UCF thoughts.

[Gurleyman]

So name all of the high BBall IQ players who shoot 50% from the line.

Doug Gottlieb was one of the best passing point guards you'll ever see. Couldn't hit a FT.

 

[champs99and04]

Rajon Rondo and Daniel Hamilton also have low basketball IQs.

 

[7774]

So name all of the high BBall IQ players who shoot 50% from the line.

You just really don't get what basketball IQ is, huh?

 

[4UConn]

IMO, Purvis plays very much like a freshman. I think he will mature into a consistently good guard by his senior year, particularly if he can step it up on the defensive end.

 

[Cheeky]

I'd say that Shaq

What about Shaq's game leads you to conclude that he had a high BBIQ? guy was a physical specimen whose game consisted almost entirely of bulling his way to the rim for dunks and short shots. If that's the best example you've, got, then oh my.

BTW - Shaq had an eye issue, which is why his FT shooting was so poor.

 

[David 76]

Cheeky = troll.

 

[Rocktheworld]

If you told me the stats from last night and asked me to guess the margin of victory, I'd have guessed between 15 and 20. I still don't even understand how they only won by 7. Was it the foul shooting? They didn't even get to the line that much. Was it the rebounding margin?

We shot 46% from the line
They got a bunch of and-1

Pretty crazy that we shot better from 3 than from the line

 

[Doheny]

If you told me the stats from last night and asked me to guess the margin of victory, I'd have guessed between 15 and 20. I still don't even understand how they only won by 7.

I was at the game, and thought the same.

 

[RichZ]

Since I got to watch women's tennis instead of most of the game, I had a few other thoughts after watching the whole replay a couple times.

1. After watching it, yeah, there was nothing wrong with DHam's jumper last night. He just didn't take enough of them! Maybe his best game as a Husky.
2. Omar was 4 for 5 when he threw down that beautiful dunk with 8:19 left in the 1st half. His ball control with one hand on that power move was excellent, and it might just have been the most athletic play he's ever completed at UConn. But he missed his next 3 point attempt, then disappeared until he blew a breakaway layup with about 2:35 left in the half, and had an unremarkable 2nd half. After his 4 for 5 start, he was a worrisome 0 for 4 for the rest of the game. Did he tweak his hip on the dunk, or am I being paranoid?
3. Lubin's T. The announcers had no idea what happened and guessed (correctly) that it had to be something Rock said. Then Lappas started preaching about it being a good call, and that he would sit Lubin because you can't have trash talking on the court, blah,blah,blah. Then Catalon chimes in about it being a very experienced group of officials. Why do they always say something about how good/experienced the officials are following a questionable call?
4. About 14:00 mark in the 2nd half, after AB had torched them on several lobs, UCF started just pushing him every time the lob was attempted. Their big guy was involved, but Blair seemed to be the one getting the most physical. They called the foul the first couple times, but at 12:48, Blair just backed under him as he elevated to catch the lob, and put Amida on the floor, directly in front of the ref. It was by far the most egregious foul of the group. No call.
5. 11:53, Purvis appeared to air ball a soft hook on the drive. On replay, it looked more like it was intended as another lob to Brimah, who wasn't expecting it, and didn't elevate, but did catch it. Then he was fouled yet again when he caught it and tried to go up with it. Late in the game, Boat "missed a short jumper" that it appeared was also intended as a pass to AB, but I think he drove a step or two too far, and it got pretty crowded under the hoop. McBride was actually holding Amida down.
6. Andrew Catalon is one of the better play-by-play guys in the game. Keeps you informed without interjecting too much opinion or attempt at embellishment. Probably learned to avoid trying to be clever when he had to apologize for the "hack-a-polack" uproar at Gonzaga a couple years ago. Wish he had a gig at a real network. Unfortunately he's teamed with Steve Lappas, who is one of the more annoying color men. When he talks about what he would have done in a situation that just happened in the game, I always wonder why anyone would care what a coach who was barely over 50% for his career would do.

 

[johnhuskies95]

What about Shaq's game leads you to conclude that he had a high BBIQ? guy was a physical specimen whose game consisted almost entirely of bulling his way to the rim for dunks and short shots. If that's the best example you've, got, then oh my.

BTW - Shaq had an eye issue, which is why his FT shooting was so poor.

If you watch Shaq in his prime, he had tons of moves and counters. He had a great offensive mind and was a good passer. He had a plenty good BBIQ.

But he's not the best example or the only example.

 

[champs99and04]

Cheeky still hasn't countered my Rondo example. Guy is 16 for 53 from the line this year and is considered to have one of the best IQ's in the league.

 

[imno1]

What about Shaq's game leads you to conclude that he had a high BBIQ? guy was a physical specimen whose game consisted almost entirely of bulling his way to the rim for dunks and short shots. If that's the best example you've, got, then oh my.

BTW - Shaq had an eye issue, which is why his FT shooting was so poor.

Not to hijack the thread but there have been plenty of big guys in the league. Shaq is a top 5 big man of all time. You got to have some bb smarts to be that dominant.

 

[Cheeky]

Cheeky still hasn't countered my Rondo example. Guy is 16 for 53 from the line this year and is considered to have one of the best IQ's in the league.

The original hypothesis was that low FT% and Low BBIQ are correlated.
One counter-example does not dismiss the entire correlation.
Hardly.
And I don't agree Shaq had a high BB IQ. Guy used his 50 pound advantage and athleticism to score.

 

[pj]

It's going to be anti-correlated in the NBA. You have to be great at something to make the NBA. If you can't shoot free throws, you can't shoot at all, so you'd better have an off-the-charts bball IQ like Rondo. But if you can shoot well, you can survive without a great bball IQ.

At the high school level low FT% and low BBIQ are correlated, because both are indicators that you don't care about the game much and don't eat, drink, and sleep it. Or at least don't practice enough. But in the NBA, they are inversely correlated.

 

[champs99and04]

The original hypothesis was that low FT% and Low BBIQ are correlated.
One counter-example does not dismiss the entire correlation.
Hardly.
And I don't agree Shaq had a high BB IQ. Guy used his 50 pound advantage and athleticism to score.

OK. That's not really what you said, though. And your point still doesn't make sense. Maybe there's a loose correlation there somewhere between work ethic and basketball IQ, but free throw shooting - like any form of shooting - is first a matter of muscle memory and then the ability to concentrate under pressure after that. As pj says above, there may be a stronger correlation at the youth levels, where there is a stronger relationship between commitment to the game and performance, but at this level, where at the very least players are mandated to shoot a certain amount of free throws per day, it makes a lot less sense, particularly when some of the smartest players to ever play the game have struggled at the foul line.

 

[Gurleyman]

It's going to be anti-correlated in the NBA. You have to be great at something to make the NBA. If you can't shoot free throws, you can't shoot at all, so you'd better have an off-the-charts bball IQ like Rondo. But if you can shoot well, you can survive without a great bball IQ. At the high school level low FT% and low BBIQ are correlated, because both are indicators that you don't care about the game much and don't eat, drink, and sleep it. Or at least don't practice enough. But in the NBA, they are inversely correlated.

BBIQ to me refers to a players ability to understand game situations - time and score, reading defenses, knowing when to attack and went to pull back, not helping off your man when your man is Ray Allen, etc. There is no IQ element to a foul shot. It's take the ball and shoot it. It'd be like saying "that kicker has poor football IQ" because he missed a couple chippies, or "he's a soccer moron" because he missed a PK.

You won't find a smarter basketball player - on or off the court - than Okafor, and foul shots were his Achilles heel. For years the guy synonymous with bad FT shooting was a Yale grad (Dudley). Rodman was a real life moron, but had high BBIQ.

To the degree that there's a correlation at higher levels, it's that the guys who are surviving with a "low BB IQ" are doing so due to the fact that they are either big or freakishly athletic - and those guys aren't typically good shooters on top of that or they'd be on their way to the Hall of Fame. Ultimately, a free throw is a shooting skill (and a confidence one). The other side to that is there are countless thousands of people who kick butt at pop-a-shot, but would be utterly clueless on what to do if there were suddenly people in the way. We just never hear of them since ESPN doesn't cover carnival games (well, I can't vouch for that - they do poker, spelling and hot dog eating).

 

[Danzz]

You just really don't get what basketball IQ is, huh?

He doesn't get some things. If it were up to him Omar should have quit when he said he wasn't ready to play. I don't buy the FT%/basketball IQ summation either but to each their own.

 

[David 76]

If you, as a guard, shoot 53% from the line, I, very judgmentally, just don't believe that you are dedicated to your game and/or you have an exceptionally low bball IQ.

Name me one player who was nearly as wild and low BBall IQ as him that far along in his career who then turned it around. Simply does not happen.

This is what he did say. "Very judgmentally and with no watered down reference to a correlation.. Also turning it around for Purvis has no chance. Silly statements listed as absolutes. I think he looks to incite or troll.

 

[Cheeky]

I don't buy the FT%/basketball IQ summation either but to each their own.

Yes. Like when you pretty much came out and said that Neils Giffey was a spot up shooter and nothing more. Like that, right?

 

[Cheeky]

Also turning it around for Purvis has no chance. Silly statements listed as absolutes. I think he looks to incite or troll.

No man - believe it or not, it's just my opinion on Purvis. He's got tons of physical talent, and his brain gets in the way of him using the talent to anywhere near its potential.

Time will tell.

I'm not saying that the guy has no chance to get substantially better - I am, however, saying it's a long shot.

Regarding FT shooting, guys with High BBall IQ figure out a way to get their FTs to drop - if not at 85%, then at least at a passable rate.

Kareem is a perfect example. Nobody ever confused KAJ with a jump shooter - but he had a very high BBIQ. Guy shot 72% from the line.

Anyway, whatever - it will be interesting to see if Purvis gets better - I sure hope he does because he can be the difference between being good and being great next year.

 

[David 76]

Cheeky, I assume Purvis, in spite of his shortcomings, has dedicated himself to his game. I would also assume he will get better. Your original post says neither.
But I believe that you are not trolling if you say so. You must be very emphatic in your communication.

I think I kind of agree with what you meant even though I disagree with what you said. While he may not end up being a natural basketball mind, he will be a better basketball player.

Go UCONN!