Posted by bad_luck on 1/7/2018 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/7/2018 3:24:00 PM (view original):
Well, when I did a regression analysis of 14 seasons of all three levels and I figured in SIM OWNERSHIP I found the chi value of the IQ value to with in a STD DEV of the mean for all IQ's effect on TOs/possession in relation to their distro setting and fatigue.

Seriously, what do you want me to say? I have successful teams at all levels using EVERY offense and to claim one offense needs a B+ to be efficient and another is C+ is contrary to everything I have noticed. There are like a million factors, IQ is hard to isolate but I can say I have had reasonably efficient scorers against VERY HIGH level competition score reasonably efficiently in a fastbreak at B- (ish) IQ.

Wait, are you saying you weren’t able to effectively determine IQ’s importance by comparing two players over 6 games?

wdym, 6 games is totally adequate sample size.

;)

9 games later, nothing has changed. But you can't learn anything over 15 games either.

Posted by jt2xTTU on 1/7/2018 4:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/7/2018 3:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jt2xTTU on 1/7/2018 3:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/7/2018 3:24:00 PM (view original):
Well, when I did a regression analysis of 14 seasons of all three levels and I figured in SIM OWNERSHIP I found the chi value of the IQ value to with in a STD DEV of the mean for all IQ's effect on TOs/possession in relation to their distro setting and fatigue.

Seriously, what do you want me to say? I have successful teams at all levels using EVERY offense and to claim one offense needs a B+ to be efficient and another is C+ is contrary to everything I have noticed. There are like a million factors, IQ is hard to isolate but I can say I have had reasonably efficient scorers against VERY HIGH level competition score reasonably efficiently in a fastbreak at B- (ish) IQ.

1. Agree there are a # of factors that contribute to efficient play
2. Agree that job resume/experince is probably the only constsnt for evaluating posts/ information given
3. Ultimately it will come down to the player in how they implement information shared

This ID does not have NT or the success that TJ does (and the dormant, deactivated ID has a F4 but no NT). I did have a mentor early, and he advocated what I posted.

And I was open to being corrected.

I can't post a meaningful reply to this right now but I think components of the idea are accurate. I think you can get away with lower IQs in certain situations and in certain roles.

So conceptually and intuitively, not utter horseshit.

I am watching a football game and typing on my phone; so may not have been as expansive and detailed as your preferred absolute, deterministic view.

I presented it as "I think" not as a "statistically significant conclusion."

Furthermore, I acknowledged there is a range within the grades, and did not close off the possibility that exceptional individual attributes may be more efficient than their grade would suggest.

However in in cubcub 1st poll, comparing player with XRating, but significantly different IQ, then my posts are less utter horseshit as you characterize.

You lost me but I have a little more time now so I will expand on what I think.

I have seen no evidence that IQ is more or less important in the offensive sets. I certainly haven't seen evidence that flex values IQ less than the other sets.

I feel you can get away with lower IQ in certain offensive situations. Those situations are:

• Players with very low distro (preferably zero)
• Non PG's
• Against press teams, PF's and C's
• You don't have a rating disadvantage

Basically, I believe you can get away with low IQ in situations when IQ isn't used. Since IQ is factored into most equations, this is kinda hard to do. You don't want your scorers to have low IQ's because IQ is important in the "does the shot go in" decision. You don't want your PG to have a low IQ because: 1. his ratings also significantly affect if the shot goes in and 2. his ratings significantly affect the "is there is a TO before the shot" decision. Against Press teams, I think the SG and SF significantly influence the TO decision.

IQ also effects rebounding, but that is farther down on the event tree so I feel it is less important.

In a nut shell, if the guy isnt' a scorer, isn't a PG, and doesn't have a rating disadvantage, and it isn't a press team then offensive IQ isn't all that important.

OTHER KIND OF RANDOM THOUGHTS ON IQ:
With all that being said, I do feel that once you get in the C+/B- range IQ isn't gonna "kill you", playing with players below C has some serious negative consequences.

I don't have a ton of confidence in this next part but I feel like one full letter grade is worth 3-4 points in cores. So I would rather have an 80 SPD, 80 BH, 80 PASS C IQ PG than a guy with all 70's and a A+.

I have seen teams win NC's with B/B+ IQs with really good players. I am not sure I have ever seen a team with "low" value players even with A+ IQ wins a NC.

I hope that helps. I would love to hear the reason why someone thinks certain sets value IQ less or have someone refute my opinions. I do value intelligent discourse and would love to continue discussions like this. I promise not to call anyone else "horseshit".

I'll throw my two cents in here. I haven't read or talked to anyone that thought IQ was more important in one offensive set over the other and I personally don't believe it's more important in one set vs another (and from a gameplay perspective having one set be more important than another seems illogical). On the defensive side of things, several long-time vets have said they believe IQ more important in press than the other defenses but that's only because of the amount of fouls committed in press. Less IQ = more fouls and more fouls = things can spiral out of control quickly. So it's not that it's more important in press, IMO, it's just the consequences are greater when your IQ isn't up to snuff.

I wish I still had the sitemail from jsajsa-probably the best D3 coach in the history of this game-that explained his take on IQ. I don't remember all of the details but I do remember him saying he believed at B+ IQ a player would perform true to his ratings and he would start increasing that player's distro on the offensive side at that point. Since then I've been using B+ as a marker and tend to agree with jsajsa's take, though all I have to support that is anecdotal evidence and nothing concrete.

As for multipliers (to answer the OPs question), I haven't tracked anything in years so it's tough to say. I agree with TJ's prior point about the lower IQ guys just get far less distro. I recall having a freshman at D2 that was like 90 PER when I recruited him and his other ratings didn't have much potential. From his FR to SR years his 3-pt % went from roughly 32% to 46%, but team passing and your PG play a role in that equation as well so we can't attribute all of the growth to just IQ there.

I think of IQ as an indicator of how mistake-prone the player is. On offense, offensive fouls, making a poor pass, poor shot selection, being out of position for a rebound, that sort of thing. On defense, dumb fouls, missing assignments (leaving a guy open), overall poor execution.

I don’t think there’s anything in the code that gives IQ a higher or lower modifying influence on any particular sets. The FB/press style depends largely on turnovers and fouls, so I can understand the intuition that says limit the mistakes in those sets. But I think all sets have intricacies to them that are affected by IQ - for example, in flex and triangle, it’s very important to make the right passes to the right players if you have fewer guys with higher distribution. In zone, the whole defense can be dragged down by a low IQ player or two being out of position, or leaving guys open. And obviously in man, a low IQ player is hard to hide.

"2. Agree that job resume/experince is probably the only constsnt for evaluating posts/ information given"

No, I see plenty of BS from experienced coaches, sometimes worse than less experienced coaches. Common Sense would be a better "constant."

Experience and success are different things.

This is something I looked into a fair amount, aggregating data across multiple seasons, trying to isolate the impact of IQ. While I was able to determine that there was a statistically significant impact of IQ, the magnitude of the impact had a fairly wide confidence interval. I'm not sure how it is implemented in the actual game, but based on what I saw, IQ had a sizable impact on likelihood of winning.

"On the defensive side of things, several long-time vets have said they believe IQ more important in press than the other defenses but that's only because of the amount of fouls committed in press. Less IQ = more fouls and more fouls = things can spiral out of control quickly. So it's not that it's more important in press, IMO, it's just the consequences are greater when your IQ isn't up to snuff."

At risk of digging a greater hole in the horse **** I shoveled earlier, I was waiting for this premise to be questioned/challenged/slammed. My original premise was that Flex was "efficient at C+." I am not understanding how that is so far different than the observation above on the IQ for FCP.

Mostly because it makes sense. There's more chances in a FCP to commit fouls and since low IQ guys foul more frequently they are less successful.
It's also reasonably easy to track, more fouls means less steals.

There is no simple logic on why FLEX needs a low IQ and I am not sure how you would test that theory since there are so many outcomes.

But if it exists for 1, it is possible to exist for others. Otherwise you are saying FCP is the ONLY issuance in which efficiency is effected by IQ. But it would be illogical for the formula to be written ONLY for FCP.

Posted by jt2xTTU on 1/10/2018 9:18:00 PM (view original):
But if it exists for 1, it is possible to exist for others. Otherwise you are saying FCP is the ONLY issuance in which efficiency is effected by IQ. But it would be illogical for the formula to be written ONLY for FCP.

That's not what he's saying.

Playing Press with low IQs can cause you to foul out quickly - arguably the WORST thing that could happen in a game. Fouling is noticeable and easily measureable as well as impactful. Basically the Press defense has the biggest weakness of increased fouling vs zone/M2M. Low IQ will exacerbate this weakness.

What is the weakness of motion/fb/triangle that flex doesn't have and how will a low IQ magnify that issue?

So it's your contention that the ONLY result of IQ is fouling? That feels like nonsense.

Theoretically, both Fastbreak and Press would potentially exacerbate any difference that IQ creates, as they increase the number of possessions in a game. Increased possessions does two things: (1) it makes the results of random outcomes more likely to favor the better team/players overall, and (2) it increases the chances for players with inferior Ath/Def/IQ (and potentially even a small impact for offensive fouls) to commit more fouls, meaning that they will play less minutes, therefore decreasing their impact on the game. Combining this with Fast Tempo can magnify this effect even more. However, if a player is better because of their stats, despite having a lower IQ, then that advantage could still go the other way. That being said, I didn't find any statistically significant difference in IQ impact on different offenses and defenses, but my sample sizes for some of them weren't great, either.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/10/2018 10:15:00 PM (view original):
So it's your contention that the ONLY result of IQ is fouling? That feels like nonsense.

No one is saying that.