Re: IQ like AP. Kind of. But the difference of 5 AP per cycle over 30 cycles can be significant in a battle where no visits are done. It doesn’t move the needle a whole lot in a battle with max visits and promises. Similarly, IQ matters a lot more for the players on the margins of the team. The higher the attributes, the less IQ moves the needle.

About 5 years ago there was a coach (robotdevil) that created a thread named IQ Study (I think) in which he tracked a team where he put all of his practice minutes into attributes and zero into IQ. He had some monster D3 teams (ratings-wise) that should have run way with championships but he couldn't get out of the 2nd round of the tourney in the few seasons he did the experiment. If you do some digging you should be able to find that thread. Long story short, IQ definitely matters.

I consider iq to be the #1 attribute

Posted by darnoc29099 on 3/26/2019 12:42:00 AM (view original):
About 5 years ago there was a coach (robotdevil) that created a thread named IQ Study (I think) in which he tracked a team where he put all of his practice minutes into attributes and zero into IQ. He had some monster D3 teams (ratings-wise) that should have run way with championships but he couldn't get out of the 2nd round of the tourney in the few seasons he did the experiment. If you do some digging you should be able to find that thread. Long story short, IQ definitely matters.

That was under discussion when I started, I think. I never really understood the design of that experiment. If the idea is to use unpredictability as a “weapon”, it was bound to fail. Who cares what weapon you pull out of the bag, when they all suck? I know the real idea was to invest as much as possible in practice, but diminishing returns pretty much guarantees that will be an enormous waste.

Instead, invest smaller amounts in multiple sets. 12 in flex, triangle, and 8 in FB; 12 in man and zone, 8 in press. Then punt most of the non-cores in practice time. Maybe i’ll do this at Stevens Tech at some point.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/26/2019 12:20:00 AM (view original):
Re: IQ like AP. Kind of. But the difference of 5 AP per cycle over 30 cycles can be significant in a battle where no visits are done. It doesn’t move the needle a whole lot in a battle with max visits and promises. Similarly, IQ matters a lot more for the players on the margins of the team. The higher the attributes, the less IQ moves the needle.

By no means was I comparing AP to IQ. You should understand I didn't mean that. I was comparing two analogies.

it's been mentioned here before that in recruiting, when 2 teams are all in, it can make a big difference if one school has 200 AP and the other one has 1200 AP. And that response is related to.... Do APs matter?

In this IQ topic, I was saying the difference in bigtime games can come down to the team with the better IQ. That response is related to.... Does IQ matter?

I was in no way comparing AP to IQs.

Posted by kcsundevil on 3/25/2019 6:46:00 PM (view original):
I consider IQ extremely important. Not as important as Ath Spd Def, but more important than the other attributes.

People tend to overlook IQ because it doesn't have a number attached to it. I think that's a mistake.

This.

At least in Version 2, building up IQ didn't seem to matter. HS GPA was important. A player with a high GPA learned your sets faster. But building up a players's IQ in college didn't seem to have that much effect. Dunno about the intangibles built into AI, or what our beloved programmers built into Version 3.
TL

On a scale of 1-10, I give the importance of IQ a B+

Posted by topdogggbm on 3/26/2019 8:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/26/2019 12:20:00 AM (view original):
Re: IQ like AP. Kind of. But the difference of 5 AP per cycle over 30 cycles can be significant in a battle where no visits are done. It doesn’t move the needle a whole lot in a battle with max visits and promises. Similarly, IQ matters a lot more for the players on the margins of the team. The higher the attributes, the less IQ moves the needle.

By no means was I comparing AP to IQ. You should understand I didn't mean that. I was comparing two analogies.

it's been mentioned here before that in recruiting, when 2 teams are all in, it can make a big difference if one school has 200 AP and the other one has 1200 AP. And that response is related to.... Do APs matter?

In this IQ topic, I was saying the difference in bigtime games can come down to the team with the better IQ. That response is related to.... Does IQ matter?

I was in no way comparing AP to IQs.

I think it would be a valid comparison. I think they are alike in some ways. I just come to a different conclusion, as to what we can take from that comparison.

IQ makes a huge difference for players who do not have elite skills. The higher the core attributes, the less IQ matters. It’s not meaningless, or an afterthought, low IQ does lead to an increase in variability. That’s essentially what I mean when I say reducing unforced errors. Low IQ players, even elite ones, can have bad games, and can make mistakes. But I’ll still take elite talent, and use it when I can get it. IQ is nice to have, and planning ahead and taking on (some) projects to be an anchor for your team, and a way to mitigate unpredictability in recruiting and EEs is something I do and advocate. But I am certainly not going to prioritize IQ in recruiting, as OP suggests. Others may do it differently.

The only time I look at which sets a recruit ran are when I am evaluating transfers and jucos. Since they will be on campus for less than 4 years I prefer that they already know at least one of my sets.

I do not care if a player runs my sets out of high school either. If he does.... added benefit. If he doesn't.... it doesn't take anything away from a player.

The F to C increase only takes a few games anyways.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/26/2019 8:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 3/26/2019 12:42:00 AM (view original):
About 5 years ago there was a coach (robotdevil) that created a thread named IQ Study (I think) in which he tracked a team where he put all of his practice minutes into attributes and zero into IQ. He had some monster D3 teams (ratings-wise) that should have run way with championships but he couldn't get out of the 2nd round of the tourney in the few seasons he did the experiment. If you do some digging you should be able to find that thread. Long story short, IQ definitely matters.

That was under discussion when I started, I think. I never really understood the design of that experiment. If the idea is to use unpredictability as a “weapon”, it was bound to fail. Who cares what weapon you pull out of the bag, when they all suck? I know the real idea was to invest as much as possible in practice, but diminishing returns pretty much guarantees that will be an enormous waste.

Instead, invest smaller amounts in multiple sets. 12 in flex, triangle, and 8 in FB; 12 in man and zone, 8 in press. Then punt most of the non-cores in practice time. Maybe i’ll do this at Stevens Tech at some point.

I think you missed the point of the experiment. It had nothing to do with unpredictability. It was about having players who were better than the competition based on the ratings. Having a player with a 99 perimeter rating vs a player with a 70 perimeter rating is not diminishing returns. It's a player who is a significantly better pure shooter. If you have a team of players with core ratings in the 90's vs opponents with cores in the 60's to 70's, you have a significant talent advantage, that might be able to overcome no IQ.

robotdevils study and some thoughts by other long term coaches definitely made me a believer in set IQ. I even will bump to 30 for FCP/FB teams at times, I do believe it's very important (ATH still king though)

Posted by poncho0091 on 3/26/2019 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/26/2019 8:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 3/26/2019 12:42:00 AM (view original):
About 5 years ago there was a coach (robotdevil) that created a thread named IQ Study (I think) in which he tracked a team where he put all of his practice minutes into attributes and zero into IQ. He had some monster D3 teams (ratings-wise) that should have run way with championships but he couldn't get out of the 2nd round of the tourney in the few seasons he did the experiment. If you do some digging you should be able to find that thread. Long story short, IQ definitely matters.

That was under discussion when I started, I think. I never really understood the design of that experiment. If the idea is to use unpredictability as a “weapon”, it was bound to fail. Who cares what weapon you pull out of the bag, when they all suck? I know the real idea was to invest as much as possible in practice, but diminishing returns pretty much guarantees that will be an enormous waste.

Instead, invest smaller amounts in multiple sets. 12 in flex, triangle, and 8 in FB; 12 in man and zone, 8 in press. Then punt most of the non-cores in practice time. Maybe i’ll do this at Stevens Tech at some point.

I think you missed the point of the experiment. It had nothing to do with unpredictability. It was about having players who were better than the competition based on the ratings. Having a player with a 99 perimeter rating vs a player with a 70 perimeter rating is not diminishing returns. It's a player who is a significantly better pure shooter. If you have a team of players with core ratings in the 90's vs opponents with cores in the 60's to 70's, you have a significant talent advantage, that might be able to overcome no IQ.

You’re right that it wasn’t about using multiple sets. I was taking something someone else had said about it, and confusing authors. That said, the diminishing returns I’m talking about are what you get on spending all that time on attributes that are maxed, which was generally happening before the players’ junior seasons. As the author says at one point (paraphrasing) “at least they’ll have lots of study time as juniors and seniors”.

The author ends up deciding that IQ is probably overrated, considering what most people spend on it (20-25 per set).

For what it’s worth, here’s the thread.

This is an interesting thread. I've always had a different look on IQ than most others. To me the game is designed to practice multiple sets and be willing to change offenses and defenses from game to game and with this version of the game season to season. With my Kansas team about 5 seasons ago I started putting 12 minutes in fb 12 minutes in triangle, 13 in zone, and 13 in press. I've had good results including a national championship, a game that I played fb/press for the only time all year against a team that only went 9 deep. I'm the underdog if I play triangle zone. With my UCLA team I'm just starting triangle 16 minutes and zone and press 17 minutes each.
Now why did I try this?
1. I wanted to try something different.
2. I wanted to be able to play matchups like the one mentioned above.
3. I wanted to be able to run and gun years recruiting went well and play 9 guys years recruiting went astray or I had a bunch of ees.
4. I wanted to be able to offer starts to recruits, which is tough in zone if you are stuck playing a bunch of freshmen 20+ minutes a game because you play zone (see my ucla team in tark, who is going to the pi partly because of this but mainly because I'm a stubborn idiot, but that's another thread entirely). With fb and/or press the years I offer a lot of starts and get the kids I probably have a pretty deep roster, so I can run more, make my starters play less, and give my true starters on the bench more time.
6. This is minor but recruits are more likely to play one of my sets if I play more sets. Therefore it's more likely there initial IQ won't be wasted.

So in my opinion does IQ matter? Of course. But I think in general we forget that it is linear. A b+ is as different from an a+ as a d- is from a c-. I'm finding you can win with a bunch of b-ish iqs and some game planning as well as with a+ iqs.
I'll throw one more thing out there. I was recently completely outmatched by a fb/press team with my Colorado D3 team in the sweet 16. I run flex press and only went 10 deep. Had I run that I'd have been run off the court, probably getting in so much foul trouble I would have had to play my walkon and possibly waterboy as well. So I played zone, having never practiced it with the team, and beat the #1 team in the country. One game of course can give weird results, but just throwing it out there.