Does Smart Correlate to Good Basketball?

[hands11]

I believe talent is important also but without smarts on the team, I don't know if talent is ever maximized into winning. I suggest if you want a team to play smart basketball you may want to start with getting smart people on the team.

The scale is 1-10 with 1 being a box of rocks and 10 being a pretty damn smart dude.
Nick and McGee would be near the box of rocks level and Nash, Kobe near the top.

The totals for the starting 5 will likely be most important. Then there will be total for the 9 active since most teams run 8-9 deep for regular minutes.

WIZARDS

Actively playing starters
1-Wall: 5
2-Nick: 2 ( edit 3.30.12 gone. Crawford 5 starting with Manson 9 backing him up.)
3-Singleton: 5 ( edit 3.30.12 added Martin. He is in the 7-8-9 range )
4-Booker: 6
5-McGee: 2 ( edit 3.30.12 gone. Replaced by Nene who is a 10 ) + 8

Total smart of starters = 20 out of 50 ( post trade 31 out of 50 with smarter back up and KS now actively playing)

Actively playing bench
6-Mack 6
7-Crawford: 3 ( Craw is now starting looking more like a 4 or 5 )
8-Ves: 5 ( 3.30.12 later in the season looking more like a 8/9. Smart kid)
9-Lewis: 8 ( 3.30.12 inactive )
Subtotal = 22

Bench not used regularly
10-KS: 4 ( hard to tell with the language barrier and few interviews ) 3.30.12 looking like a 6 or more.
11-Mo Evans: 9
12-Mason 9 ( 3.30.12 now actively playing )

Inactive but on the roster
13-Dray: 4 (3.30.12 inactive working out.)
14-Ronny: 8 (3.30.12 gone. Never really got to contribute because of injuries)

Teams winning percent was .212

I speculate that winning teams and teams on the rise will have higher totals and at least 1 player in the 8 to 9 range starting. And probably few if any players below 5 starting, And if so they will be at PF or C. ( edited 3.20.12 They now fit this mold by adding Nene and losing Nick and McGee )

They really really need help at the SG and SF. They are thin there.

Problem with this team is, all the smarter people are the older, warn out or not talented enough.

[montestewart]

Every single game, during timeouts, they play movie theme music and ask Wizards to identify the movie. Some get it, most don't. McGee gets EVERY SINGLE ONE! And you gave him a 2!! A TWO?? That man is a genius. GEE-KNEE-US!

I'm otherwise impressed with this groundbreaking analysis, which hopefully will prod the Wizards in the direction of balling eugenics, which is the name of my band, incidentally.

[hands11]

Every single game, during timeouts, they play movie theme music and ask Wizards to identify the movie. Some get it, most don't. McGee gets EVERY SINGLE ONE! And you gave him a 2!! A TWO?? That man is a genius. GEE-KNEE-US!

I'm otherwise impressed with this groundbreaking analysis, which hopefully will prod the Wizards in the direction of balling eugenics, which is the name of my band, incidentally.

Well we are getting a round of that with past NBA ballers kids are making their rounds. Had Pam only gotten jiggy with David Robinson instead, JaVale would have some brains to go along with his freak athleticism.

[Nivek]

Probably depends on what you mean by "smart." If you're talking "smart" in the sense of doing well in Calculus or enjoying Albert Camus, then no -- smart is not important. If you're talking "smart" in the sense of making good financial decisions -- no, it's not important. If you're talking "smart" in the sense of being able to learn a playbook, having a good sense for how to play the game, and being able to follow the coaching staff's directions -- then yes, "smart" is vital.

[Zonkerbl]

Interesting question.

bbiq.

What's better, below average bball skills, above average bbiq? Ruffin.

Or above average bball skills, below average bbiq? McGee.

I would take McGee over Ruffin, I think.

Maybe a fairer comparison is Hibbert vs. McGee. I'd take Hibbert.

Did Oakley have good bball skills? Did Rodman? Mark Jackson? Stockton?

Oakley had high athleticism, low skills, high bbiq, I think.

Rodman had high athleticism, low skills, high bbiq.

Mark Jackson had low athleticism, high skills, high bbiq. Same with Stockton.

I think the "tripod" of NBA success is athleticism, skills, and bbiq. I think this is what makes NBA so hard to moneyball. There is no systematic over or underestimation of athleticism or skills. bbiq may be undervalued but then there's Ruffin. No amount of bbiq is going to overcome a lack of athleticism and skill. But there are some hall of fame players with relatively low athleticism (Stockton). There are some hall of fame players with relatively low skill (Rodman).

I think EG overemphasizes athleticism over skills and bbiq. I guess the assumption is if you are athletic and coordinated you can develop a jump shot and eventually learn how to play. But I think it's much easier for a high bbiq player to overcome a lack of athleticism or skills than it is for a highly athletic player to overcome a lack of bbiq. I think that's what we're discovering the hard way.

[verbal8]

I think EG overemphasizes athleticism over skills and bbiq. I guess the assumption is if you are athletic and coordinated you can develop a jump shot and eventually learn how to play. But I think it's much easier for a high bbiq player to overcome a lack of athleticism or skills than it is for a highly athletic player to overcome a lack of bbiq. I think that's what we're discovering the hard way.

I think what we have seen with the Wizards is that even being very gifted in one area, does not compensate if the other two are lacking. I think the EG teams started out looking for skill and ignoring other criteria. Recently it seems that athleticism has been most valued. There have been some guys along the way who have fulfilled all 3 areas a decent amount(Arenas and Wall), but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

[hands11]

Probably depends on what you mean by "smart." If you're talking "smart" in the sense of doing well in Calculus or enjoying Albert Camus, then no -- smart is not important. If you're talking "smart" in the sense of making good financial decisions -- no, it's not important. If you're talking "smart" in the sense of being able to learn a playbook, having a good sense for how to play the game, and being able to follow the coaching staff's directions -- then yes, "smart" is vital.

Smart can be tough to quantify but not so much in the sense of what I am asking.

If you can learn calculus, then I would suspect you can learn a basketball play so if you are that smart, I would use that as an indicator. Lin is smart.

Good financial decisions is a large topic. You could be smart by just selecting the right person or company to handle that for you. I guess some might call that wise. Im not sure. Or are we talking can you read a 10K or a balance sheet. I think those things would lend themselves toward the ability to focus on a topic and learn so yes, that would be smart.

And when I say smart, it isn't to displace talent. I'm saying it is needed in addition and at some point, I would take a little less talent for someone who is smarter. Also, I think it is more important that your PG, SG and or SF are these smarter types. Now if all you want your SG to do is catch and shoot, then they don't need to be as smart as someone who handles the ball and help lead the team.

Examples: The main thing separating Kobe from LeBron is that Koke is smarter. LeBron has more physical tools but Kobe is more emotionally smart and I would guess just overall more smart. Duncan is also smart as are several Spurs.

In football we are talking Payton Manning smart vs L Taylor - talented vs London Fletcher smart. Lacey was smart. Jack, not so much so. Which brings up a good point. Some players are such physical mismatches that they can get away with not being all that smart. Shaq may not be the sharpest but I think he is pretty smart. And even if he wasn't, he was a physical freak. Honestly, I think D Howard would be even better if he was a little smarter. He doesn't strike me as the sharpest tack in the box.

It is usually pretty clear who is smart or smarter players are and who are not. McGee isnt. Nick isn't. Isiah Thomas is. Rodman isn't. Magic yes. Strickland no.

That kind of smart. As a team, the Wizards are not all that smart and the ones who are like Lewis, Mo and Mason are over the hill or not talented enough. Mo may have something left in the tank but he was been injured and not likely a player on the team moving forward. Lewis has knee problems and will be gone. That really only leaves Ronny who is also injured.

This team need to add smarter players, not just talent. At least that is my take on things and I narrow that down mostly to PG, SG and SF. I can live with a McGee not being as smart if I have those other positions covered.

[hands11]

I think the "tripod" of NBA success is athleticism, skills, and bbiq. I think this is what makes NBA so hard to moneyball. There is no systematic over or underestimation of athleticism or skills. bbiq may be undervalued but then there's Ruffin. No amount of bbiq is going to overcome a lack of athleticism and skill. But there are some hall of fame players with relatively low athleticism (Stockton). There are some hall of fame players with relatively low skill (Rodman).

I think EG overemphasizes athleticism over skills and bbiq. I guess the assumption is if you are athletic and coordinated you can develop a jump shot and eventually learn how to play. But I think it's much easier for a high bbiq player to overcome a lack of athleticism or skills than it is for a highly athletic player to overcome a lack of bbiq. I think that's what we're discovering the hard way.

---

Yes, that is the general direction I was looking. But add to it the composition of the team. The ball handlers PG, SG, SF separate from PF and Centers. No doubt having a smart PF like Dirk or Duncan is a huge plus. Same with Robinson. Actually I would even say it was because Robinson was so smart that Duncan and him worked at all. He was the star player and he made room for Duncan. That was in part because he was smart and mature.

It has to be on the team some where. Those MJ Chicago teams where pretty smart. Rodman not being smart was always overcome by other smart players on the team and even then, as you said, Rodman had basketball smarts and an incredible motor and unique physical skills. And the game was made easy for him because of the other smart players. He was asked to do what he did well. run, jump, rebound and finish plays when passed the ball in stride. He knew what he wasn't good at and he focused on what he was good at. And they had a really smart coach. That makes a difference also.

[Zonkerbl]

Rodman was a smart (bbiq) player. He was the point of the spear of the triangle offense and you can't be as good as he was at defense without being smart. Defense is all bbiq.

[willbcocks]

I would change athleticism to physical ability, although clearly it's a matter of how you define each. Strength and size are just as important as jumping ability/quickness/speed, which is how we tend to use the term athleticism.

Otherwise, one could argue that Vesley has 2 of the 3--athleticism and bbiq, while in reality he is overmatched physically on a regular basis.

[doclinkin]

Oakley had high athleticism, low skills, high bbiq, I think.

I think the "tripod" of NBA success is athleticism, skills, and bbiq. I think this is what makes NBA so hard to moneyball. There is no systematic over or underestimation of athleticism or skills.

There are some hall of fame players with relatively low skill (Rodman).

I think EG overemphasizes athleticism over skills and bbiq. I guess the assumption is if you are athletic and coordinated you can develop a jump shot and eventually learn how to play. But I think it's much easier for a high bbiq player to overcome a lack of athleticism or skills than it is for a highly athletic player to overcome a lack of bbiq. I think that's what we're discovering the hard way.

I'd put a fourth corner to that foundation: competitiveness. Desire. Will to win.

I would make a distinction between BBIQ and Will. Players like LeBron have unparalleled athleticism, superior skills, high bbiq, but measure a notch short in that category of 'competitive rage'. This is the category that makes champions. Larry Bird was by no measure the greatest athlete at the small forward position, but he laps and passes LeBron in the category of Will.

Oakley was low in 'athleticism' except as a measure of fire-hardened obdurate strength. He couldn't jump over a grain of rice, but if he had a spot on the floor you couldn't budge him from it. However he excelled in the category of Will to Win. Best example of the contrast was a first round playoff game between the Nets and Nix. The league wanted to send a message that the Pat Riley Thug Ball was not going to be tolerated in the postseason that year. Pat Ewing was fouled out in the first half. At home. In the Garden. Back when that meant something. Back when the City of NYC still had its testicles.

The wall of sound roar that came from the bleachers, and you can guess the verbiage, never let up for the rest of the game. And neither did Oakley who finished with 24 points 25 boards. The photo in the paper the next day showed Oak with a berserker stare snatching at a ball and the highly skilled, athletic, and pretty smart (or articulate anyway, if you caught him in an unguarded moment) Derrick Coleman flinching away to get out of the picture. Oak played into his 40's (right?) in large part because of that will to win. Coleman quit as soon as he made a bit of money, even while he was still on the roster.

To me that's the key category that helps a player improve from year to year and overachieve. At the NBA level all players are world-class in at least one of the above categories. But the champions have at least one leader who excels in the category of Will/Desire.

Here's another hack at measuring intangibles:

Cho: I talk about the four C's as a guideline (for what you want): Guys who compete, guys with character, guys who have consistency and guys who cover (play both ends of the floor).

And then there are four S's (that you don't want). Maybe you can have one of these, but: Guys who are slow, guys who are soft, guys who are stupid or guys who are selfish.

here

Slow = athleticism
soft = desire
stupid/selfish = BBIQ C

[Zonkerbl]

Hate to say it but Karl Malone had a tendency to wilt under pressure.

[hands11]

Smart gets the vote tonight in MIL


Mason very smart in
Nick box of rock out

Mo very smart in
McGee box of rock out

So they went from

1-Wall: 5
2-Nick: 2
3-Singleton: 5
4-Booker: 6
5-McGee: 2
Total 22

to

1-Wall: 5
2-Mason: 9
3-Mo Evans 9
4-Singleton: 5
5-Booker: 6
Total 34

Plus 12 in smarts and a 50 % increase. Also follows my idea of no one on the floor dumber then a 5. And with smarter players on the floor, I may even bump Wall up to a 6. Actually it looked like Wall, Singleton and Booker could all maybe get a plus 1. Even Crawford is looking a little smarter out there with no Nick or McGee.

Could you tell the difference ?

The still would need to upgrade this kind of smarter line up with more talent. Mason and Mo are getting long in the tooth but it does help to paint the picture. Nick has to go. He is simply to stupid. Ya ya.. most defiantly. most defiantly

[hands11]

I would change athleticism to physical ability, although clearly it's a matter of how you define each. Strength and size are just as important as jumping ability/quickness/speed, which is how we tend to use the term athleticism.

Otherwise, one could argue that Vesley has 2 of the 3--athleticism and bbiq, while in reality he is overmatched physically on a regular basis.

And that is why drafting someone like him high in the draft is not a mistake. I can now see he was EGs insurance against McGee stupidness. He is a similar prospect only he has the BBIQ from the start. And he is actually stronger then McGee was his first year.

His BBIQ is really off the charts for someone his age. Both passing offensively, and positioning on both offense and defense. The kid really understands the game and plays smart. He has good instincts. He is way ahead of where McGee was his first year.

He is athletic. He can run. He is coordinated. He can jump and change direction. He can even handle the ball some. He plays position defense with leverage and he can time it up to block shots and alley opps.

[hands11]

And to that he is getting stronger. He showed up to camp stronger then I thought he would be and now he look even stronger still. Most of us though the kid would be a bean poll. And he has the all important lower body strength. Something McGee may never have because McGee has no butt. You can see when Ves is running that he has lower body strength and a lower center of gravity.

So basically by this test, he already has two of the three and the all important one, BBIQ. And the does have some skills as well. All he is really lacking is more offensive skills. If and when he adds that, you have the making of the triple play. The kid can add a shot. He has good form. I have little doubt he will add at least an average outside midrange. Look how much better Booker looks this year and he doesn't even have that great form.

There really is little reason to worry about Ves. He is going to be a good basketball player. In fact, he has a good chance to be a very good player. If McGee intrigued you, you should really be intrigued by Vesely. A little more strength, experience and a 10-12 footer is going to totally change his game. Once he hits the 10-12 footer, then he will be able to drive. And he won't only drive, he will drive and dish. He already has great court vision. Give the kid at least one offseason. He hasnt even had that yet.

I think Ves is a better prospect then McGee. He is a similar athlete with a stronger lower body and way better basketball IQ. Vesely made McGee expendable and they got Nene for him. Brilliant actually. Its looking more and more like Ves was never drafted as SF like we thought. He was drafted to make McGee expendable.

Who knows if he ends up a PF or a Center but for now, he is looking like he could play either. And that is good. Its a quality of a lot of good front court players.

Nene, Kevin and Vesley gives you a nice blend of talent. Nene is the vet that can do it all but Kevin and Ves are real nice prospects. Kevin is more power and a year ahead of Ves so he has a little more polish to his game. Ves is more length. I like the front court as it is right now. And that isnt even mentioning Booker.

Nene makes a huge difference. We traded a guy who was maybe a 2 in smarts for a guy that is a 10. And with Nene, KS is looking smarter. I would up him to at least a 6 or 7 now. And we got ride of another guy that was a 2 in Nick. Great trade for EG. And actually a good pick in getting Vesely.

[Severn Hoos]

Answer to the topic question: Yes.

[hands11]

Oakley had high athleticism, low skills, high bbiq, I think.

I think the "tripod" of NBA success is athleticism, skills, and bbiq. I think this is what makes NBA so hard to moneyball. There is no systematic over or underestimation of athleticism or skills.

There are some hall of fame players with relatively low skill (Rodman).

I think EG overemphasizes athleticism over skills and bbiq. I guess the assumption is if you are athletic and coordinated you can develop a jump shot and eventually learn how to play. But I think it's much easier for a high bbiq player to overcome a lack of athleticism or skills than it is for a highly athletic player to overcome a lack of bbiq. I think that's what we're discovering the hard way.

I'd put a fourth corner to that foundation: competitiveness. Desire. Will to win.

I would make a distinction between BBIQ and Will. Players like LeBron have unparalleled athleticism, superior skills, high bbiq, but measure a notch short in that category of 'competitive rage'. This is the category that makes champions. Larry Bird was by no measure the greatest athlete at the small forward position, but he laps and passes LeBron in the category of Will.

Oakley was low in 'athleticism' except as a measure of fire-hardened obdurate strength. He couldn't jump over a grain of rice, but if he had a spot on the floor you couldn't budge him from it. However he excelled in the category of Will to Win. Best example of the contrast was a first round playoff game between the Nets and Nix. The league wanted to send a message that the Pat Riley Thug Ball was not going to be tolerated in the postseason that year. Pat Ewing was fouled out in the first half. At home. In the Garden. Back when that meant something. Back when the City of NYC still had its testicles.

The wall of sound roar that came from the bleachers, and you can guess the verbiage, never let up for the rest of the game. And neither did Oakley who finished with 24 points 25 boards. The photo in the paper the next day showed Oak with a berserker stare snatching at a ball and the highly skilled, athletic, and pretty smart (or articulate anyway, if you caught him in an unguarded moment) Derrick Coleman flinching away to get out of the picture. Oak played into his 40's (right?) in large part because of that will to win. Coleman quit as soon as he made a bit of money, even while he was still on the roster.

To me that's the key category that helps a player improve from year to year and overachieve. At the NBA level all players are world-class in at least one of the above categories. But the champions have at least one leader who excels in the category of Will/Desire.

Here's another hack at measuring intangibles:

Cho: I talk about the four C's as a guideline (for what you want): Guys who compete, guys with character, guys who have consistency and guys who cover (play both ends of the floor).

And then there are four S's (that you don't want). Maybe you can have one of these, but: Guys who are slow, guys who are soft, guys who are stupid or guys who are selfish.

here

Slow = athleticism
soft = desire
stupid/selfish = BBIQ C

Doc, I dont think that is will to win he is lacking. I think the forth peg you are talking about is emotional strength. He wants to win. He has that desire. What he lacks if mental control of his emotions. Mostly his fears. It is something the plagued Pippen early in his career. He couldnt handle the pressure. His nerves got to him. What you are talking about is the ability of a player to not choke. To force on the mechanics of what he is doing regardless of the situation. There is no difference in shooting a FT in the season opener then there is in the final seconds of a tied game for the championship. The mechanics are the same. Only your emotions let you know it is different. Winners winner with strong control of their emotions can block all of the situational information out and force on the job at hand. They have ice in their blood. Single minded focus.

I think that is different then having a will or desire. That is needed also. So I guess we have 5 things.

Athletic
BBIQ
Skills
Will/Desire
Emotional Control

[DallasShalDune]

http://blogs.thescore.com/tbj/2012/04/0 ... e-of-ways/

Sometimes I wonder about professional athletes.

[doclinkin]

Doc, I dont think that is will to win he is lacking. I think the forth peg you are talking about is emotional strength.

No. I'm talking about will:

will
1.
a. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses [...] a course of action.
b. The act of exercising the will.

2.
a. Diligent purposefulness; determination.
b. Self-control; self-discipline

'Will to win' implies the ability to impose your will upon a situation, to overrule all other considerations or distractions other than to focus on the goal. This is the facet that drives players who succeed despite lesser talents: they hate to lose more than they enjoy winning, and this whitehot furnace of competetive fire burns out impurities like doubt, etc. To me this is a key component of a player's talent: their evident emotional make-up and desire to overcome obstacles. Themselves included.

Also I have no idea which 'he' you're talking about. If you think you're arguing a point, it ain't with me.

[doclinkin]

For an example where will to win may trump standard measures of intelligence, check any and all interviews with Michael Kidd Gilchrist.

He may just be an uncomfortable interview, unsure of himself before a camera, but his affect is that of a LD kid. Hesitation, pause, searching for words, answering questions that weren't asked or answering with pet phrases that don't relate, drifting off mid-sentence, commonly answering: "I don't really know how to explain it"... That sort of thing. And these aren't GRE board questions, generally they're about the game he just played a few minutes ago and his role in it.

But on court his reflexive decisions and defensive cunning and sense of being in the moment are unquestioned. His justification for his desire to play defense no matter the opposition: "I just hate to lose."