Moderators: Senor Chang, Morten Jensen, moocow007, Blame Rasho, KingCuban, magnumt, Rhettmatic, tsherkin, LittleOzzy, Yuri Vaultin, Gremz, UGA Hayes, HMFFL, Flash3, Basti, NO-KG-AI
by sprint2thecup on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:07 pm
eablinksum wrote:99% of statistics are made up.
nice.
real gm logic;
"kobe scored 48 points tonight"
"^small sample size"
-

sprint2thecup
- Senior
-
- Posts: 729
- And1: 10
- Joined: May 28, 2012
by Zubby on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:07 pm
sprint2thecup, The better question is why take it so literal?
calm down, get over it, its not important... English nerd
-

Zubby
- Lead Assistant
-
- Posts: 5183
- And1: 44
- Joined: Feb 17, 2005
by shawngoat23 on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:07 pm
Dribbling is a made up stat.
penbeast0 wrote:Yes, he did. And as a mod, I can't even put him on ignore . . . sigh.
-

shawngoat23
- Assistant Coach
-
- Posts: 4388
- And1: 23
- Joined: Apr 17, 2008
by sprint2thecup on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:10 pm
Doctor MJ wrote:sprint2thecup wrote:jstnw89 wrote:How can it be a made up stat? It's not even a stat because it's not quantifiable.
that's exactly my point.
Intelligence Quotient (IQ)
IS quantifiable. there is an examination that produces a quotient such as 98 or 112. if you cannot get that quotient, then it's NOT an IQ.
IQ has a correlating number, always.
Right so you're a fundamentalist who has trouble with nuance.
People say "BBIQ" because it's quick and easy to say. They mean "basketball intelligence"
i'm glad we agree.
i just wish people would stop parading it around like it's truly quantifiable, and not just subjective. people always say stuff like "LOL westbrook has no basketball IQ", it's dumb. why bother adding the term "quotient" when it's clearly not there?
real gm logic;
"kobe scored 48 points tonight"
"^small sample size"
-

sprint2thecup
- Senior
-
- Posts: 729
- And1: 10
- Joined: May 28, 2012
by jstnw89 on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:11 pm
"LOL westbrook is a really dumb player", better?
-
jstnw89
- Sixth Man
-
- Posts: 1787
- And1: 14
- Joined: Jul 13, 2010
by Doctor MJ on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:12 pm
sprint2thecup wrote:i just wish people would stop parading it around like it's truly quantifiable, and not just subjective. people always say stuff like "LOL westbrook has no basketball IQ", it's dumb. why bother adding the term "quotient" when it's clearly not there?
Pretty much no one anywhere has ever said the word "quotient" when talking about basketball. They use IQ as an abbreviation for intelligence because they don't want to have to say or spell "intelligence", that's all.
-

Doctor MJ
- Senior Mod
-
- Posts: 28697
- And1: 102
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Treys are for Kicks!
by nyhuskyfan on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:13 pm
And nobody should say "wingspan" until players actually grow wings and start flying.
-
nyhuskyfan
- Junior
-
- Posts: 390
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jul 6, 2007
by peja drobnjak on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:13 pm
high functioning autism: the thread

Turbo Zone
-
peja drobnjak
- Starter
-
- Posts: 2485
- And1: 37
- Joined: Dec 3, 2011
by bigbreakfast on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:14 pm
which region has the highest bbqiq? memphis? texas? carolinas? kansas city?
Lin is like that ex-girlfriend to bitter Knicks fans. They swear she's no good and they're better off without her, but they can't stop talking about her every opportunity they get.
-
bigbreakfast
- Pro Prospect
-
- Posts: 850
- And1: 7
- Joined: May 3, 2008
by jamesnamida on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:14 pm
basketball, like any other sport, is a subject that you can study.
you study the theory behind the game, the plays, etc.
then you practice in real life, get to know the speed of the game, actually seeing the passing lanes and passing the ball.
not so different from being a surgeon.
study it in theory, practice it in real life. get better.
Everyone has a best subject, and with today's advanced developments in science, the increasing volumes of history and literature, it's harder to become a polymath.
Most of us are specialized in a field.
but doesn't mean that we are all equals in such fields. depends on how much effort is put in, successful ways of learning and practicing, and most importantly, how your brain has developed since childhood. your ability to absorb new information. of course, more so than sports, there's many other elements in professional fields, mainly social-economical elements, that pertain to your success.
However, physical, genetic elements pertain to the success of sports more so than most other fields.
basketball IQ is only maximized if you have the physical tools too.
Even if you see open lanes in your mind, if you're too slow to get there, well then.
basketball iq can be quantified as much as a SAT test. but it's what it is, doesn't mean that much.
but no theres no current quantification in the league today, just people saying player x has good iq, based on their on court decisions, which reflect on their understanding of how the game is played, and what is the best move for each situation.
though i do believe players who pick up and understand basketball 5vs5 theory quickly and easily, can be successful in most other fields than a player who just doesn't get it.
Mostly because of their ability to learn new things, they probably know the most successful way for themselves to learn and think.
-

jamesnamida
- Pro Prospect
-
- Posts: 978
- And1: 16
- Joined: Mar 5, 2011
by Guy986 on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:14 pm
Why they call it french fries? The fries i ordered in Mcdonalds aint fried by a french.

-

Guy986
- RealGM
-
- Posts: 16846
- And1: 83
- Joined: Oct 8, 2005
- Location: Positivity
by JDs_loot on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:16 pm
Inigo_Montoya wrote:Epic straw man
You obviously don't know what a straw man argument is.
-
JDs_loot
- Senior
-
- Posts: 653
- And1: 8
- Joined: Aug 4, 2012
by EzeDoesIt on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:18 pm
This is a funny topic

But just to clarify, BBIQ is a basketball term, not really any different from the way "rebound" is a basketball term. The words mean different things in a basketball context.
BBIQ just seems to be your awareness on the court (offensive only, as players like Nash/ Kobe tend to get credited with amazing BBIQs but not players like Dwight [when he was good]).
-

EzeDoesIt
- Junior
-
- Posts: 454
- And1: 7
- Joined: May 31, 2012
by sprint2thecup on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:18 pm
jstnw89 wrote:"LOL westbrook is a really dumb player", better?
if you really mean it then yes, but westbrook ISN'T a dumb player. the "basketball IQ" slang term is made up exactly to attack good players like westbrook, who ball hard but do not appear intelligent.
real gm logic;
"kobe scored 48 points tonight"
"^small sample size"
-

sprint2thecup
- Senior
-
- Posts: 729
- And1: 10
- Joined: May 28, 2012
by sunskerr on Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:26 pm
nyhuskyfan wrote:It's a colloquial term. It isn't math. Nobody has ever pretended it was math.
Why do they talk about "wingspan". That's not biologically accurate. Nobody is playing with feathers.
Well, I dont know about that...

design by triplemke23
-

sunskerr
- Analyst
-
- Posts: 3196
- And1: 38
- Joined: Feb 19, 2010
Return to General NBA Discussion
Users browsing this forum: Antrim, Apollo2, azuresou1, babycry14, Big Rondo, bigpimpatl, Bodhi, bongmarley, Brooklyn718, Bubstubbler, ChildOfKemp, CoreyGallagher, Dat Pass, defjux21, Djthegreat88, Doddage, Dupas, FairDinkum, fallacy, fast-break, FlopShow2013, Gibby, Google [Bot], HotRocks34, JNelson43, kaitanuva, kotlz, Laazard, lightfoot, mademan, markdeez33, Mr. Crowley, MrHidden, Niko23, nmabdi28, Nuntius, OtW, qotsa, queridiculo, Raptors911, RayBan-Sematra, SalamiNCheez, schaffy, seren, SideshowBob, SST, Tien, torotoe, USA, xStanton27, yellowsub264