Posted by Benis on 3/26/2019 12:16:00 PM (view original):
On a scale of 1-10, I give the importance of IQ a B+

This was funny.

At the start of the season when you're playing against a handful of freshman with low IQs, then IQ becomes very important, however when you're deep into the tournament and you have 1/3rd of a grade advantage over your opponent, A to A-, it becomes a lot less noticeable, ratings, game planning become more important than a 1/3rd of a grade in IQ, IMO.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/26/2019 8:22:00 PM (view original):

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.

Fair enough. I agree on diminishing returns when a. you are maxing out a season or 2 early, or b. we're talking about the difference of maybe 5-10 points. It really becomes a case by case basis at that point. Maybe max out players as fast as you can for their first 2 seasons (assuming you have a young team) and then shift towards IQ later. Ultimately, I put about 20 min into IQ and get most of my players into the A range and maxed out on ratings by the end of their junior/mid senior year.

It was still a great experiment and I'd love to see someone do another similar one. Also, I can't believe that was done 7 years ago!!!! Doesn't feel that long.

Posted by thinair on 3/26/2019 10:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/26/2019 12:16:00 PM (view original):
On a scale of 1-10, I give the importance of IQ a B+

This was funny.

Yes, very funny!