BBIQ can be improved, and most of the NBA players are pretty dumb, compared to for example me. And I don't think I have a high BBIQ, simply because I'm not properly trained, inexperienced, etc. BBIQ is more about making quick, simple decisions than about heavy reasoning, so it has definitely nothing to do with IQ as long as you are not in the very low IQ zone. Where I think noone is on the current Rockets roster. BBIQ is something instinctual that grows with experience even for dumbasses like Shaq. The ability to concentrate is usually forgotten as an extremely important capability. If Hill won't improve, it will be due to his lack of concentration, Adelman has told this publicly. He is a dreamy guy. When Cousins pissed him off, he really began to concetrate and just tear Cousins apart. That's probably a fundamental part where he is lacking. No one said that before in this thread, all the Hill-hater are adamant about him being a r****d.
I deduced that Jordan Hill has the same chance of tapping that potential as me waltzing in front of Kim Kardashian with a mink coat and pimp hat with a feather in it on and tapping that ass. Never say never, and I would never rob myself of that opportunity. But I sure ain't counting on it.
To quote a great poster on this forum: There is absolutely no way that Jordan Hill ever approaches Amare Stoudamire. Not even .01% chance. Amare came in the league from HIGH SCHOOL averaging ~14-9 in his rookie season. We will be lucky if Jordan Hill EVER has a year averaging that. Patrick Patterson has more upside because he's a better basketball player. The end. I don't care if Jordan Hill can marginally jump higher -- that doesn't mean he has more potential to develop into a star. The guys with the highest upside are the guys with the best basketball skills. If Jordan had Patrick's natural basketball ability, you'd be right. But he doesn't. Hill is a role player and will always be one.. PPat has a chance to be an all-star. Patrick has the IQ, motor (work ethic) and offensive moves to develop into a star. Jordan Hill has the.. height?
Well you state things like you see him every day in practice which I'm pretty sure you don't. If I were you I wouldn't come out so strong with an opinion that is based on something like a hunch. If you are saying that a raw player usually has bust potential, then welcome home to Obviousport, Captain Obvious. You should be happy to have a free gamble for a high price, instead you are unhappy because NYK didn't send us a complete All-star PF/C for Tracy's rotting corpse. I'm usually happy when I get a free lottery ticket. You seem to be pissed. Even where there are signs that the tickets' chances of winning are improving. How irrational.
can iq be trained? i dunno frankly speaking. are you sure? trainnning only makes ppl to be familiar with certain things so they can use them w/o thinking. in other words, it becomes an instinct.
Well, let's put it straight: you are mistaken. Yes, Amare came in to the league with a boom, he then developed into a 20/10 player with extremely good offensive skills but very lacking defense. He couldn't win anything with a then-killer PG in Steve Nash and got burned on D in every important game. Now he developed quickly into what he is now, a dunking machine with tremendous energy. HOWEVER his mate, called Steve Nash came into his sophomore year as a 9/3 in 20 minutes guy. Now as we all know, Nash probably has the highest BBIQ in the game, or at least he is one of the best decision makers. He has a very good head on his shoulders, for sure. But he was nothing like Amar'e until like his 8th year in the league. After that, he surpassed Amare so much that Amare will never be mentioned on the same level. Woo hoo! Extreme mathematics! The linear function is actually greater on the interval (0,1) than the cubic function! WOW! Not all players develop the same way! WOW! New story! If we are thinking short term, PP is a much better option, of course. But since we are not just thinking about short term, why not take a very cheap gamble on Hill? It's a no brainer.
Do you think that Steve Nash has the time to actually evaluate 230 options while doing his dribble in a jungle of big men? Most of BBIQ is the internalization of simple decision methods. It can be learned. Even normal IQ can be improved, it just takes work. Most good big men become less foul prone, less turnover prone during their careers. Most PGs up their Assist/TO ratio (although assist is not a good stat to measure how good a decision maker one is). Yes, if you learn many-many plays, you will eventually read them better, if you've been working around screens for 14 years, you will be better handling them later on. Results may vary, not everyone will be Steve Nash, but most people wouldn't be playing like beheaded chickens. E.g. Lowry has vastly improved his BBIQ, he's less out of control nowadays. Brooks is another story, but he definitely did improve last year. That comes with experience, not the broadening of his mental horizons, learning set theory, formal logic and abstract algebra.
And Emeka Okafor is quite a smart dude. If intelligence had anything to do with BBIQ, the best PGs would be athletic mathematicians and physicists. Quite a rare type if you ask me.
Hakeem Olajuwan was raw. Jordan is just dumb. Huge difference. I have nothing against young players still finding their way and developing new skills. That is the least of Hill's problems. Nothing in life is free. By holding on to Jordan Hill like a sinking rock and hoping oh pretty pls that he will one day learn to put it all together is like a desperate gambler who has put his money in GM stock and telling himself it will go back up one day. You miss out on the opportunity cost as you watch F skyrocket 1,500% up your ass. You are probably too young to know what I am talking about. But the point is, there are still plenty of idiots out there who may be willing to fork over real value for Jordan Hill, as long as we don't wait too long before everyone and their mother figures out the ultimate crock that is the "potential" tag, and then can't trade him away for a bag of doritos like what happened with Stromile.
damnit, dunno that. why do we give up stromile? we should go to get dbrown. he has upside to be a good center. we need a center for sure. i don't think getting dbrown is expensive.
I get what you are saying and the problem is that form me it's based on nothing more than a hunch. I have quite the opposite feeling about Hill, so agree to disagree.
I have no idea what you're talking about. This thread is asking who has the greater upside -- PPatt or Hill. The answer is PPat. Jordan Hill got an opportunity to play last year and did okay. He had some nice games, though never once grabbed double digit rebounding (a feat Patterson has already done twice in only two games with meaningful minutes his rookie year). In fact, Pattersons 2 games of 10+ boards is one more than Jordan Hill has had in two years. Add to that, Patterson is ALREADY a better team defender than Jordan Hill is, despite Hill having more experience with the NBA and the Rockets system. On top of that, Patterson is two years younger than Hill. It's pretty clear Patterson has more upside. It is a no brainer to take a gamble on Hill.. but that doesn't mean he has more upside than Patrick Patterson? Put away your TI-82 linear calculator and stay on topic please.
