historically, I have taken the view that more IQ is better than less.

i also think that it is very hard to go deep in the tournament unless the bulk of your minutes are being played by guys who have A- or better IQ

at the margin, a refined analysis of where IQ fits in the logic might have an effect on decisions between team and individual practice or some rare depth chart decisions between players who are otherwise very close.

The only way to know how IQ works really would be to build a LOW WE team and raise IQ. So if you get 1 WE players, they won't develop, they will keep the same stats. You keep same game plan, same practice plan, study hall at 15, same distro for four years, same rotation. And see how they improve... You try and get same strenght of Schedule.

"historically, I have taken the view that more IQ is better than less."

That seems to say it all.

Posted by zorzii on 5/16/2016 9:54:00 AM (view original):
The only way to know how IQ works really would be to build a LOW WE team and raise IQ. So if you get 1 WE players, they won't develop, they will keep the same stats. You keep same game plan, same practice plan, study hall at 15, same distro for four years, same rotation. And see how they improve... You try and get same strenght of Schedule.

you can just do less team practice instead of forcing yourself into 1 WE players. in any case, its not as simple as you make it out to be, you'd have to have inferior IQ players (like robotdevil did in his iq study) and try to compare your performance to *what your performance would be with better iq*. obviously, that is not a trivial task.

Posted by deroches on 5/15/2016 8:41:00 PM (view original):
Thanks Gillespie. Wow, that might be a bit over my head. I have a math teacher friend i can get to help me imagine rotating n2/x=y. But I want to understand - It sounds like you are saying that

A) the IQ effects are applied to the stats before anything is resolved as part of the shot/block/steal whatever.
B) how much impact this effect has depends on weather the combined set of skills and factors put him on the steep side of the curve, with the most effect being seen in players with attributes in the 50-90 range.

is that correct?

I have never noticed guys with stats near 1 performing similar to guys at 50 . . although my first ever team 'starred' a center with athleticism 6 and he seemed to do better than should have been possible . . I have noticed a lot of guys with LP and PER both around 40-60 seem to do really well.

the curve i'm talking about for shooting, just start drawing a vertical line, then start sloping gently to the right, then more sharply to the right, until its a horizontal line. basically just draw a quarter circle from the left most point to the top most point.

what i'm talking about with 1 ratings being similar to 50, is from a shooting standpoint, a big with 50 ath/lp is about as useful as a big with 1 ath/lp, from a purely offensive standpoint. defense and rebounding, it doesn't hold - but the 1 and 50 ath/lp guys are straight useless. now, the 50 guy will do better than the other - as you would expect - but they are both so bad it doesnt even matter. once you start getting up into the 60s and 70s, guys get good, quick. the ability score keeps going up as ratings increase, that never changes - but at some point, you start hitting the flat part of the scoring curve, where you get very small dividends in terms of fg%, which is why in d1, 90/90/90 per/spd/bh guards are negligibly less efficient than 100/100/100 guards, even though they most likely have significantly different ability scores.

with iq, im actually saying the reverse - iq matters a lot everywhere, until you hit the top of that curve. i think a similar curve exists in defense and probably rebounding, as well. it seems to me that in d2/d3, the advantage of a- to a+ iq is always meaningful, but in d1, for like a stud scorer, i stop seeing that benefit. i believe that is because iq is factored in directly into the ability score, not applied after a ratings-based ability score is mapped to a fg% or something. i figure the game roughly works by taking ratings and combining them into abilities, and then those abilities are smashed together (like a shooter's offensive ability compared to the defender's defensive ability), and then the result is mapped to an outcome. its the step where ratings are combined into abilities, that i think iq factors in.

So you would rather have a big with 89 Lp/1 Pe instead of a guy with 80 Lp/50 pe? Am I misunderstanding you? I think so.

Posted by cubcub113 on 5/16/2016 12:30:00 PM (view original):
So you would rather have a big with 89 Lp/1 Pe instead of a guy with 80 Lp/50 pe? Am I misunderstanding you? I think so.

no, i wouldnt. i would rather have the 80/50 guy. the difference isn't 1 per vs 50, its 1/1/1 vs 50/50/50 or 1/1 vs 50/50. so a 1 per/spd/bh guard is just as useless to me as a 50 per/spd/bh guard, offensively. but a 90 per/spd 50bh guard is definitely not the same as a 90 per/spd 1 bh guard. not trying to say that at all. sorry for the confusion!

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/16/2016 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 5/16/2016 12:30:00 PM (view original):
So you would rather have a big with 89 Lp/1 Pe instead of a guy with 80 Lp/50 pe? Am I misunderstanding you? I think so.

no, i wouldnt. i would rather have the 80/50 guy. the difference isn't 1 per vs 50, its 1/1/1 vs 50/50/50 or 1/1 vs 50/50. so a 1 per/spd/bh guard is just as useless to me as a 50 per/spd/bh guard, offensively. but a 90 per/spd 50bh guard is definitely not the same as a 90 per/spd 1 bh guard. not trying to say that at all. sorry for the confusion!

No, I get it now! I can only listen and learn from legends like you! :)

I get it too. Thanks Gillespie. Appreciate the insight. Just understanding that most effective improvement occurs from 50 - 90 is huge. I hope that someday I will have players so good with abilities near 100 that their IQ bonus becomes redundant.