All-Time Basketball IQ Rankings [TOP 20]

Thanks, appreciate it. And I completely agree with you. My top 20 would be able to dominate in any era. Even when accounting for the variance in style of play (and size/athleticism of today's pros), they'd easily adapt/excel given their intelligence, intangibles and work ethic. As far as psychological intimidation goes, Jordan (unlike Tiger Woods) was, remarkably, able to sustain this edge against his lesser competitors. Washington Wizards notwithstanding. Bird, as you rightly stated, is up there with him in this regard as well. It would be interesting to study this correlation with IQ.

Agree, somewhat. These rankings are generally subjective (see Disclaimer). That being said, genius IQ is not very difficult to judge among students of the game. Take Bird vs. Pippen, for example. Both small forwards are highly accomplished champions. Both were awarded NBA Top 50 All Time designations (highly arguable in Pips case, IMO). And, although Pippen's defensive IQ and overall feel for playoff basketball were very impressive, it's no match for Bird's genius and playmaking ability. He simply made his teammates all-time greats. Pippen? Not so much. Julius Irving didn't quite crack my top 20, but he's definitely next tier. (He's included amongst the Honorable Mentions.)

Yeah, I knew this argument would come up. But let's be real here. I can rattle off at least 20 other, more capable, elite wing defenders who excelled at more than merely team defense. Not to take anything away from Shane. He's definitely a video room/scout report junkie, but it takes a special skill set to execute even the most advanced game plans. Let's just say that he's nowhere close to (off the top of my head): Pippen, Alvin Robertson, Dennis Johnson, Joe Dumars, Sidney Moncrief, Mookie Blaylock, Gary Payton, Michael Jordan, Ron Artest or even Bruce Bowen. That's just perimeter man/team defense. Please don't get me started on offensive IQ. Battier's well below average in that regard (to put it nicely).

 

Thanks. Yeah, you're right. We're talking about court smarts--not classroom brilliance. To add to my point (in the prior post) on Battier-like role players, their strong IQs elevate their games where their physical tools drop off. What makes Shane an elite 'glue guy' in the classical sense, is his veteran smarts and leadership. It's his strong fundamentals, anticipation and tactics--not his lateral quickness, athleticism, or strength--that's gotten him this far out of Duke. How many times have we heard it? Intangibles. Intangibles. Intangibles.

You may say, well then you prove my point... Shane's IQ overcame his raw physical limitations so it puts him near the top. And I would say, not a chance.

A quotient (in this case IQ) is measured by a numerical ratio multiplied by 100 between a test score and a standard value (according to Merriam-Webster). So then the question becomes, how do we measure a numerical ratio when our variable is intelligence?

Well, there must be a test score and a standard value. In my humble opinion, this 'test score' is known by the totality of stats and advanced metrics captured during the course of a game (or career of games) that contribute to winning. Whatever formula is used is immaterial. What's important here is the test score is relative to the standard (or mean) value. I'd say the standard value here represents the on-court production of the league taken as a whole (in percentages).

Battier's Defensive Win Share (DWS) only ranked in the top 10 twice, and not since the 2005-06 (4.5) and 2007-08 (4.6) seasons. His career Defensive Rating is paltry at best (104.72), ranking him 187 overall (just behind fellow Dukie, Christian Laettner). Surprisingly, for all the talk of Shane's defensive efficiency, he ranks much higher in career Offensive Rating (114.7), placing him 44th all-time. Numbers never lie. Unfortunately, eyes do... and lips often perpetuate the myth.

In short, a player like Battier's 'test score' must be measured by real on-court production relative to team success. This value must then be rated against the 'standard value' or league-wide mean. Once this division is calculated we have a quotient. It is my contention that elite intelligence must be determined by elite on-court achievement relative to team goals (efficiency, winning, etc.) and also league standards.

Now, if Battier had the physical tools of a Tracy McGrady, for example, could we say that he'd rate among the top 20 all-time in terms of BB IQ? Difficult to say, but I wouldn't bet against his work ethic (talking Shane here, not Tracy).

On a side note, there's absolutely no way I'd ever rate Battier ahead of Deke when it comes to BB IQ. Mutumbo's defensive metrics (i.e. def rebounding %, block %, Def rating, DWS, etc.) during his prime are video game-like. He was a juggernaut. And for those who say it was due to his elite size and length, please. There are hundreds of athletic big men today (and in the past) who can't even walk and chew gum at the same time. Never mind understanding the complexities of advanced defensive fundamentals, low block positioning, controlling the paint, and weak side rotations (looking at you, DeAndre Jordan). Nope. Deke's on-court BB IQ was off the charts. Sorry.

 

Yup, I agree completely. The physical tools must be there in order to showcase IQ. Most of those traits went into my evalutation. Although, the front-office management prerequisite may disqualify His Airness from my top 20. And if Scottie Brooks can't get past LeBron in the Finals, does this mean Kenny the Jet had the higher IQ as our starter?

INSERT: [Rodman's_BadAsIWannaBe.pdf]

Great point. Ball dominant perimeter playermakers generally dictate the flow and intricacies of the offense. Chris Paul's IQ definitely comes to mind, especially in the current era of the point guard.

Your question would make for a fascinating thread topic. I'll go ahead and share that, although I knew Ben Wallace was a stud, I had no idea how intelligent he was until I went back and studied his advanced metrics. Wow. He ranks up there with the all time greats. Unfortunately, I left him on the Honorable Mentions list because his offensive limitations were just too much to overlook.

On that same note, I have no problem swapping Pistol Pete (currently at #20) or Steve Nash for a more balanced, two-way MENSA star. Chris Paul was initially in my top 20 but my buddy talked me out of it. Something about today's defensive schemes not being what they used to be during the 80's and early 90s. He blames Stern's rules for softening the game (no hand check, flagrant 2s, etc.) that opened the door to Euro-style soccer flopping. Also, the influx of high school (and, 1 and done) kids severely watered-down foundational aspects of defensive basketball. That, and the superstar treatment by refs (that started with MJ) opened huge lanes for dribble penetration, vis-à-vis iso ball.

I tend to agree with him--and most will disagree with me--but I say there are really only two prime superstars in the league today: Kevin Durant and LeBron James. The Black Mamba, KG, Mr. Fundamental had their time in the sun. Now they're riding home into the sunset. Every other so-called superstar of this era has been manufactured by the NBA marketing machine. Where I'm from superstars are winners and unstoppable forces of nature. This topic can be revisited when CP3, Griffin, Melo, DRose, Howard, et. al. consistenly contribute to their team's success in the conference finals.

Giving testimonies in China somewhere, I think. It's been posted in the GARM.

You make very solid points. This is where I'll admit my bias in seeing Bird and Magic play live at the Summit. I suppose the next generation may say the same about LeBron and Durant, while diminishing Bird and Magic. That being said, I would have no problem admitting that Mr. Russell may, in fact, display the highest IQ (relative to his competition) the game has ever known (had I lived in Beantown during his era).

But this much is true. It makes me (as well as the true greats) sick to hear the size of today's NBA contracts. These bloated contracts are literally being GIFTED to today's primadonna, so-called superstars who've never won anything at the NBA level. MJ is right. It's all based on potential; whereas it used to be earned by achievement. By that's another topic for another day.

And, you won't see the new President of the NBAPA lobbying for CBA reform, either. Top 20 BB IQ or not.

 

Perfect analysis. Right on the money.

Although, to his credit, Wilt later learned to move the ball and eagerly found his open teammates. As mentioned in the OP, he did lead the NBA in assists one season. But you are absolutely correct. Wilt was never on Russell's level intellectually. There's no doubt that Bill Russell could have focused his energy on battling for scoring crowns. Yet, his tremendous IQ wouldn't allow it. The goal was winning as a team. Nothing else mattered. And, nobody's ever done it better with more class.

 

Ha, just caught this.

Although Rondo is an exceptional talent for today's game, I'm obviously referring to the one of the most intelligent, clutch performers of all time: John Havlicek aka "Hondo".

Here's an excerpt taken from nba.com "Legends of the Game" edition:

 

Thanks for the feedback. I'm 100% in agreement with your take on Cousy. Honestly, I can't think of any player who's modernized the game (on any level, in any era) more so than Mr. Basketball. But I'd be remiss not to also credit Red Auerbach for masterminding such a tremendous scheme like the fast break. It's no secret Coach Auerbach didn't think much of him as a pro prospect, but again, credit to Cousy for earning Red's trust and translating his genius IQ onto the parquet floor where it mattered. Together with Russell, they were well ahead of their time.

You also bring up an interesting question. Let's say we did warp a young Cousy to the 90s (along w/ aforementioned developmental advantages enjoyed by Nash and company). And let's also say the game's evolution to this point (in the 90s) remained the same... would Cousy's genius revolutionize the PG position to yet another strata during the late 90s? Perhaps to even a strata beyond anything Nash (or CP3) could possibly fathom?

I suppose it's like asking what new quantum or wormhole theories Einstein could have developed had he entered an era where E=MC2, general & special relativity etc., was already known and understood by an establishment of unoriginal physicists trading common stock. From our perspectives, any modern day physicist who mathematically understands the theoretical mechanics of an Einstein-Rosen bridge would be thought of as an intellectual giant. For someone of Einstein's genius, however, they would rate as mere children. Something tells me Cousy would've seen it the same way had he boarded Einstein's wormhole as a 14 yr old prodigy and landed in 1993. It's a scary notion worth contemplating.

And lastly, it's funny that you mention Kidd. Everyone has been going on and on about Chris Paul's ommission from my Top 20. But truthfully, the ONLY name that's been bothering me is Jason Kidd's. Looking back, I should have included him and removed Wilt. Can't say he'd crack my top 10 though. Too bad I don't have editing privileges.

Solid post. Thanks for sharing.

 

Why can't you just choose LeBron in the poll and move on (like everyone else).

Out of all the interesting discussions going on, you pick this to complain about? C'mon. Is LeBron your cousin or something? If so, then I take it back and kindly ask you for his autograph.

Lighten up, man. :grin: