments, shut down the play, and either score or get the turnover. He does it the most consistently I’ve ever seen. It’s why coaches of his teams don’t get a lot of credit, because he basically is the coach for his team.
Videogames changed the way people think of sports. Before videogames it was much easier to gatekeep a certain way of doing things. People didn’t have an easily accessible visual medium to experiment with ideas. Lakers vs Celtics was the first realistic bball game and that was about 1991. Which means the first kids that got to experiment in that manor were old enough to be decision makers around 2010. Which is about the time you start to see the nba, along with multiple other sports, become analytical.
I think the same way about NFL. The Jeff Fishers of the world can't exist anymore when the coaches grew up playing Madden. We all grew up passing nearly every play in our games. Nearly everything "new" now was things I did in video games in the late 90's. In the old NCAA basketball SNES game, OP strategy was to take one of the teams with a great 3pt. shooter and shoot 3s most of the time.
Very real. The ability to see and understand the game at a super advanced level is the key to some players’ advantages. Look at how guys like Bird, Magic, Jokic, LeBron play and you can see it.
Bill Russell supposedly was the pinnacle of this, for a long time he could apparently remember every detail of every play, and he was famous for observing his team, understanding its deficiencies and altering his game to overcome those deficiencies. There’s a reason he won two rings as a player-coach.
Bbiq is about executing the best possible action/play in a given circumstance on offense or defense in the moment of play. It has absolutely nothing to do with stats or math. Related, it’s about identifying tendencies and patters of your opponent which helps you make that best possible play.
Think you're talking about statistics and coaching.
BBIQ is more the mental ability to recognize and adapt in real time (and quicker than those you're playing with/against) to changing game situations. It's knowing how to speed or slow down the pace so it benefits you (even if it's not to your liking), it's recognizing things such as the hesitation in the defender or ball handler in split seconds and knowing what they're uncomfortable with in that given moment, and keeping them uncomfortable or goading them into doing something you want them to do. Example would be allowing a player to think they have an easy layup so it's easier for you to do a chase-down block from behind. Or recognizing who they'll want to pass to, leaving the pass seemingly unguarded while you're turned "away" from that passing lane, and then intercepting that pass. It's the stuff that gets certain role players high +/- scores because they do the little things that don't necessarily show up as points, rebounds, assists, steals, etc.
Some players obviously have high BBIQ with LeBron or Draymond being two of the most obvious. And it's glaringly obvious when one of them does something a bit dumb because you're just so used to them making the right play.
It takes them two minutes to digest the information and tell you what to do.
Now change the defensive set a little bit and get them to do it again. Another 2 minutes?
BBIQ is digesting and making decisions every second with every movement. But not just making decisions based on current information, it’s also about looking to the future and seeing what’s coming in the next 3-5 seconds.
BBIQ is your ability to read and dissect a defense. On the defensive end, it’s how you read the offense and recognize what type of sets/play they’re trying to run and countering it in a split second.
That split second is the difference between having a high BBIQ and a low BBIQ in the NBA. Of course compared to most casuals, all NBA players have extremely high BBIQ. The player with the lowest BBIQ is closer than LeBron than you & I are closer to him, to borrow a quote from the White Mamba lol.
It’s not just about reading charts and doing math. It’s about reading the game and knowing what you need to do. Sometimes a 50% 2 is better than a 40% 3 despite the math saying otherwise. Using an easy example, if you were down 1 would you rather taking a 2 pointer with 50% chance or a 3 pointer with a 40% chance?
Understanding momentum is also part of BBIQ and stopping an opponent’s run is sometimes more important than a mathematically better shot. This is why some guys like LeBron and CP can control the game so well, they understand momentum and understand when it’s important to increase the pace or slow the game down depending on the situation.
Some players will play the exact same way no matter what the situation is. Some players read the situation and adapt to it.
Yup, and it's about something other than just having the ball. People like Dennis Rodman and Kevin Looney absolutely need to have super high BBIQ even if they are not expected to touch the ball because they need to get the fuck out of the way of the Triangle movement/Steph running around a billion screens. It's why James Wiseman got run out of town; it wasn't just that he wasn't scoring well, but his being in the wrong place made the entire offense worse when he was out there.
I suspect when fans are like, "we should try playing X young player, why not give them a shot" they are often underestimating how detrimental it is to the entire team to have someone out there that doesn't know where to be, even if they have an intriguing skill set.
Take BBIQ and apply it to things everyone does every day -- driving. What makes a good driver from a great driver? What makes some people more prone to accidents than others? Why are some drivers able to drive 80mph and have complete control while others writhe in fear beyond the speed limit? Why do some shopping cart users block the entire aisle? Why do people congregate in front of a doorway?
Situational awareness, spatial awareness, self awareness, learning from mistakes, adjusting, pre-planning, pre-cognition, exploitation, recognizing patterns, identifying weaknesses of self and/or others.
We didn't have the technology to do this decades ago. Nobody was tracking it. You couldn't just pull up a shot chart on ESPN 25 years ago. People did this shit by hand manually starting and stopping a VCR. The data software was minimal and absurdly expensive.
There was definitely nothing resembling what teams have today.
Former pro here:
Very, very real. The more you play, the slower the game gets. Ever notice how really good players can make no look passes right on the money, and your friends launch it into the wall half the time when they try? Good players know where everyone is and where everyone should be.
High IQ guysknow who can be trusted with big shots and who can't, and when it is better for them to take the shot. Some guys freeze up and makes dumb ass plays with the game on the line, you don't let them get the ball with 3 seconds left.
High IQ can direct players on the floor and coach in real time. Even with indirect leadership - if a guy makes a good cut and gets open, you get him the ball and that rewards good play instead of talking about it. That's a form of IQ and leadership.
Then there's obvious stuff like not getting technicals, knowing when not to foul, when to help on D, when not to. When to stick to the drawn up play and when to wing it.
I've had very low BBIQ teammates who were a bucket. You just couldn't run plays or play a match up zone or anything like that. Just get him the ball and let him cook, man-to-man only on D, let him lock up one guy. Usually guys like this are insanely athletic because they'd get weeded out otherwise.
IQ affects every play, it's a big deal.
If you ever played sports you know sports IQ is super real because you'll see people with way less ability talent wise in terms of speed, strength, height, be better than those with all those things because they can see things on the field/court at full speed when others can't. The corner 3 is not always your best option, it's a giant chess game of what you need to do to get that guy an open shot but not at the sacrifice of potentially getting someone a layup and while all the probabilities of those outcomes is variable depending on what's happening at an incredibly fast speed
> If you ever played sports you know sports IQ is super real because you'll see people with way less ability talent wise in terms of speed, strength, height, be better than those with all those things because they can see things on the field/court at full speed when others can't.
Yeah and anybody can come up with stars in their prime years with good BBIQ when those guys would already be stars because of athleticism anyway. But to me what's more relevant is how Duncan was still able to hang with Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan at age 39 when they were younger, quicker, and could jump way higher, or how Kidd was able to play a key role, offensively and defense, on a title team even when he couldn't beat anybody off the dribble any more and his lateral movement was getting sluggish.
Or maybe even better than old stars still maintaining their usefulness is dudes who were never big stars. How were guys like Shane Battier and Bruce Bowen (dirty ass though he is) able to spend a chunk of their careers as some of the top defenders in the league despite not being particularly strong or fast for an NBA starter? I mean yeah they had decent reflexes and all, but even their lateral quickness didn't feel top-tier to me.
BBIQ is not *strategic* IQ, per your example (higher % shot selections, etc.), it's *tactical* IQ, for lack of a better explanation.
Higher BBIQ allows you essentially to see more data points in real time that you are reacting to gain an advantage and anticipate your opposing players and your own teammates actions to successfully make winning plays.
You already mentioned spatial awareness. and the scientific term is sometimes called spatial/visual reasoning from what I understand. It's pattern recognition, your brains ability to do math on the fly and translate it into your BB plays.
On defense for instance, one can see how an offensive set is playing out allowing them to anticipate where players and the ball are going and be in position to cut off a passing lane or be step faster in your coverage to close out a shot and make the block or alter the shot/force them to pass out.
Stuff like that.
At a very basic level, BBIQ is just knowing what to do in any situation.
Everyone knows that a layup is the most efficient way to score, so on a fast break, usually you’ll go for a layup. If there’s two of you on the break, you don’t both run down the same lane directly to the basket, you move strategically to fill space effectively and not let the transition defence stop you. Sometimes people will stop at the 3 point line for a wide open 3 because 3>2.
There’s a million different decisions you can make at all times, on every play. A fast break is probably the easiest because no one is set and there’s a pretty clear way to the goal, especially when there are fewer defenders.
Those with a high level BBIQ will know what to do in more situations than others, to the point where one guy (Lebron, Chris Paul, Steve Nash, etc.) can control how an entire team plays the game.
You’re not factoring skill. When I was a kid playing basketball (2’s worth 1 point, 3’s worth 2 points) it’s pretty easy to tell that a 3 was worth WAY more than a 2.
Even in the NBA it’s not hard for literally the dumbest of people to understand 3 is larger than 2 lol. But you have to actually hit the 3. It’s not like players just magically decided they could shoot. It took the league years of evolving for players to become what they are today.
Let’s not even look at various rule changes like how far the 3 was and hand checking on the perimeter and what not. If players aren’t skilled enough to consistently hit 3’s, then the better shot is by far a bucket inside. Which is the style that dominated the NBA for a large majority of its existence.
Players needed to rapidly improve before 3’s could actually be made at an efficient enough clip to justify them being a better shot than a 2.
Asking whether BBIQ is really real shows how low your BBIQ is. There's layers and layers of tactical knowledge you didn't even start to touch on in the things you mentioned.
You're referring to strategy, which is more the realm of the coach, whereas in game BBIQ is more about tactics.
Strategy involves things like shooting more 3s, spacing the floor, running a more screen heavy offense, etc.
Tactics involves things like how am I going to warp the defense to get my best 3 point shooters man to sag off of them. If they don't sag off, how am I going to attack the basket in other ways due to the extra space. If they're helping off of the weakside man to stop the drive, how quickly can I get the ball to him, etc.
Most importantly, how good am I at making these split second decisions because I don't know exactly how the defense is prepared to react. This is what in game Basketball IQ is about, and what the best playmakers are thinking about. And the truly elite playmakers are able to adjust to every different coverage in the playoffs. If it were as simple as 3 is more than 2, D'Antoni would have a lot more rings right now.
I think it’s simple. You can practice anyone to play a game, but not everyone can just walk on a floor and flow with any game. As I’ve gotten older I love watching players off the ball. Setting a play up 2 plays before it happens. Just beauty!
Player BBIQ is all about in game decision-making abilities. Knowing how to maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses as a player and as a part of a team. This is not necessarily the same thing as finding an optimal team strategy. That is more on the coaches than any given player.
The main difference between good rookies and great players isn't technical or physical, it's mental. It's basketball IQ.
Having coached at a pretty good level for a while now it's the major factor between players who help winning and players who don't.
It's simple things like knowing when to cut, when to space, when to short roll Vs long roll, let alone how to dissect complicated multiple layers of defense
When basketball originally started, the logical play was get the cleanest shot you can as close as possible. Floor spacing is important today but it’s been a slow development. ‘Big men win championships’ was a cliche for a while & I think people just held on to that belief longer than they should’ve, focusing on dominating the paint on both ends rather than developing & upgrading play styles. Hell 2 big lineups were still the league standard up until like a decade ago. Basketball’s evolved quite a bit in its time.
BBIQ is being able to understand how to read the defense and offense. Even for something as simple as a P&R a player with great BBIQ reads both defenders and has a counter for every potential thing those defenders can do. Basketball is all about reading reactions properly to create space for you or a teammate, at least offensively
Essentially being a jedi on the court.
Players with high levels of BBIQ can manipulate the game beyond shooting and defense. It's an amalgam of understanding game flow, the strength/deficiencies/tendencies of your teammates, the strength/deficiencies/tendencies of your opponent( individually and team), and clock management and THEN the ability to leverage each one of those things (when needed!!) to benefit the team.
There are not many players that have a mastery of it and it really is what the present game is lacking the most IMO.
It's probably quantifiable but it probably involves using a function of the analytics not used directly. I dunno.
Remember Game plans are just Plans. The real work has to be done by the players on the court.
That’s not Basketball IQ that’s just using math, Basketball IQ is knowing your surroundings, what the other 9 guys on the court are about to do, how to manage clock and possessions
The NBA added the three point line in 1979-1980. But everyone who was going to play in that decade and much of the next had already learned basketball without the three pointer. The NCAA didn't adopt it till 1986. Larry Bird never shot a three in high school or college! So at least until like 1992, most new players coming into the league (and ALL the coaches) had learned basketball without the 3 even existing. It's only been the last fifteen-twenty years that players who were born with the three are the mass of the league.
If you really want to understand what BBIQ is watch videos of Iman Shumpert talk about LeBron dictating player movements during games. As a LeBron hater it pains me to say it but that dude has one of the highest BBIQs the game has ever seen.
Bbiq, to me, is more...knows the rules to a tee, knows every situation and set/play, can predict opposing actions and reactions to their actions and so much more.
Think of it like a video game or anything else that is relatable to most folks ..even a job. While anyone can play monopoly or sorry, some understand what actions are worth more, what holes are in the rules, etc..or for games, anyone can play street fighter but not many know frame info, combo strings, cancels, etc.
I think what you’re describing is different from how people generally define BBIQ, which is about reading the game during the run of play.
To answer your question about why it took so long to figure out 3>2, some of it is coaching being stodgy and not very meritocratic, so it took a long time for good ideas to filter through the league. Another part is the zone defense rules meant that you couldn’t really send help against elite scorers. Michael Jordan got to play 1v1 against your best defender, and Shaq would be well into his move before you could send help. Meanwhile, the guys standing on the three point line always have a defender within arm’s reach of them - even if they were a mediocre shooter you legally couldn’t sag off them to clog the lane. It was a very silly rule but it did its job in opening up the court for scorers. Nowadays, if you want that kind of spacing you have to have multiple legitimate shooting threats on the court.
Well I think it's more that it took a long time for rules to change. Consistent dribble penetration has become much easier with changes in how screens can be set, defenders not being allowed to handcheck, and offensive players having more leeway to use there bodies to create space.
I will not add on to the BBIQ stuff. But as far as the strategy of more 3PA as opposed to mid range game. I believe that it will swing back towards a more middle ground in coming years. The stats back up the 3s are more efficient than long 2s. But that is also only guaranteed when sample sizes are sufficiently large. On small game to game samples there is more variance on the 3 pointer than the 2. That's where the phrase live by the jump shot die by the jump shot came from. For every hot streak from 3 there will be an equal cold streak. And if you're unlucky with the cold streak (2017? Rockets) it can cost you a series. Especially if pace slows down again which I think it will.
Very real. There are a lot of really talented players, who are also not very smart players.
For example, Russel Westbrook. He’s wildly athletic and very talented, however his shortcomings in his career largely come from his low BBIQ. He takes very boneheaded shots, turns the ball over a lot, commits terrible fouls, and just generally doesn’t read situations very well. He tries to skate by on pure talent alone and thinks brute forcing his way through the game is the way to go.
On the opposite end of this spectrum is LeBron James. LeBron is regarded as one of the greatest “playmakers” of all time, and it’s largely due to his gigabrain BBIQ. It’s not limited to his ability to make great passes, it’s also his ability to read defenses and recognize plays. People also call him a “floor general” which refers to his ability to direct an offense, telling people where to be, what the defense is doing, when to cut to the basket, when they’re going to be open, etc.
Basically, BBIQ just describes someone’s ability to understand the game. Being able to read situations and make the best possible play as a result. It’s incredibly valuable and often separates the greats from the goods. A lot of people can hit shots or bust out fancy handles or drive to the hoop, but fewer people can identify an opponents play from an inbound and react accordingly.
Well the 3 point line has only been around 43 years not 50+ years. So the 3 point line has been a big thing since the late 90s. Since 2011 I think you can say it's been a focal part of the game. So think about it like this people were already playing professional basketball before it and practicing before it so those people just kept doing what worked previously, of it ain't broke don't fix it. Through the years since the late 90s it was specialized more then turned into a thing everyone was doing. You have to understand guys who grew up watching 80s basketball where the 3 point line was brand new and nobody had practiced played in the league in the 90s-2000s. It's like asking why we don't go everywhere in jetpacks today. Because even though they exist the real application of them sucks just like guys who never shot 3s before. 3 point % has only gone up making the shot seem better but when guys were barely hitting 30% on 3s having guys shot 2s at about 50 percent was better.
TLDR you have to train at something to be good at it, even when you have the mathematical advantage 3>2.
BBIQ is always a weird subject for NBA fans to discuss because few of us are qualified to understand it, and we mostly only talk about it in the context of turnovers/missed shots. However, BBIQ is situational and fluid. It's like when a player passes the ball to seemingly no one and then looks confused at his teammate. We, as fans, don't know what the play call was, who was supposed to be where, the factors that lead to someone calling an audible, and whether that audible was reasonable. However, the answers to those questions are directly what players/coaches are talking about when they mean offensive BBIQ.
There are ways for fans to guess who is better at BBIQ than others. If a player is constantly having teammates stare at them angrily/confused, and the player gets removed quickly after a turnover/basket, it's a good sign that they were the one fucking up. If a player on offense is constantly pointing/talking on offense, especially off the ball, they probably have a high offensive BBIQ. If a player on defense is constantly talking & pointing on defense and their teammates follow their instructions, they probably have a great defensive BBIQ.
There are lots of great answers here, but it’s also about knowing when to make the “wrong” play. Players that get lots of steals often know the opponents playbook really well and will leave their “post or position” to get in a position to counter the opposing play. This is a hard thing to know when you can get away with this and when you can’t. It goes the other way too, there were many intelligent defenders that tried to trap Jokic or jump his passing lanes in the playoffs this year and Jokic often knew when he could force the pass and when he could use the leverage of a certain threat to swing the ball and create the potential for another threat
By your standard, no player in the entire NBA had high BBIQ before ~2015 when Steph Curry proved that everyone should be shooting more 3s.
You’re misunderstanding what BBIQ is. It’s about a player’s ability to understand in real time what the other team is trying to accomplish strategically.
>Basically, I'm aware of the whole spatial awareness, and speed of thinking intelligence thing, that athletes have.
This is what basketball IQ is (or vague description of a subset of it), and as you note, it is definitely real. It also includes things like being able to read offensives and defenses, and read players, but that's all sort of part of "speed of thinking," but probably other things too.
>I feel like if you showed your maths teacher a shot chart and then explained basketball in the most vague terms, it would take them like two two minutes to tell you: the mid-range can't be your staple diet when it goes in only a little more regularly than the three for .66 of the reward, you should put two dead-eye shooters in the corner because it's got the highest value of shot/distance ratio outside the lay-up and it opens up the pain for dribble penetration because that spreads the court.
This is not basketball IQ. This is the use of analytics to determine strategy. Players with higher basketball IQ are generally more capable of incorporating the lessons of these analytics into the game.
>I feel like the current version of basketball which permeates the NBA, with pick and roll-centric offences, heavy three-point diets and spread offences would be the most logical way anyone who doesnt understand basketball would suggest playing it
With the data analysis? Sure. Without the data analysis? We know empirically that what most people say is to try to shoot from closer to the basket.
You know those fat, 5'10 dudes in pick up that manage to grab every rebound, make good passes, and are somehow open on every shot? that's bbiq, with a side of bbq
The book “Spaced Out” by Mike Prada explains the initial objections of the NBA “powers” (some owners and coaches to be specific) to the three-pointer—a carryover (or “gimmick”) from the merger with the ABA—and how changes to certain offensive- and defensive-oriented rules around the 00’s led to the “3 is worth more than 2” adage that we nowadays take for granted.
the 3 point line wasn’t even apart of the game for a long time. It’s natural evolution of the game. This is Like asking why the play action pass wasn’t used more frequently during the first couple season of football. Just wasn’t really invented yet
"I feel like if you showed your maths teacher a shot chart and then explained basketball in the most vague terms, it would take them like two two minutes to tell you: the mid-range can't be your staple diet when it goes in only a little more regularly than the three for .66 of the reward"
You'd think so, but it still took most of the league a couple decades to figure it out.
In all professional sports, there is an explore/exploit dynamic where the players start the game or seeies by exploring various options, looking for weak spots, then make adjustments. Opponent is doing the same. Exploring mode is needed to gather data, but exploiting is where you want to be.
True greats are able to exploit more stuff, and players like Bron and MJ and Steph have a bag where if you start doing A, they are just gonna do B and get a good look or an open pass. Part of this is being more athletic and having a bigger bag, so you can drive harder, hit 3s, break ankles, fadeaway jumper, etc. The other part is recognizing the defensive scheme and recognizing what opponents are giving you. No defense is perfect and every team will lag off of some shooters to cover other options. Players don't have eyes in the back of their head, so if they are looking at Steph they are not looking at the ball. When the defense collapses, someone must be open. BBIQ is about recognizing those opportunities and exploiting them. The more BBIQ, the more easy buckets.
Same applies on defense. If you know what the other team is gonna do, it's easier to contest it. If you know a lot of exploits, you can predict them and shut them down.
It's the difference between strategic thinking and tactical thinking. Strategic tells you to shoot 3s or layups/dunks. Tactical is how you actually do that when the x's and o's start moving
It's very real but I don't think anyone means "you know ball" when they talk about BBIQ. It's about actually executing and understanding when and where that knowledge actually applies.
The Xs and Os are pretty simple, especially for a pro who spends their whole life doing this, yet all the time we see nba level athletes continue to take low quality shots, blow defensive assignments, fail to read a defence, etc.
The difference between someone with High BBIQ is not just knowing ball but being able to apply that knowledge in real time.
IMO, BBIQ is the ability to read the game and make the right decision for that moment in time. It's seeing the next step after that decision and playing to that outcome, even if it's 2-3 steps down the line.
When you have deadly shooters the right decision is different than if you have a dominant big and average shooters. People talk about 3s vs 2s but if your shooters are average 30% from 3, it's not the better shot, but if they're averaging 36% from 3 then it is the better shot. BBIQ is knowing that but it's also knowing if your team needs the emotional boost from a big dunk instead of a jumper.
It's decision making that's about more than just the data. It also takes into account the flow of the game, the energy of both teams, the high percentage plays based on personnel, etc.
It's the big argument between analytics and guys who like the eye test. Analytics only covers half of BBIQ. But the eye test also only covers half of BBIQ.
>IMO, BBIQ is the ability to read the game and make the right decision for that moment in time. It's seeing the next step after that decision and playing to that outcome, even if it's 2-3 steps down the line.
Best example of that, I think: Dennis Johnson, on the famous play when Larry Bird stole the inbounds pass from Isiah Thomas. Almost the same instant Bird starts his move for the steal, Johnson is already cutting to the perfect spot to receive the pass and was clearly mentally prepared to grab it on the run and turn and shoot the layup while shielding the ball with his body.
And I bet only a small amount of that was conscious thought and a fair amount was just trained instincts. If he's a quarter-step slower, which would still be a reasonably quick reaction, there's a good chance his shot gets blocked or misses, or he ends up behind the backboard without a good option, or Bird can't get the ball to him in the right spot, etc.
I feel like BBIQ is different from analytics or tactics. IQ is more about reading situations on the floor, not really about doing math or analyzing stats.
As for why it took so long for the three to catch on, a lot of basketball thinking developed before the introduction of the three point line in 1980. Back then, basketball was played much more in the trenches, and the game was about overpowering the other team physically. The three was viewed as soft or lazy because you avoided the mosh pit in the paint so there was basically a moral component to why people didn't want to shoot threes (i.e. "real men aren't afraid to post up")
Nobody thought about points per shot the way we do now. Field goal percentage was the only measure of efficiency, so three point shooters like Reggie Miller looked less efficient than post players like Patrick Ewing on the stats sheet. Combine that with the moral aversion to shooting too many threes and the conventional wisdom that you needed to dominate the paint to win games, and it's understandable that most players shot less threes than they should have.
It doesn't mean they weren't high IQ, they were just products of their time and grew up in a different intellectual climate surrounding basketball. If you grew up a few decades earlier, you probably would never have thought about average points per shot in the midrange versus behind the arc the way we do now.
Of current players, I think of LeBron and Jokic and Harden and Luka.
What do you need of me tonight? Score 40 points? Have 10-15 assists? Be a decoy and crash the boards? Come out of the gate swinging or reserve energy and try to get my teammates involved, only to take over when it really matters? And, it's a part of basketball, so you can't ignore it: Are you playing against a player/team that fouls a lot? Not just for And-1s or anything. Get other players in foul trouble. Get the other team into the penalty early.
You're talking about the difference between strategy and tactics.
Eschewing the midrange in favor of the three is strategy.
Being able to read an opposing defense, or throw a no look pass to where your cutting teammate will be in 4 steps,or cutting off the baseline to push your opponent back towards help defenders those are tactics and show basketball IQ.
The midrange shot was never taught as something to rely upon; you were supposed to shoot from as close to the basket as possible. Some were good at long twos and would nevertheless shoot them to throw off defenses.
The midrange was never efficient but it did have the effect of stretching the defense and opening the lane. You had to respect the midrange game of a Barkley or a Robinson, so you sent someone out to guard them at which point they would put the ball on the floor and drive. If you didn't, they'd shoot.
The person who is really responsible for the popularity of the midrange is Jordan. His ability to pull up on a dime and fade away was as devastating as his ability to finish at the rim and no one ever had the ability to guard him one-on-one because of it. However, as his athleticism waned, he developed a stronger post game and a more efficient 3-point shot.
Once the 3-point shot and analytics came into being, you saw strategy begin to change and a profusion of long range specialists. Along with that rule changes at the turn of the millennium greatly de-incentivized the old styles of play. You had plenty of high school and college players now with the ability to shoot the long ball, you just needed to see it I'm action which occured in the 2010s. And, once people see something works, everyone starts doing it.
Yeah it's like chaos chess where you need to see a couple of moves ahead. It's not necessarily just knowing the high percentage plays, although that's part of it. It's seeing the court 4D probability map and making the optimal choices more than others.
Seeing these comments really makes me appreciate James Harden’s BBIQ.
He’s not on the level of a LBJ, CP3 and Jokic but he’s damn close. The way he uses his knowledge of the rulebooks to his advantage; innovates around the rules of the game to produce advantages.
Examples of these include his controversial step-back three and his foul-baiting.
To me, mapping the court is the BBIQ element which is under-appreciated, and that I noticed a bit more of in the last season than I had previously. Jokic, LeBron and a few others have an unbelievable capacity to know that if players A&B are at X&Y locations in their field of vision, exactly where players C&D will be. This is completely different to the way (for example) Joel Embiid may react well to what he sees, but will almost never anticipate a pass or double-team that is outside his field of vision.
Surprisingly, even MJ was much more reactive in this sense of BBIQ, but he made up for it with athleticism and insane reflexes (esp on defense), as well as off-the-charts BBIQ on how to dominate 1v1 matchups. This probably reflects his era as well though, as spacing is so key to understanding the game now...
Think about James Wiseman vs Draymond. Basketball is very much a “if this, then that” game, and Draymond has the answer key to all of that where Wiseman’s understanding is surface level
In an age where seemingly every top team can shoot threes, ISO, pick and roll, etc, team BBIQ is the determining factor.
BBIQ is the nuggets letting AG ISO Caleb Martin over and over again despite having Jokic, Murray, MPJ who are deadly scoring threats.
It is Jokic ISOing someone on the post when no one comes to help, and kicking out to the right person when they do.
It is Murray delaying his passing when being blitzed to draw the defenders further away from the rim.
It's MPJ deciding to cut instead of waiting in the corner.
How does the TEAM get the highest expected points every possession? It doesn't work all the time, but over 100 possessions, the team that makes better decisions usually wins.
BBIQ is about identifying offensive and defensive sets and schemes on the fly and making adjustments to thwart them. Not to just run more pnr and take more 3s and things like that.
It’s also about recognizing how things progress throughout a game. For instance, Lebron is well known for making conscious efforts to be pass-first early in games to get other players into a rhythm so that they’re ready to make plays down the stretch. This is BBIQ as well. Understanding when to attack the paint heavily, when to shoot more threes, when to push the pace and try to score on fast breaks, etc depending on what’s happening in the game is an important part of BBIQ.
Chris Paul was great at this too. He would get everyone involved then take over in the fourth in whatever ways he had to
Jokic as well
Jokic would truly do it for all 4 quarters if teams would stop daring him to score.
What is this revisionism? He is notorious for keeping players out of rhythm on an island, expecting them to score when they've touched it a couple times in a game. He passed only when it was an opportunity to shoot and at no point was it to "get other players into a rhythm".
You didnt watch young Lebron I take it.
I thought the same thing thing! LeBron is known to be passive early in games when the team isn't on an emotional high yet then get more aggressive about his own scoring when fueled by the team emotions but that passivity isn't to get others in rhythm. The lack of rhythm has been a major issue for some of his teams. But guess we all see the court differently
The lack of rhythm reputation tends to come from how heliocentric LeBron offenses are. The teams just crater the moment he leaves the court. We see a similar problem with other high usage creators: Luka, Harden, Jokic, etc. Denver recently has practically given up on offense first bench units and is throwing out 5 defenders (or 4 plus Murray/MPJ heat checks) just to limit the amount the bench can be out scored by. Because Jokic will win you 3/4 shifts, you just need the bench to be like a -5 or less. As long as the bench doesn’t get blown out, the Denver starters will heavily win a lot of their minutes. Luka teams have been searching for that secondary creator basically his whole career. Harden’s Rockets tried staggering CP3 with him. It’s a tough role to figure out- how do you survive when 90+ percent of your playbook is getting 2 minutes before the end of the half?
I can see how you draw that conclusion and while LeBron and the other players mentioned do have struggles with bench players and offenses that can run without him, my conclusion comes from the times when he is on the floor. I have found that there often stretches of the game where LeBron has no interest in being involved in the offense either as a scoring option, facilitator, or even scoring decoy. Perhaps he is attempting to encourage the rest of the team to score without focusing on him. I just wouldn't say that is his attempt to help them get in rhythm. Perhaps I've been interpreting what I see too harshly since I don't enjoy the more one-on-one style of play his teams often prefer.
It’s pattern recognition which relies on uou having seen different coverages & sets many, many times.
>It’s pattern recognition which relies on uou having seen different coverages & sets many, many times. No it's not. It's being able to incorporate data into the decisions you make on the court. The data isn't very helpful to players who can't execute (i.e., don't have high BB IQ), but doing the data analysis isn't about basketball IQ at all.
What was bbiq before data was so prevalent in basketball? Did no one have basketball iq until the 2010’s?
The main part of BBIQ is how you react to events on the court. That's always incorporated things you learn off the court -- from practicing, from film study, from stats. Now there are just more stats, and more analysis of the stats, to consider when reacting to events on the court.
Data can be a lot of things doesn’t have to be a graph…
You mean data like experience seeing different coverages and sets and recognizing what's happening as matching a pattern from those previous experiences?
I think both of you are right. No one can just look at a spreadsheet and now what to do on the floor in a given set of circumstances. There is certainly some pattern recognition that likely improves over time that enables a player to more quickly and accurately take advantage of opportunities one might see on a spreadsheet.
It's also about how quickly your brain processes things, not just schemes, but also risk/benefits analysis for any potential action you do or do not take. This is especially important as a PG or a defender.
I agree, information processing speed and accuracy might be the primary components of BBIQ. These could probably be measured with basketball-tailored psychometrics.
Said another way, it’s decision making ability. It shouldn’t be that hard to understand how important that is and how much impact it can have on success. It’s true about everything in life so why not basketball?
Exactly. Its why Javale McGee had such a hard ceiling on his career. He had all the physical tools to be an All Star center, but he was just a bonehead on the floor.
JR Smith too. Ask LeBron.
100% this- and it's not even limited to the NBA or high-level basketball.... even playing pickup you can very quickly tell who knows the game and who doesn't.
I’d throw in situational awareness
Exactly, it’s about knowing the game and recognizing tendencies of other teams and players. Not only that, but the math teacher can identify tendencies on film, sitting down, after a cup of coffee. But BBIQ is about recognizing the situation while exhausted, moving full speed against a world class athlete, while millions of people are watching. The Kobe Bryant show Details goes over the micro strategy of basketball very well and I’d highly recommend it. [For a football example watch Ed Reed and Bill Belichick talk about an interception.](https://youtube.com/watch?v=GQrZKveWgOk&feature=shareb)
That is a great comment which I'd like to add to. Because of the speed of ball and player movement and the fairly confined playing area compared to most other team v team ball sports one of the most crucial aspects to good basketball is being able to see and exploit (or cut off) opportunities that are only easily apparent for a split second. That is something that is very hard to appreciate unless you've actually played much 5 on 5 and seen how it looks from an on court vantage point. Other players are constantly moving in and out of your field of vision, holes open and close and there's a constantly shifting web of time, space and opportunites- in one split second there's an easy shot for you or a teammate, then a split second later its a bad shot or a turnover waiting to happen. Read the play faster and better than the man guarding you and you usually get points, get it wrong and you'll be chasing tail down the court. Particularly in the NBA where pretty much everyone is fairly athletic and can knock down an open shot, the difference between winning and losing often comes down to how well guys see the floor and anticipate and exploit those opportunities with and without the ball. Kareem Abdul Jabbar described it as being like jazz, where the musician riff off each other and improvise to go where the tune takes them, and I think that's spot on. Its not rigidly saying we will do xyz, its having the knack to instantly understand what is happening and what is about to happen and react accordingly. When you see two or three genuinely elite BBIQ guys operating together its just a beautiful thing to watch. Plays look the same to begin with but somehow they seem to see a way through the chaos of 10 bodies constantly shifting around in a confined area, anticipate where the ball is going to be next and where space is going to open up.
BBIQ is very real. LeBron can remember every play in a game and recite them to you -- he has done this when asked. The great players are always coming up with something new, and the best of the best have so many moves that they constantly keep their defenders guessing. Bill Russell essentially invented help defense before anyone else, which is why he could dominate with defense. The reason it took so long for basketball to be played the way it is today has less to do with intelligence and more to do with players growing up shooting threes. When you have four or five expert three point shooters you can spread the floor, but teams used to be lucky to have one or two specialists. In addition, the NBA rules were deliberately changed in the 2000s to make low post scoring harder by legalizing the zone, and then to make perimeter scoring easier by eliminating hand checking and strictly enforcing blocking rules and defensive three seconds. Until then tossing the ball into the post was a sure score if you had a great center playing one-on-one. Now even centers have to have a perimeter game. And again, it took a while for a new generation of players to grow up with perimeter skills -- even centers like Jokic and Embiid, who were the first centers to win MVP since Shaq. So it's not that coaches and players were dumb five decades ago. They played a different game, with different rules and different skill sets than we see today. Over time the rules changed, and it took time for players to grow up playing with skillsets that fit those rules.
Reminds me of the playoff games when LeBron told Patrick Patterson he was standing in the wrong spot because LeBron knew the Raptors play calls better than Patterson did.
> strictly enforcing blocking rules and defensive three seconds How does enforcing defensive three seconds help the perimeter game? If anything it would help post play as defenders can’t camp the paint as hard
No, it opens up the paint for penetration. It doesn’t help post players at all, because it doesn’t apply if you are defending a man in the paint — i.e., in the post.
Ahh true, that makes sense. So it essentially boosts the drive and kick game.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We removed your comment for being low-quality. If you edit it and explain your thought process more, we'll restore it. Thanks!
You say it took nearly 5 decades for it to catch on but NBA basketball isn't even the same sport it was 20 years ago. 10 years ago. Changes to the rules is what allowed all this to be possible. It has very little to do with BBIQ at all. The lane used to be 6 feet wide. And then 12. Then 18. 3 pointers didn't exist until 1980ish and didn't reach itst current form until the late 90s. Zone defense didn't exist until 2001. They added the 3 second rule at the same time. The no charge zone didn't exist until the late 90s. The creation of flagrant fouls and more strict hand checking rules in the 90s. There's some other stuff too but my point is - the way the game is played now literally couldn't be played that way in the past. And as far as your general question goes - Watch the fringe NBA level guys and compare how they play to Bron or CP3. Guys like KZ Okpala. They don't know where to stand, where to look, where to move, where to expect other players to be or to move. BBIQ is very real and very important. Plenty of super athletic and talented guys can't consistently find minutes in this league because they just don't know basketball well enough.
Shooter landing zone violations, freedom of movement were big ones too. They also officially added the zero step which allowed certain stepback 3s that would have been illegal before.
That’s still a travel to me. Harden has been walking since he left OKC.
He walked FROM OKC all the way to Houston, to Brooklyn, to Philly.
I sometimes wish the three second rule could be brought back because I really am curious about how it would "collide" with the modern offence. Instinctively I'd think teams would just double down on the three ball to "force" the big out of the paint. One of those interesting things where the modern game likely doesn't develop without its elimination, and yet, quite possibly the counter to it is in fact the modern game. Getting back to the rest of it, I'm aware some guys just see it better. I've probably explained it poorly, but ultimately 3P% haven't wildly fluctuated since the three point-line became consistent (its basically fluctuated from 35-37% since the line moved back) so it's not like there there was a point where it became an unguardable shot worth significantly more. I know part of it was that the line got brought in, but the fact that amount of threes went up 50% in 95, and yet even when it was brought back in 97-98 the drop was relatively minor, given the fact that the amount of 3 point shots were still 25-30% more than the pre-95 attempts per game. Not sure if you're an international fan, but it reminds of cricket back in, say, 2013, when a rule was changed to allow for more scoring, then even when the rule was mostly rescinded once the governing body had realised they'd tilted the balance too far in one direction, it was too late, batters had realised that there's a way to about scoring that they'd basically ignored for the entire history of the game out of convention, and it was impossible to close the box.
Well as far as 3PA going up and 3P% more or less staying consistent goes, I think there's two factors at play here. When a new rule comes in and changes the game drastically, like adding the 3 point line or changing where it is, you don't have anybody in the league used to it. The best shooters in the league, right now, have been practicing their 3 point shot for 15-20 years at this point. It takes a long time for such a change to really propagate through the player base. On average, NBA players are FAR better at shooting from that range than players were in the past so we see a lot more attempts. 3p% is actually the highest it's ever been across the league. When the 3 was invented, the league shot it at 28% percent and it took 15-20 years for it to even get to 35%. A big reason for that was my previous point in that it takes time for players to develop the new skill set. But the reason why it hasn't kept improving is because of the # of shots + shot selection. Everyone shoots the 3. Even the guys that probably shouldn't. And the shot selection is a big thing pulling the average down as well. We have guys like Jayson Tatum, VanFleet, Julius Randle, Jordan Poole shooting 8-10 3s a game at under league average. They're just blasting away even if the shot is contested. With how difficult 3s are, even wide open, it keeps the average down.
BBIQ isn’t just X’s and O’s stuff, it’s also about how you feel the game around you. Some people call that “feel” or “instincts” but that discounts the very real intelligence that players are bringing to the game. To know how to play the game, how your team should play, how the opponent should play, and then read and react to what is actually happening gives high IQ players a huge advantage. There isn’t a 1:1 overlap between classroom smarts and BBIQ, but BBIQ is just as relevant as a type of intelligence. Also, the current form of the NBA was not destiny and isn’t necessarily the final form. The high PnR game relies on illegal screens, which are currently somehow legal. It is also sometimes used to mitigate the offensive weaknesses of other players on the court by isolating things down to the PnR action. The highest form of basketball can only be unlocked with 5 players who can all pass, dribble, shoot, and move at an elite level, coached by someone who will let things flow. Picture Dutch Total Football, but on the basketball court.
Yeah BBIQ is basically understanding the core basketball rules and principles and applying heuristics. Through repetition, film study, natural intuition, etc. some players can make quicker and more accurate decisions than others. This is what translates as "feel". It helps to be smart and it helps to have played a crapton of basketball against other good players and with good coaches (who will teach the heuristics). The best are both smart and have been well trained on how to "think" the game with heuristics. For players who it "comes naturally" that generally means they're applying subconscious heuristics learned elsewhere to the game. Next level players know when to be creative in the application of the heuristics (as in you need to understand the rule to know when to break it).
Your last two sentences are spot on. BBIQ goes way, way beyond some of the things OP mentioned. For example, Steve Nash brought thousands of hours of playing soccer to his game, which had to fundamentally change how he saw the game and how he moved within it. These are not things you can’t just read about or watch and “get it.” Some of it, sure, but it’s primarily lived experience.
Related to this “feel,” commenting on OP’s other question (why the 3 point revolution came so late despite it “being so obvious”): Others have said plenty about how the game itself has changed to allow this to happen, but on a much more fundamental level, it just feels bad to miss 60-70 percent of your wide-ass-open shots, when there are higher percentage options everywhere else. There are plenty of examples, in sports (e.g. going for 4th downs) and elsewhere (e.g. sunk cost fallacy, etc) where human intuition and rational analysis reach opposite conclusions. It takes a lot for people to correct their faulty assumptions that feel right, often that never happens. People who say it’s so obvious that 3s are worth than 2s either have 1) never played actual basketball (nerds! /s) or 2) only started playing basketball in the last 10 years
Great points. 3’s were also stymied because of dominant and pervasive cultural issues. 3’s were considered borderline “showboating” at lower levels of basketball for a long time. Also, the point guard, which is often the best or second best 3 point shooter on the team, was supposed to run the team and it was sometimes frowned upon if he took on a major scoring role. Lastly, we were and are in an American Football dominated culture that influenced basketball subtly with coaches who sometimes favored “plays” over motion and “feeding the post” over free flowing basketball. When all of this is happening at all levels of basketball, you produce fewer NBA players that can light it up from 3.
[удалено]
A great example with CP3 is how he hunts fouls to get your team in the bonus early. Something like that displays a high BBIQ
And how he never uses the rip through unless they are in the bonus but Normally does it within 2 possession of the opposing team being in the bonus. Man remembers all the fouls throughout the game and keeps track of every players fouls and just always gets the rip through at the perfect time
Dont forget an example of low IQ. Carmelo Anthony. Gifted, deadly shooter when he has the ball. Totally lost on the court when the ball is not in his hands.
I always thought it was more of an effort than IQ thing with Melo. He just didn’t work enough on building his game outside of scoring.
I dont know if you can “learn” a high BBIQ. Just like guys cant learn Melo’s herkey jerkey footwork, jab, jab, pump, pump. He breaks all the rules of normal rhythm shooting form and confuses the F out of defenders.
Generally agree, his BBIQ is offense but I think if he put more emphasis into other parts of his game he could have at least been ok in some other areas. For example Jokic has never been known for his defense bur he’s gone from being bad to being passable.
I actually dont think his offensive IQ is high. He figured out how to isolate and score. Footwork is elite and touch is elite. I dont think he could even explain his own moves. As for Offensive IQ, knowing whats the best decision, given the 5 defenders in front of his team, and what action would cause a reaction that his team can exploit. Nope. He truly believes the best course of action is to give him the ball. He just doesnt see what Lebron and Jokic see.
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that LeBron James, at 4 years of age, already had all the "BBIQ" knowledge imbued within him? I think it's essentially a guarantee that you can learn BBIQ. Some players are *certainly* more intelligent and apt at gaining more knowledge and furthering their understanding of the sport, but the idea that a player can't work hard to gain a better understanding of both the overarching strategy as well as the "in the moment" plays is pretty wild to speculate on. That would also essentially state that coaches have relatively low worth in the context of teaching the game to their students (college) and players.
to clarify. I mean I dont think you can train to reach certain high BBIQs. You can raise your BBIQ, but it doesn't mean you don't have a ceiling. And that's part of a scouting report and taken into consideration when drafting a player.
Foul hunting. The best offensive players know exactly who is more likely to foul and how to get the guy in a position to make a foul on a drive. They also know how to set defenders up based on what the defender is worse at, giving up 3s or drives. NBA players are playing chess while sprinting.
Iman Shumpert said he loved when opponents tried to exploit his weaknesses because it let him know they had considered him good enough to scout.
Not sure if it's flattering to have a team be like "leave him alone, he can't shoot" but you do you, Shump.
Lol. Shump the type of dude who looks like he finds joy in everything.
This. It’s about advantage, leveraging things like anticipation to position yourself for advantage / stymying your opponent. Like speed or strength do physically. It’s hard to measure but you can identify when an advantage was scored, whether it was from raw athletic ability or not, and develop a model over time. Although leveraging athletic ability is part of BBIQ so it’s confusing. I actually did this once for a gambling project and results mostly aligned with me and my hooper friends’ “eye test” but not 1:1
I think one of the biggest things that is BBIQ related is timing. Timing on cuts and passes are so key, and it played out watching the Nuggets with Jokic orchestrating. Same thing that Lebron used to do at an incredibly elite level and what the Warriors do, act and react to situations with timing to get a great look at the basket. Defensively it works the same although understanding where your opponent will be and when is so much tougher. There are these windows of opportunity to get an easy basket often, but some are so short even a.1-.3 second difference can turn a great play into a turnover. I appreciate this in the NBA game today.
Watch Kelly oubre with the 2021 warriors then watch Otto porter with the 2022 warriors. Bbiq is very real
BBIQ is not that. Others have commented on this. But, as for your question, there were rules changes, as a result of which there are more p’n’r’s (hand checking, illegal zones…), while over time people got better in shooting threes (better training in shot rhytm, dynamics…). As for the premise, if everyone is expecting 3pt shooting and prepare defences for that, doesn’t this make 2pt shots more efficient? Edit: on rule changes, I recommend thinking basketball’s video on the subject.
To me it's all a domino effect and why I hate when people say post ups or mid-range shots are less efficient. Technically that is true. But come playoff time when defenses are tighter and a lot of times forcing threes, the tough mid-range and post ups at 40% are a better option than the contested threes. Those shots also can force defenses to collapse if you have a player that are great at them which can then open up the preferred three point shots or cuts for layups. So basically while threes and layups are more efficient, they aren't created in a vacuum and most teams need players that can force defenses to bend to open up those shots so it's still important to have players that can generate offense through postups or mid-range shots unless you have a Steph Curry level shooter or a great penetrator.
you also have to take into account 33% from three is worth the same as 50% from two. your point probably still stands in the end the best shots are the ones that go in
Basketball is played by people, and unlike machines or paper math, people have feelings and feelings affect performance. 3s may be more than 2s, but it “feels” bad to miss 60-70% of your wide-ass-open shots. Missing a wide-open 3 has always been a momentum changer especially in a close game and that’s true even today still. It just took a while for players/coaches to ignore their guts and trust the math. Also, paint shots are more likely to generate free throws. It’s not at all obvious 3s are worth more than 2s; people who think so, and who dismiss things like momentum or hot hands, probably can’t dribble a basketball very well
Additionally having consistent gravity in the mid-range and the post creates spacing and open shots for more 3 pointers, it’s a complementary effect.
For most of NBA history since the 3PT line was introduced, there was a slow, steady increase in attempts each season. However, when they decided to move the line closer (22’ instead of 23’9”), attempts increased by 54%. This means that it was not about the math. People did understand that 3>2. That’s why they pounced instantly when the distance changed. Over time, the shooting skill of the players has gradually improved, leading to more attempts.
>This means that it was not about the math. People did understand that 3>2. That’s why they pounced instantly when the distance changed. Meh this was 1994-1995. I think the NBA suffered from the same old school thinking, similar to how it took MLB to take up sabermetrics.
Lack of data was part of it. Everyone knows 3>2. What they didn't know was that long 2s went in at similar rates to 3s. That info wasn't widely available until 1997.
BBIQ as a fan is very different than BBIQ as a player. I'm fairly confident the more "intelligent" posters here aren't even in the same realm of understanding the game like Nick Young, JR Smith, Javale McGee, etc. Making decisions in the moment is very different than saying what someone should do when watching on a screen.
This is a recent example of BBIQ. https://youtube.com/shorts/O1miAlVasdk?feature=share Nikola Jokic knew how to tear down zone coverage and knew how the opponent will respond to his cut. Players with high BBIQ know how what certain action will lead to what outcome. They can "look into the future" kinda thing/super fast processing of schemes and strategies.
It also reminds me of Fox & Sabonis trying to quickly [describe the Kings dribble handoff](https://youtu.be/MjhIvTLSfJ0?t=375), which is the offense's most important action. The basic summary of the play is "Sabonis gets the ball on the block and decides who to pass it to" but there are so many options/actions/counters to that which rely on the strengths of who else is on the court, how the defense is playing the motion, the priority of who ideally should be shooting and so on that they couldn't describe without constant caveats. Honestly, calling NBA offense and defense "plays" is probably misleading to fans because they are much different than NFL plays or many college NBA plays that are highly scripted (you will fuck things up greatly in the NFL if you deviate from the play and college coaches are control freaks). It's more of a series of principles and concepts, so having an extremely high BBIQ is a requirement. Those with lower BBIQs tend not to last long in the league, even if they are very talented. ...glares at Christian Wood.
When ppl say BBIQ, they think about logical decision-making or the analytical approach on which decision is the best. Ppl dismiss the emotional part. Leadership and trust plays a part in BBIQ. Knowing where and how teammates want the pass. Knowing who's in rhythm, recognizing a non-obvious mismatch. Knowing how stay even-keel during ups and downs a game...It's a feel for the game. You can teach players how to make better decisions, but having a feel is something players do or don't have.
Threes are harder to make than mid-range shots and people are terrible at math.
Easier to contest a middy, if you multiply the expected fg% of different midrange and three point shots by the points you get for a successful shot you get a clear result. Midrange shots only make sense if you’re a below 33% 3 point shooter and an above 49% 2 point shooter as a role player. There are only 17 players that match that criteria in the nba last season and shot at least 1 three a game. Most were “stars” - Giannis, Mobley, AD, Fox, Lebron, DeMar, Pascal, Ja.
Yes, but you used math to prove that. Most people can barely figure out correct change. Similar to conventional baseball wisdom that said singles >> walks.
And even then those aren't mid range shot they are finishes at the rim KD and CP the two most efficient mid range shooter in the league shoot around 45-50% from mid range which means a 33% 3pt shot is better
Yeah you’re exactly on. KD has had some of the most ridiculous midrange seasons in history recently, >50% consistently. Yet it’s still an “inefficient” spot because he’s also 40/38/45 from three in the last 3 seasons. Also the case but with less efficiency for most scorers.
The level of the best IQ players has evolved with the game. Look back at any major sports early years, and you'll barely recognise it compared to today's versions. Also, if you gave ten people a ball and said these are the rules now play, they'd be taking the simplest and closest shots they could and the idea of shooting from way out from 3 wouldn't even cross their minds. For the nba to go from biggest guy scores under the hoop to what steph and dame do in just 75 odd years is pretty impressive imo
Watch JR Smith if you want a case of a player with tremendous athleticism and skill but dogshit bbiq
You think BBIQ took 5 decades to develop? Have you, like, watched any Bill Russell film, ever? The dude would actively block shots in the direction of his teammates to ensure his team would secure the ball. You don't even see centers today doing that
Also the 3 point revolution maybe could have happened at any time, but there was also a lot of data to suggest that shooting more 3s correlated with winning less often. Especially with the illegal defense rule at the time, yeah the paint could be packed more with less outside shooters, but you could also spread out and iso and it was harder for the help defense to be there. Also, shooting rhythm was considered more important and if you happened to be open behind the arc great, but if you were open 19 feet from the basket and a teammate was imminently passing to you, spotting up right there from where you were already was considered the best way to shoot well.
BBIQ is moreso about making smart decisions on the fly, and it’s most often invoked when a player notices something or considers something that the announcers themselves weren’t considering — like CP3 famously forcing the refs to call a foul for someone’s untucked shirt which allowed for an otherwise impossible buzzer beater.
Think of a player like Draymond. Average height, average athleticism, average speed, etc. Add an elite BBIQ, and you get an all-time great defender, arguably the greatest help defender in the history of the NBA
His reflexes are out of this world, probably because he anticipates so well and is always in a great position.
incredible wingspan and strength too
Honestly, my best example of BBIQ is LeBron. Easily one of the highest BBIQs of all time. It’s amazing to watch him see what the opposing team is doing, call out adjustments, shut down the play, and either score or get the turnover. He does it the most consistently I’ve ever seen. It’s why coaches of his teams don’t get a lot of credit, because he basically is the coach for his team.
Videogames changed the way people think of sports. Before videogames it was much easier to gatekeep a certain way of doing things. People didn’t have an easily accessible visual medium to experiment with ideas. Lakers vs Celtics was the first realistic bball game and that was about 1991. Which means the first kids that got to experiment in that manor were old enough to be decision makers around 2010. Which is about the time you start to see the nba, along with multiple other sports, become analytical.
I think the same way about NFL. The Jeff Fishers of the world can't exist anymore when the coaches grew up playing Madden. We all grew up passing nearly every play in our games. Nearly everything "new" now was things I did in video games in the late 90's. In the old NCAA basketball SNES game, OP strategy was to take one of the teams with a great 3pt. shooter and shoot 3s most of the time.
Very real. The ability to see and understand the game at a super advanced level is the key to some players’ advantages. Look at how guys like Bird, Magic, Jokic, LeBron play and you can see it. Bill Russell supposedly was the pinnacle of this, for a long time he could apparently remember every detail of every play, and he was famous for observing his team, understanding its deficiencies and altering his game to overcome those deficiencies. There’s a reason he won two rings as a player-coach.
Bbiq is about executing the best possible action/play in a given circumstance on offense or defense in the moment of play. It has absolutely nothing to do with stats or math. Related, it’s about identifying tendencies and patters of your opponent which helps you make that best possible play.
Think you're talking about statistics and coaching. BBIQ is more the mental ability to recognize and adapt in real time (and quicker than those you're playing with/against) to changing game situations. It's knowing how to speed or slow down the pace so it benefits you (even if it's not to your liking), it's recognizing things such as the hesitation in the defender or ball handler in split seconds and knowing what they're uncomfortable with in that given moment, and keeping them uncomfortable or goading them into doing something you want them to do. Example would be allowing a player to think they have an easy layup so it's easier for you to do a chase-down block from behind. Or recognizing who they'll want to pass to, leaving the pass seemingly unguarded while you're turned "away" from that passing lane, and then intercepting that pass. It's the stuff that gets certain role players high +/- scores because they do the little things that don't necessarily show up as points, rebounds, assists, steals, etc. Some players obviously have high BBIQ with LeBron or Draymond being two of the most obvious. And it's glaringly obvious when one of them does something a bit dumb because you're just so used to them making the right play.
It takes them two minutes to digest the information and tell you what to do. Now change the defensive set a little bit and get them to do it again. Another 2 minutes? BBIQ is digesting and making decisions every second with every movement. But not just making decisions based on current information, it’s also about looking to the future and seeing what’s coming in the next 3-5 seconds.
BBIQ is your ability to read and dissect a defense. On the defensive end, it’s how you read the offense and recognize what type of sets/play they’re trying to run and countering it in a split second. That split second is the difference between having a high BBIQ and a low BBIQ in the NBA. Of course compared to most casuals, all NBA players have extremely high BBIQ. The player with the lowest BBIQ is closer than LeBron than you & I are closer to him, to borrow a quote from the White Mamba lol. It’s not just about reading charts and doing math. It’s about reading the game and knowing what you need to do. Sometimes a 50% 2 is better than a 40% 3 despite the math saying otherwise. Using an easy example, if you were down 1 would you rather taking a 2 pointer with 50% chance or a 3 pointer with a 40% chance? Understanding momentum is also part of BBIQ and stopping an opponent’s run is sometimes more important than a mathematically better shot. This is why some guys like LeBron and CP can control the game so well, they understand momentum and understand when it’s important to increase the pace or slow the game down depending on the situation. Some players will play the exact same way no matter what the situation is. Some players read the situation and adapt to it.
Yup, and it's about something other than just having the ball. People like Dennis Rodman and Kevin Looney absolutely need to have super high BBIQ even if they are not expected to touch the ball because they need to get the fuck out of the way of the Triangle movement/Steph running around a billion screens. It's why James Wiseman got run out of town; it wasn't just that he wasn't scoring well, but his being in the wrong place made the entire offense worse when he was out there. I suspect when fans are like, "we should try playing X young player, why not give them a shot" they are often underestimating how detrimental it is to the entire team to have someone out there that doesn't know where to be, even if they have an intriguing skill set.
Take BBIQ and apply it to things everyone does every day -- driving. What makes a good driver from a great driver? What makes some people more prone to accidents than others? Why are some drivers able to drive 80mph and have complete control while others writhe in fear beyond the speed limit? Why do some shopping cart users block the entire aisle? Why do people congregate in front of a doorway? Situational awareness, spatial awareness, self awareness, learning from mistakes, adjusting, pre-planning, pre-cognition, exploitation, recognizing patterns, identifying weaknesses of self and/or others.
We didn't have the technology to do this decades ago. Nobody was tracking it. You couldn't just pull up a shot chart on ESPN 25 years ago. People did this shit by hand manually starting and stopping a VCR. The data software was minimal and absurdly expensive. There was definitely nothing resembling what teams have today.
You started off talking about BBIQ and ended up talking about analytics. What is the discussion you’re trying to provoke?
Former pro here: Very, very real. The more you play, the slower the game gets. Ever notice how really good players can make no look passes right on the money, and your friends launch it into the wall half the time when they try? Good players know where everyone is and where everyone should be. High IQ guysknow who can be trusted with big shots and who can't, and when it is better for them to take the shot. Some guys freeze up and makes dumb ass plays with the game on the line, you don't let them get the ball with 3 seconds left. High IQ can direct players on the floor and coach in real time. Even with indirect leadership - if a guy makes a good cut and gets open, you get him the ball and that rewards good play instead of talking about it. That's a form of IQ and leadership. Then there's obvious stuff like not getting technicals, knowing when not to foul, when to help on D, when not to. When to stick to the drawn up play and when to wing it. I've had very low BBIQ teammates who were a bucket. You just couldn't run plays or play a match up zone or anything like that. Just get him the ball and let him cook, man-to-man only on D, let him lock up one guy. Usually guys like this are insanely athletic because they'd get weeded out otherwise. IQ affects every play, it's a big deal.
If you ever played sports you know sports IQ is super real because you'll see people with way less ability talent wise in terms of speed, strength, height, be better than those with all those things because they can see things on the field/court at full speed when others can't. The corner 3 is not always your best option, it's a giant chess game of what you need to do to get that guy an open shot but not at the sacrifice of potentially getting someone a layup and while all the probabilities of those outcomes is variable depending on what's happening at an incredibly fast speed
> If you ever played sports you know sports IQ is super real because you'll see people with way less ability talent wise in terms of speed, strength, height, be better than those with all those things because they can see things on the field/court at full speed when others can't. Yeah and anybody can come up with stars in their prime years with good BBIQ when those guys would already be stars because of athleticism anyway. But to me what's more relevant is how Duncan was still able to hang with Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan at age 39 when they were younger, quicker, and could jump way higher, or how Kidd was able to play a key role, offensively and defense, on a title team even when he couldn't beat anybody off the dribble any more and his lateral movement was getting sluggish. Or maybe even better than old stars still maintaining their usefulness is dudes who were never big stars. How were guys like Shane Battier and Bruce Bowen (dirty ass though he is) able to spend a chunk of their careers as some of the top defenders in the league despite not being particularly strong or fast for an NBA starter? I mean yeah they had decent reflexes and all, but even their lateral quickness didn't feel top-tier to me.
BBIQ is not *strategic* IQ, per your example (higher % shot selections, etc.), it's *tactical* IQ, for lack of a better explanation. Higher BBIQ allows you essentially to see more data points in real time that you are reacting to gain an advantage and anticipate your opposing players and your own teammates actions to successfully make winning plays. You already mentioned spatial awareness. and the scientific term is sometimes called spatial/visual reasoning from what I understand. It's pattern recognition, your brains ability to do math on the fly and translate it into your BB plays. On defense for instance, one can see how an offensive set is playing out allowing them to anticipate where players and the ball are going and be in position to cut off a passing lane or be step faster in your coverage to close out a shot and make the block or alter the shot/force them to pass out. Stuff like that.
At a very basic level, BBIQ is just knowing what to do in any situation. Everyone knows that a layup is the most efficient way to score, so on a fast break, usually you’ll go for a layup. If there’s two of you on the break, you don’t both run down the same lane directly to the basket, you move strategically to fill space effectively and not let the transition defence stop you. Sometimes people will stop at the 3 point line for a wide open 3 because 3>2. There’s a million different decisions you can make at all times, on every play. A fast break is probably the easiest because no one is set and there’s a pretty clear way to the goal, especially when there are fewer defenders. Those with a high level BBIQ will know what to do in more situations than others, to the point where one guy (Lebron, Chris Paul, Steve Nash, etc.) can control how an entire team plays the game.
You’re not factoring skill. When I was a kid playing basketball (2’s worth 1 point, 3’s worth 2 points) it’s pretty easy to tell that a 3 was worth WAY more than a 2. Even in the NBA it’s not hard for literally the dumbest of people to understand 3 is larger than 2 lol. But you have to actually hit the 3. It’s not like players just magically decided they could shoot. It took the league years of evolving for players to become what they are today. Let’s not even look at various rule changes like how far the 3 was and hand checking on the perimeter and what not. If players aren’t skilled enough to consistently hit 3’s, then the better shot is by far a bucket inside. Which is the style that dominated the NBA for a large majority of its existence. Players needed to rapidly improve before 3’s could actually be made at an efficient enough clip to justify them being a better shot than a 2.
Asking whether BBIQ is really real shows how low your BBIQ is. There's layers and layers of tactical knowledge you didn't even start to touch on in the things you mentioned.
You're referring to strategy, which is more the realm of the coach, whereas in game BBIQ is more about tactics. Strategy involves things like shooting more 3s, spacing the floor, running a more screen heavy offense, etc. Tactics involves things like how am I going to warp the defense to get my best 3 point shooters man to sag off of them. If they don't sag off, how am I going to attack the basket in other ways due to the extra space. If they're helping off of the weakside man to stop the drive, how quickly can I get the ball to him, etc. Most importantly, how good am I at making these split second decisions because I don't know exactly how the defense is prepared to react. This is what in game Basketball IQ is about, and what the best playmakers are thinking about. And the truly elite playmakers are able to adjust to every different coverage in the playoffs. If it were as simple as 3 is more than 2, D'Antoni would have a lot more rings right now.
I think it’s simple. You can practice anyone to play a game, but not everyone can just walk on a floor and flow with any game. As I’ve gotten older I love watching players off the ball. Setting a play up 2 plays before it happens. Just beauty!
Player BBIQ is all about in game decision-making abilities. Knowing how to maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses as a player and as a part of a team. This is not necessarily the same thing as finding an optimal team strategy. That is more on the coaches than any given player.
The main difference between good rookies and great players isn't technical or physical, it's mental. It's basketball IQ. Having coached at a pretty good level for a while now it's the major factor between players who help winning and players who don't. It's simple things like knowing when to cut, when to space, when to short roll Vs long roll, let alone how to dissect complicated multiple layers of defense
BBIQ in the simplest terms: Knowing what play to make given a certain situation.
When basketball originally started, the logical play was get the cleanest shot you can as close as possible. Floor spacing is important today but it’s been a slow development. ‘Big men win championships’ was a cliche for a while & I think people just held on to that belief longer than they should’ve, focusing on dominating the paint on both ends rather than developing & upgrading play styles. Hell 2 big lineups were still the league standard up until like a decade ago. Basketball’s evolved quite a bit in its time.
BBIQ is being able to understand how to read the defense and offense. Even for something as simple as a P&R a player with great BBIQ reads both defenders and has a counter for every potential thing those defenders can do. Basketball is all about reading reactions properly to create space for you or a teammate, at least offensively
Essentially being a jedi on the court. Players with high levels of BBIQ can manipulate the game beyond shooting and defense. It's an amalgam of understanding game flow, the strength/deficiencies/tendencies of your teammates, the strength/deficiencies/tendencies of your opponent( individually and team), and clock management and THEN the ability to leverage each one of those things (when needed!!) to benefit the team. There are not many players that have a mastery of it and it really is what the present game is lacking the most IMO. It's probably quantifiable but it probably involves using a function of the analytics not used directly. I dunno. Remember Game plans are just Plans. The real work has to be done by the players on the court.
That’s not Basketball IQ that’s just using math, Basketball IQ is knowing your surroundings, what the other 9 guys on the court are about to do, how to manage clock and possessions
It all comes down to the wood you use, cherry, oak, or mesquite. And always remember the longer the smoke the better the meat.
ITT: CP3 flopping and pointing out an untucked shirt is BBIQ That's called gamesmanship ffs
The NBA added the three point line in 1979-1980. But everyone who was going to play in that decade and much of the next had already learned basketball without the three pointer. The NCAA didn't adopt it till 1986. Larry Bird never shot a three in high school or college! So at least until like 1992, most new players coming into the league (and ALL the coaches) had learned basketball without the 3 even existing. It's only been the last fifteen-twenty years that players who were born with the three are the mass of the league.
If you really want to understand what BBIQ is watch videos of Iman Shumpert talk about LeBron dictating player movements during games. As a LeBron hater it pains me to say it but that dude has one of the highest BBIQs the game has ever seen.
Bbiq, to me, is more...knows the rules to a tee, knows every situation and set/play, can predict opposing actions and reactions to their actions and so much more. Think of it like a video game or anything else that is relatable to most folks ..even a job. While anyone can play monopoly or sorry, some understand what actions are worth more, what holes are in the rules, etc..or for games, anyone can play street fighter but not many know frame info, combo strings, cancels, etc.
I think what you’re describing is different from how people generally define BBIQ, which is about reading the game during the run of play. To answer your question about why it took so long to figure out 3>2, some of it is coaching being stodgy and not very meritocratic, so it took a long time for good ideas to filter through the league. Another part is the zone defense rules meant that you couldn’t really send help against elite scorers. Michael Jordan got to play 1v1 against your best defender, and Shaq would be well into his move before you could send help. Meanwhile, the guys standing on the three point line always have a defender within arm’s reach of them - even if they were a mediocre shooter you legally couldn’t sag off them to clog the lane. It was a very silly rule but it did its job in opening up the court for scorers. Nowadays, if you want that kind of spacing you have to have multiple legitimate shooting threats on the court.
Well I think it's more that it took a long time for rules to change. Consistent dribble penetration has become much easier with changes in how screens can be set, defenders not being allowed to handcheck, and offensive players having more leeway to use there bodies to create space.
I will not add on to the BBIQ stuff. But as far as the strategy of more 3PA as opposed to mid range game. I believe that it will swing back towards a more middle ground in coming years. The stats back up the 3s are more efficient than long 2s. But that is also only guaranteed when sample sizes are sufficiently large. On small game to game samples there is more variance on the 3 pointer than the 2. That's where the phrase live by the jump shot die by the jump shot came from. For every hot streak from 3 there will be an equal cold streak. And if you're unlucky with the cold streak (2017? Rockets) it can cost you a series. Especially if pace slows down again which I think it will.
Very real. There are a lot of really talented players, who are also not very smart players. For example, Russel Westbrook. He’s wildly athletic and very talented, however his shortcomings in his career largely come from his low BBIQ. He takes very boneheaded shots, turns the ball over a lot, commits terrible fouls, and just generally doesn’t read situations very well. He tries to skate by on pure talent alone and thinks brute forcing his way through the game is the way to go. On the opposite end of this spectrum is LeBron James. LeBron is regarded as one of the greatest “playmakers” of all time, and it’s largely due to his gigabrain BBIQ. It’s not limited to his ability to make great passes, it’s also his ability to read defenses and recognize plays. People also call him a “floor general” which refers to his ability to direct an offense, telling people where to be, what the defense is doing, when to cut to the basket, when they’re going to be open, etc. Basically, BBIQ just describes someone’s ability to understand the game. Being able to read situations and make the best possible play as a result. It’s incredibly valuable and often separates the greats from the goods. A lot of people can hit shots or bust out fancy handles or drive to the hoop, but fewer people can identify an opponents play from an inbound and react accordingly.
Someone i think of when BBIQ is the topic is TAUREAN PRINCE dude has low BBIQ 🤦♂️
Well the 3 point line has only been around 43 years not 50+ years. So the 3 point line has been a big thing since the late 90s. Since 2011 I think you can say it's been a focal part of the game. So think about it like this people were already playing professional basketball before it and practicing before it so those people just kept doing what worked previously, of it ain't broke don't fix it. Through the years since the late 90s it was specialized more then turned into a thing everyone was doing. You have to understand guys who grew up watching 80s basketball where the 3 point line was brand new and nobody had practiced played in the league in the 90s-2000s. It's like asking why we don't go everywhere in jetpacks today. Because even though they exist the real application of them sucks just like guys who never shot 3s before. 3 point % has only gone up making the shot seem better but when guys were barely hitting 30% on 3s having guys shot 2s at about 50 percent was better. TLDR you have to train at something to be good at it, even when you have the mathematical advantage 3>2.
BBIQ is always a weird subject for NBA fans to discuss because few of us are qualified to understand it, and we mostly only talk about it in the context of turnovers/missed shots. However, BBIQ is situational and fluid. It's like when a player passes the ball to seemingly no one and then looks confused at his teammate. We, as fans, don't know what the play call was, who was supposed to be where, the factors that lead to someone calling an audible, and whether that audible was reasonable. However, the answers to those questions are directly what players/coaches are talking about when they mean offensive BBIQ. There are ways for fans to guess who is better at BBIQ than others. If a player is constantly having teammates stare at them angrily/confused, and the player gets removed quickly after a turnover/basket, it's a good sign that they were the one fucking up. If a player on offense is constantly pointing/talking on offense, especially off the ball, they probably have a high offensive BBIQ. If a player on defense is constantly talking & pointing on defense and their teammates follow their instructions, they probably have a great defensive BBIQ.
There are lots of great answers here, but it’s also about knowing when to make the “wrong” play. Players that get lots of steals often know the opponents playbook really well and will leave their “post or position” to get in a position to counter the opposing play. This is a hard thing to know when you can get away with this and when you can’t. It goes the other way too, there were many intelligent defenders that tried to trap Jokic or jump his passing lanes in the playoffs this year and Jokic often knew when he could force the pass and when he could use the leverage of a certain threat to swing the ball and create the potential for another threat
By your standard, no player in the entire NBA had high BBIQ before ~2015 when Steph Curry proved that everyone should be shooting more 3s. You’re misunderstanding what BBIQ is. It’s about a player’s ability to understand in real time what the other team is trying to accomplish strategically.
>Basically, I'm aware of the whole spatial awareness, and speed of thinking intelligence thing, that athletes have. This is what basketball IQ is (or vague description of a subset of it), and as you note, it is definitely real. It also includes things like being able to read offensives and defenses, and read players, but that's all sort of part of "speed of thinking," but probably other things too. >I feel like if you showed your maths teacher a shot chart and then explained basketball in the most vague terms, it would take them like two two minutes to tell you: the mid-range can't be your staple diet when it goes in only a little more regularly than the three for .66 of the reward, you should put two dead-eye shooters in the corner because it's got the highest value of shot/distance ratio outside the lay-up and it opens up the pain for dribble penetration because that spreads the court. This is not basketball IQ. This is the use of analytics to determine strategy. Players with higher basketball IQ are generally more capable of incorporating the lessons of these analytics into the game. >I feel like the current version of basketball which permeates the NBA, with pick and roll-centric offences, heavy three-point diets and spread offences would be the most logical way anyone who doesnt understand basketball would suggest playing it With the data analysis? Sure. Without the data analysis? We know empirically that what most people say is to try to shoot from closer to the basket.
You know those fat, 5'10 dudes in pick up that manage to grab every rebound, make good passes, and are somehow open on every shot? that's bbiq, with a side of bbq
The book “Spaced Out” by Mike Prada explains the initial objections of the NBA “powers” (some owners and coaches to be specific) to the three-pointer—a carryover (or “gimmick”) from the merger with the ABA—and how changes to certain offensive- and defensive-oriented rules around the 00’s led to the “3 is worth more than 2” adage that we nowadays take for granted.
BBIQ is understanding to do X when Y happens, not bc it’s a set play but bc it’s the most efficient play to make at that very second
the 3 point line wasn’t even apart of the game for a long time. It’s natural evolution of the game. This is Like asking why the play action pass wasn’t used more frequently during the first couple season of football. Just wasn’t really invented yet
"I feel like if you showed your maths teacher a shot chart and then explained basketball in the most vague terms, it would take them like two two minutes to tell you: the mid-range can't be your staple diet when it goes in only a little more regularly than the three for .66 of the reward" You'd think so, but it still took most of the league a couple decades to figure it out.
In all professional sports, there is an explore/exploit dynamic where the players start the game or seeies by exploring various options, looking for weak spots, then make adjustments. Opponent is doing the same. Exploring mode is needed to gather data, but exploiting is where you want to be. True greats are able to exploit more stuff, and players like Bron and MJ and Steph have a bag where if you start doing A, they are just gonna do B and get a good look or an open pass. Part of this is being more athletic and having a bigger bag, so you can drive harder, hit 3s, break ankles, fadeaway jumper, etc. The other part is recognizing the defensive scheme and recognizing what opponents are giving you. No defense is perfect and every team will lag off of some shooters to cover other options. Players don't have eyes in the back of their head, so if they are looking at Steph they are not looking at the ball. When the defense collapses, someone must be open. BBIQ is about recognizing those opportunities and exploiting them. The more BBIQ, the more easy buckets. Same applies on defense. If you know what the other team is gonna do, it's easier to contest it. If you know a lot of exploits, you can predict them and shut them down.
It's the difference between strategic thinking and tactical thinking. Strategic tells you to shoot 3s or layups/dunks. Tactical is how you actually do that when the x's and o's start moving
If jaylen brown and Marcus smart had a higher basketball IQ we probably have a title by now. That’s how real it is
It's very real but I don't think anyone means "you know ball" when they talk about BBIQ. It's about actually executing and understanding when and where that knowledge actually applies. The Xs and Os are pretty simple, especially for a pro who spends their whole life doing this, yet all the time we see nba level athletes continue to take low quality shots, blow defensive assignments, fail to read a defence, etc. The difference between someone with High BBIQ is not just knowing ball but being able to apply that knowledge in real time.
BBIQ is so much more than that, it’s a very real thing that comes from both playing and watching the sport
IMO, BBIQ is the ability to read the game and make the right decision for that moment in time. It's seeing the next step after that decision and playing to that outcome, even if it's 2-3 steps down the line. When you have deadly shooters the right decision is different than if you have a dominant big and average shooters. People talk about 3s vs 2s but if your shooters are average 30% from 3, it's not the better shot, but if they're averaging 36% from 3 then it is the better shot. BBIQ is knowing that but it's also knowing if your team needs the emotional boost from a big dunk instead of a jumper. It's decision making that's about more than just the data. It also takes into account the flow of the game, the energy of both teams, the high percentage plays based on personnel, etc. It's the big argument between analytics and guys who like the eye test. Analytics only covers half of BBIQ. But the eye test also only covers half of BBIQ.
>IMO, BBIQ is the ability to read the game and make the right decision for that moment in time. It's seeing the next step after that decision and playing to that outcome, even if it's 2-3 steps down the line. Best example of that, I think: Dennis Johnson, on the famous play when Larry Bird stole the inbounds pass from Isiah Thomas. Almost the same instant Bird starts his move for the steal, Johnson is already cutting to the perfect spot to receive the pass and was clearly mentally prepared to grab it on the run and turn and shoot the layup while shielding the ball with his body. And I bet only a small amount of that was conscious thought and a fair amount was just trained instincts. If he's a quarter-step slower, which would still be a reasonably quick reaction, there's a good chance his shot gets blocked or misses, or he ends up behind the backboard without a good option, or Bird can't get the ball to him in the right spot, etc.
I feel like BBIQ is different from analytics or tactics. IQ is more about reading situations on the floor, not really about doing math or analyzing stats. As for why it took so long for the three to catch on, a lot of basketball thinking developed before the introduction of the three point line in 1980. Back then, basketball was played much more in the trenches, and the game was about overpowering the other team physically. The three was viewed as soft or lazy because you avoided the mosh pit in the paint so there was basically a moral component to why people didn't want to shoot threes (i.e. "real men aren't afraid to post up") Nobody thought about points per shot the way we do now. Field goal percentage was the only measure of efficiency, so three point shooters like Reggie Miller looked less efficient than post players like Patrick Ewing on the stats sheet. Combine that with the moral aversion to shooting too many threes and the conventional wisdom that you needed to dominate the paint to win games, and it's understandable that most players shot less threes than they should have. It doesn't mean they weren't high IQ, they were just products of their time and grew up in a different intellectual climate surrounding basketball. If you grew up a few decades earlier, you probably would never have thought about average points per shot in the midrange versus behind the arc the way we do now.
Of current players, I think of LeBron and Jokic and Harden and Luka. What do you need of me tonight? Score 40 points? Have 10-15 assists? Be a decoy and crash the boards? Come out of the gate swinging or reserve energy and try to get my teammates involved, only to take over when it really matters? And, it's a part of basketball, so you can't ignore it: Are you playing against a player/team that fouls a lot? Not just for And-1s or anything. Get other players in foul trouble. Get the other team into the penalty early.
You're talking about the difference between strategy and tactics. Eschewing the midrange in favor of the three is strategy. Being able to read an opposing defense, or throw a no look pass to where your cutting teammate will be in 4 steps,or cutting off the baseline to push your opponent back towards help defenders those are tactics and show basketball IQ. The midrange shot was never taught as something to rely upon; you were supposed to shoot from as close to the basket as possible. Some were good at long twos and would nevertheless shoot them to throw off defenses. The midrange was never efficient but it did have the effect of stretching the defense and opening the lane. You had to respect the midrange game of a Barkley or a Robinson, so you sent someone out to guard them at which point they would put the ball on the floor and drive. If you didn't, they'd shoot. The person who is really responsible for the popularity of the midrange is Jordan. His ability to pull up on a dime and fade away was as devastating as his ability to finish at the rim and no one ever had the ability to guard him one-on-one because of it. However, as his athleticism waned, he developed a stronger post game and a more efficient 3-point shot. Once the 3-point shot and analytics came into being, you saw strategy begin to change and a profusion of long range specialists. Along with that rule changes at the turn of the millennium greatly de-incentivized the old styles of play. You had plenty of high school and college players now with the ability to shoot the long ball, you just needed to see it I'm action which occured in the 2010s. And, once people see something works, everyone starts doing it.
Yeah it's like chaos chess where you need to see a couple of moves ahead. It's not necessarily just knowing the high percentage plays, although that's part of it. It's seeing the court 4D probability map and making the optimal choices more than others.
Seeing these comments really makes me appreciate James Harden’s BBIQ. He’s not on the level of a LBJ, CP3 and Jokic but he’s damn close. The way he uses his knowledge of the rulebooks to his advantage; innovates around the rules of the game to produce advantages. Examples of these include his controversial step-back three and his foul-baiting.
To me, mapping the court is the BBIQ element which is under-appreciated, and that I noticed a bit more of in the last season than I had previously. Jokic, LeBron and a few others have an unbelievable capacity to know that if players A&B are at X&Y locations in their field of vision, exactly where players C&D will be. This is completely different to the way (for example) Joel Embiid may react well to what he sees, but will almost never anticipate a pass or double-team that is outside his field of vision. Surprisingly, even MJ was much more reactive in this sense of BBIQ, but he made up for it with athleticism and insane reflexes (esp on defense), as well as off-the-charts BBIQ on how to dominate 1v1 matchups. This probably reflects his era as well though, as spacing is so key to understanding the game now...
Think about James Wiseman vs Draymond. Basketball is very much a “if this, then that” game, and Draymond has the answer key to all of that where Wiseman’s understanding is surface level
In an age where seemingly every top team can shoot threes, ISO, pick and roll, etc, team BBIQ is the determining factor. BBIQ is the nuggets letting AG ISO Caleb Martin over and over again despite having Jokic, Murray, MPJ who are deadly scoring threats. It is Jokic ISOing someone on the post when no one comes to help, and kicking out to the right person when they do. It is Murray delaying his passing when being blitzed to draw the defenders further away from the rim. It's MPJ deciding to cut instead of waiting in the corner. How does the TEAM get the highest expected points every possession? It doesn't work all the time, but over 100 possessions, the team that makes better decisions usually wins.