[外絮] 霍林杰專欄　- Truth about the Derric …

看板ChicagoBulls (芝加哥公牛)作者eertllams (Tree666)時間14年前 (2011/04/03 01:53)推噓2(2推 0噓 6→)

留言8則, 3人參與討論串1/1

※ [本文轉錄自 NBA 看板 #1Dbs5zTT ] 作者: eertllams (Tree666) 看板: NBA 標題: [外絮] 霍淋杰專欄　- Truth about the Derrick Rose story 時間: Sun Apr 3 01:48:43 2011 這是ESPN　inside的付費文章　討論Rose這個MVP的爭議算是為大家的想法做個總結　有付費網友公開給大家閱讀一起討論簡單得翻譯一下　請大家參考跟討論 http://tinyurl.com/4xk27z9　原文 By Hollinger Mar 31 What bothers me so much about this year's MVP coronation of "The Derrick Rose Story" is not so much that it's a mistake -- we've had bad award votes before and will have them again -- but that it's the same mistake, for the fifth time in 11 years. 選Rose當MVP是個錯誤　這個很困擾我　但這是很多年來一直在犯的相同錯誤　　 This is an inherent risk in the MVP selection process. When you ask people whose life's work is to seek out and tell great stories to vote on this award, we shouldn't be surprised when they turn out to vote for the best story rather than the player who is most valuable. 不意外在很難選擇的情況下選一個好得故事會比選一個最有價值球員簡單一些 Guards especially make for great stories, because they're natural underdogs. Height, obviously, is a huge factor in this game, so we're completely fascinated when smaller players can play at a high level. Generally, what they do is a lot more captivating than watching a 7-footer methodically dunk on people's heads, even if the latter is a much more effective way to win basketball games. We don't like rooting for Goliath. 尤其是投票給後衛因為他們的身高劣勢反而增加了影響力雖然一個七呎球員的灌籃才是宰割贏球的利器 Put a guard on a "surprise" team and the impact doubles. Everyone looks for The Cause, and all roads lead back to the guard. Jab in an IV and let the confirmation bias flow through your veins, and soon even the negative plays become proof ("Look at the shot he almost made!"). This usually happens only with perimeter players, by the way. A miss on a double-clutching drive after a sweet crossover can be spectacular, in a way that a missed jump hook simply cannot. 如果把一個後衛放在一個讓人感到驚奇的球隊那他的影響力就更要加倍你想想當這種小球員很帥氣的cross over 然後艱難的兩段變速過人縱使他沒進球我們還是會覺得他很屌 A brief history of Voting the Story 來看看這十年來的投票結果 As a result of all our fun with guards and their compelling stories, the three dominant big men of the past decade -- Shaquille O'Neal, Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan -- were shafted out of three MVP awards and nearly a fourth. Ask how this happened and you'll get a lot of embarrassed shrugging, and yet we're headed down that same path again. 十年間有三個高大球員拿到MVP 俠客 KG TD So we'll end up with "The Derrick Rose Story" as this year's MVP -- just as we ended up with Allen Iverson winning in 2001, and Steve Nash in 2005 and 2006, and Jason Kidd's second-place finish in 2002 (which I include here because we only narrowly averted the greatest award travesty in league history, when one of the greatest players of all time had the best season of his career and nearly lost the award to a guy who shot 39.1 percent). 但是當我們討論到今年的Rose故事這類矮小球員 01年 AI拿到了一次 Nash在05 06拿到了 02年Kidd在票選拿到第二多的選票 And make no mistake, the voters are pulling the lever for the story, and not the player. 毫無疑問投票者看重的是故事性而非球員本身 How do we know that? Actually, we can prove it. Even if we presume that the stats somehow didn't adequately capture the value of Iverson, Kidd or Nash, we have a smoking gun that the vote was for the story and not the player. 我可以證明的 Believe it or not, the voters told us. Actions speak louder than words, and their ballots in other seasons are Bose speakers blaring out that they voted for the story. 信不信由你投票者告訴我們的行動勝於言語他們的投票單就告訴了大家他們是投給好得故事 Neither Nash, Iverson nor Kidd had their best seasons the year they won (or nearly won, in Kidd's case). In fact, each had a dramatically stronger case in other seasons. What they lacked was the storyline. 不論Nash AI 或是Kidd他們高票的賽季都不是他們最好的賽季但是都是非常戲劇化值得好好著墨的球季 Check out the evidence: 來看看證據 ‧ Kidd is the most egregious example. In 2001-02, he almost won the award, receiving 45 first-place votes. The next season, the Nets traded two starters for a declining Dikembe Mutombo but made it back to the 2003 Finals anyway because Kidd had by far the best season of his career; compared to his first year in New Jersey, he added four points to his scoring average, shot better and took on a dramatically larger offensive role. If Kidd was the real MVP in 2001-02 (on a huge number of ballots), and the stats were somehow missing that, then surely he was even more valuable in 2002-03 and should have cruised to the trophy. Kidd在01-02拿到很多選票幾乎拿到MVP 隔年02-03年他們交易兩個先發去換下降的木桶伯不過還是闖進季後賽這一年Kidd所有成績都大幅上升....如果他 01-02都快要拿了那02-03才更該是MVP You know how many first-place MVP votes Kidd got in 2003? Bupkus. Zilch. Zippo. Kidd had only 31 total points, for a ninth-place finish that put him right behind Detroit's Ben Wallace. If people weren't voting for the story in 2002, as opposed to the player, explain that one. 你知道02-03 Kidd只拿了票選第九名嗎？所以你告訴我 01-02 他們不是為了故事性是為了啥才投給Kidd? 2005, sporting a player efficiency rating of 22.04 while joining with a dominant power forward to lead a 62-win team. What few people realize is that two years earlier, he had teamed up with a dominant power forward to win 60 games and tie for the best record in the West; he had a better PER that season (23.51) and played more minutes. For his efforts he received one fifth-place vote. 05年這個球員幫助了一個擁有超強大前鋒的球隊拿到62勝但是沒有人注意兩年前這個球員就已經跟一個強力前鋒拿到了60勝這個球員當時的PER更要好 The difference between those seasons, obviously, was that in 2004-05 Nash was a great story, because he had just joined a 29-win team that surprisingly rose to first in the West. The 2002-03 Mavericks were already good, so his performance there was deemed a minor event. 這兩個賽季的差別就是 Nash在04-05賽季的故事性太好因為太陽前一年才29勝但是兩年前 02-03年小牛本就是一個好球隊 ‧ You can do this exercise with several other Nash seasons. For instance, Nash won the MVP with a PER of 23.29 in 2006, leading a 54-win team in the conference finals. In 2009-10, Nash had a PER of 21.25 and led a 54-win team to the conference finals. He finished eighth and didn't get a single first-place vote. Nash also finished a distant second behind Dirk Nowitzki the year he had his best statistical season, 2006-07, and won 61 games. Again, it sure seems like the story was the dividing factor between these seasons, and not the player. 你可以看好好去看Nash的其他賽季 05-06 跟09-10賽季Nash都拿了54勝但是09-10他票選只拿了第八名甚至Nash的最佳個人成績出現在06-07 球隊61勝但是他輸給了Dirk在票選中所以個人因素引出的故事性 > 球員本身 ‧ Iverson outperformed his MVP season in both 2004-05 and 2005-06; he had a comparable PER in more minutes in the former and a better PER in more minutes in the latter. He didn't come close to winning in either season, finishing fifth in 2005 and getting just a single fifth-place vote in 2006. AI在04-05 05-06都有很好成績後面的賽季甚至更好但是一次得到票選第五 06年甚至只拿了一張第五的選票 (Side note: If you don't like PER, you can use any other measures and get the same answers, which shouldn't be a surprise, since PER is essentially a summary of all the other statistical categories.) 如果你不喜歡PER 你可以用別的數據統計結果一樣啦!! What's the explanation for this other than that the voters went for the best story instead of the best player? Did all three of these guys suddenly become crappier leaders or lose their clutch mojo in those other seasons? 你還有別得解釋來說明這些投票者不是投給好得故事嗎？我上面舉的三個例子這三個球員在其他沒得MVP球季有變差嗎 No -- they just weren't hot stories. 並沒有他們只是不火熱了! The burden of proof The same thing is going to happen this season with "The Derrick Rose Story." 所以今年同樣的證明將會出現在所謂的 "玫瑰愛睡眼的故事"裡 Let me emphasize that Rose is indeed a very valuable player, and that what he and the Bulls have done this season is undeniably a great story. It does not, however, make him more valuable than every single other player in the entire league, and the evidence for this is abundantly clear to anyone who cares to look for it. Sorry, but if you want me to build the pedestal that high, I'm gonna need some more concrete for the foundation. 我知道Rose很有價值這個球隊目前也很有故事性然後他就比其他球員更有價值了嗎？我認為這個證據很明顯對於任何人有在關注這個議題的人心中 This part gets Rose fans terribly upset, but it's really basic: There is a glaring lack of evidence that he is as valuable as has been claimed. It's not just a question of one selected number or another not supporting his case. It's that none of the numbers do. 這個部份應該讓所有的玫瑰迷很沮喪但這真的是很簡單的討論：缺少證據顯示Rose跟那些MVP一樣的有價值　我們不是要質疑怎樣的數據　　不支持Rose 而是全部的數據都不支持! I'm not cherry-picking stats to support some covert Rose-hating agenda. I literally cannot find a single shred of data, anywhere, to support the idea that he's the most valuable player in the league. 我不是要從數據裡雞蛋裡挑骨頭　來掩蓋我可能對Rose的恨意而是　　根本沒有數據來證明他是聯盟中最有價值的球員 Rose already has an uphill climb in any logical debate -- his status as the front-runner rests uneasily beside the fact that he'd be the fourth-best player in the state of Florida. This is where people point out that "Most Valuable" and "Best" aren't necessarily the same thing, and that's correct. Rose每項成績都攀高　　他也可以在佛羅里達成為第四好的球員 (在Nelson Bosh後至少也第三！) 也有人說最好價值　　本來就不用是最好的球員 But it does shift the burden of proof. If you're going to tell me that Rose has been more valuable this season in spite of those facts, you better bring a hell of a lot more to the table than, "But watch him play!" (For the record, I've seen him in person four times this season and countless other games on the tube.) 但這都不能省略如何去證明他的價值你要說服我這個球季Rose比其他人好　　那你最好帶卷山卷海的資料在桌上給我看 Digging for proof This always gets people screaming and yelling about those infernal statheads, as though it's some kind of horrible imposition to ask for actual hard evidence to back up an MVP vote. 很多人在討論證明　　很多人都會對那些變態的統計怪物嘶吼因為他們只會很機車的　要給個證明來支持MVP的投票 "Nobody has carried a greater burden than Rose," it's been said, and in an extremely narrow sense that's almost true -- only Kobe Bryant has used more possessions. Carrying the burden well, on the other hand, hasn't been his strong suit, as his middling true shooting percentage attests. More obviously, there are greater burdens than handling the ball for 20 seconds on every trip. Dwight Howard, for instance, carries the burden of being his team's entire defense and absorbing vicious beatings on offense, but it's tough to package that in a highlight reel. 但是我要說　　從來沒有一個人比Rose還要難提出證明的!~ 這是真的　簡單來說　　只有Kobe比Rose持球多　　所以這個低命中率就很難被支持下去了更明顯得是　　　他每次持球都快要20秒　　看看D Howard 他得價值　　他不但扛起全隊防　　還有不同的進攻手段 "Rose won without Carlos Boozer and Joakim Noah," it's been said, and certainly the Bulls did just that. However, even when those players were out, the Bulls outscored opponents when Rose was off the court, suggesting they were far more than the one-man band that's been depicted. None of the Bulls' other players are big stars, and this throws people, but Chicago's depth and defensive ability have carried it this year. 大家還說　沒有Noah跟Boozer　就沒有Rose得成功　　但明明他們兩個人受傷的時候　　　Rose還是帶領球隊打很好其實是因為他們堅強的防守　　跟板凳實力　去有這麼好得成績的! And finally, there's the idea of his indispensability -- it's nothing without him" approach. If that's the case, the Bulls should perform much worse when he's off the court than they do. Certainly, it's the case with most other stars. The Heat are 10.49 points per 100 possessions worse without LeBron James this season; the Mavs, 16.68 points worse without Dirk Nowitzki; the Magic, 6.95 worse without Howard, and the Lakers, 6.20 worse without Brya 最後有人提到Rose的不可缺乏性　　　但是他不在場的時候　公牛每100次持球只少了1.49分 LBJ不再熱火少10.49分　　少Dirk小牛少16.68分少了Kobe則少了81分　　少Howard少6.95分 Rose's Bulls? They lose just 1.49 points per 100 possessions. When he's off the court, they still outscore opponents by 6.78 per 100, which roughly translates to a 55-win team. 沒有Rose　他們比對手每100分還多6.78分　　沒有Rose還可以拿到大概55勝 Now, that first measure does understate Rose's impact, because he's played a lot of minutes with guys like Keith Bogans and Kurt Thomas. You can get more scientific by adjusting for the players Rose players with and against, as basketballvalue.com does, and the difference becomes a more respectable 8.60. But that isn't the biggest difference in the league, or even close to it. Howard benefits from the same math -- Orlando is 12.36 points better per 100 possessions with him on the court after said adjustment. 不過這個估計當然有點低估他得表現　　因為他跟阿湯哥或是Bogans一起上場如果調整一下　　有Rose在場上　每100次持球 Rose多得8.6分　但是比起Howard多得的12.36　還差很遠唷! Yes, these stats are notoriously noisy. But as I noted above, "The Derrick Rose Story" doesn't have compelling evidence to start with; this is another plank of non-support. 這些比較也許很煩人　　但這至少是個可以比較得證據　　 Other arguments similarly fall flat. "Look at Rose's impact on the Bulls' winning," you say. Well, Chicago has certainly won a ton, and they've done it with a suffocating defense than ranks first in the league. 說道公牛窒息式的防守 Rose? He's arguably been the least important part of that equation. While I'd argue the stats undervalue his defensive improvement this season, it's a bit jarring to find out that the Bulls actually give up dramatically fewer points the second he exits the game. 在防守裡面　　Rose好像就被認為是最不重要的防守角色我知道他今年防守大進步 As for the argument that Rose was the catalyst for the defense anyway, because of his buy-in to coach Tim Thibodeau's approach … I agree that was a necessary condition for Chicago's success. But has it really come to this? Are we really giving out an MVP trophy with "actually tried on defense for a change" as a key bullet point in the résumé? 但是要說Rose才是防守的催化劑並不然　　而是在今年才加盟的教練所以難道你要把MVP頒給一個努力加強防守的人　　但是實際建立銅牆鐵壁防守球隊的推手　　卻不是Rose If Rose is indispensable, however, we might also try to remove him from the Bulls entirely and see what happens. The equation everyone tries to make in their head is what I call the "bad backup" test, which holds that since Rose would be replaced by C.J. Watson while LeBron James would be replaced by Dwyane Wade, then Rose must be more valuable. 討論不可或缺得討論　當然Rose會很重要　因為Rose換成CJ 所以其實是CJ不夠強　當然顯示Rose的不可或缺囉! (CJ躺著也中槍) In this test, there's no reason to focus on just the team, however. A better version of this test will lead you directly to this year's true MVP: 這個比較光看一個隊不好　　我們要看大一點 Whom else in the league could you replace this player with? 例如　　誰是可以被取代得球員？ That's really what we want to know, isn't it? If you could trade the player tomorrow and replace him with somebody just as good, it's hard to make a case that he's the single most valuable player in the league, right? 這才是我們最想知道得吧　如果我們明天就換掉一個球員　　但是有找到一個也很讚的球員　　那原本這個被換掉的可能沒有那麼有價值吧？ In Rose's case, it's pretty apparent that you could replace him with Russell Westbrook and suffer virtually no drop-off. They both use an equally large chunk of their team's possessions, and use them almost exactly the same way in terms of shot-pass decisions and spots on the floor. Rose shoots more jumpers and Westbrook takes more free throws, but by and large you'd get the same results. Rose的這個例子　　你把他換成西河　應該會得到差不多了結果 Not a fan of Westbrook? Fine. You can try the same exercise with Nash, or Chris Paul, or Deron Williams, or even Wade, who despite being a 2 has a lot of similar attributes to Rose. One can argue for days whether Rose is a bit better than these players, and if so, by how much, but we're talking about small change here. And it's not just that there's one particular player you could replace Rose with and suffer only marginal decline; there are several such players. 不喜歡西河沒關係　　那你想想NAsh CP或是毒龍　甚至Wade 如果你認為Rose比他們優　　那把他們互換　　我敢說結果會差不多還可以找到滿多這樣得球員 Now, let's try the same exercise with another player. 同樣的試驗　　我們來看看另個球員 Who could replace Dwight Howard? 來換掉D Howard好不？ Anyone? 誰來換？ [Taps foot] [敲腳] Got a candidate in mind yet? 想到沒 [Looks at watch] [看手錶] No, I mean from this season, not 1995. Try again. 沒有吧　　　我說這個球季　　不能把1995的Oneal抓來在想想... [Crickets chirping] 想到蟋蟀都在叫了 Still waiting … 我還在等.... The conclusion is obvious, isn't it? 結論是沒有吧？？ Dwight Howard is the most irreplaceable player in the league. Howard他是最不能被替代的球員!! This is the ultimate reason not to vote "The Derrick Rose Story" for MVP: Every argument put forward for him works better for somebody else, and in particular works better for Howard. 所以這就是不該投給Rose的理由 This last one is the most damning, however. Put Westbrook, Paul or Williams in for Rose and the Bulls might slip a couple of games. Might. Put any other player in Howard's position and the Magic immediately turn to sawdust. It's not just that he's second in the league in PER and seventh in adjusted plus-minus; it's that no other center can touch him in either category, and the one who is closest (Andrew Bynum) has played half as many minutes. 把上述後衛來替代Rose可能會戰績有些差　　但是Howard被換了大概Magic就會變成超爛隊了　跟他比較接近得球員Bynum上場時間也僅他的一半 Unlike "The Derrick Rose Story," Howard's case has more than just raw emotion to support it. The Magic are third in the NBA in defensive efficiency -- ahead of Miami, Milwaukee, the Lakers and Dallas, among others -- even though nobody else in their top eight is even an average defensive player. An Orlando team that often plays Gilbert Arenas, Hedo Turkoglu and Ryan Anderson at the same time still gets elite defensive results because Howard so completely controls the paint behind them. 而且Howard比起Rose的故事性也不遑多讓　　　因為魔術得防守效率排第三　比其他像湖人　熱火　　小牛還好每次Howard每次都跟對上一些防守普通得球員一起出賽　像Anderson 火槍　跟Arenas 都是因為Howard在禁區拼命捍衛才有的結果 Offensively, Howard's fingerprints are everywhere, too -- not just with the dunks, but with the fouls he draws that put opponents in the bonus and hand his teammates easy freebies, and the clean 3-point looks that come without his ever touching the ball. It's not always pretty, but it's hugely valuable. 攻擊上　　Howard更是無所不在　　除了灌籃　　　他製造得犯規讓隊友輕鬆的後門　　還有大的三分空檔　　這些時刻他都甚至沒有持球　　這些並不漂亮(暗示跟Rose的兩段變速比) 但是卻大大得有價值! So why have the Magic not won more games than the Bulls? Because, to borrow everyone's favorite line about Rose, Howard has played the entire season without Boozer and Noah, and Luol Deng. Any of these three would be the second-best player on the Magic. Compare the benches and you'll get a similar laugh riot; the Bulls have arguably the league's best backup center, for instance, while the Magic don't even keep one on the roster. 那為啥魔術不能贏得比公牛多？　　因為Howard沒有Boozer, Noah跟Deng 這三個人隨便一個來　　就可以變成魔術的第二人 (Nelson:蛤？) 更不要說板凳深度了公牛有的全NBA最好的替補中鋒陣容魔術呢？ Unfortunately, the momentum is probably too far gone at this point. We like great stories and we don't particularly enjoy rooting for Goliath, so "The Derrick Rose Story" will win the MVP trophy when it should probably finish sixth or seventh, and Howard will end up in the same shafted company as Shaq, Garnett and Duncan before him. 不過　很不幸得　　討論這些都為時太晚　　我們都喜歡好得故事我們都不喜歡支持高大球員....Rose終將拿到MVP Howard大概只會得到第六第七得選票　　Howard就跟以前的Shaq KG還有TD一樣難被青睞 But let's not kid ourselves. In the end, this vote says a lot more about us than it does about either Rose or Howard. 但我們也不要欺騙自己了最終這個投票結果　　就是反應得得我們得想法而不是討論Rose跟Howard本身的競爭 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 98.212.125.50

[外絮] 霍林杰專欄 - Truth about the Derric …

[外絮] 霍林杰專欄　- Truth about the Derric …