Fw: [外絮] 背框戰術有效率嗎？
※ [本文轉錄自 NBA 看板 #1IqzpjAU ]
作者: idiotsmart (不吃蕃茄) 看板: NBA
標題: [外絮] 背框戰術有效率嗎？
時間: Mon Jan 13 20:32:40 2014
How Efficient Is a Post-up Play?
背框戰術有效率嗎？
(部落格版：http://mola79321.pixnet.net/blog/post/343816526)
Earlier this week, Grantland ran a Q&A between Zach Lowe and Boston Celtics
head coach Brad Stevens. Among the fun tidbits of basketball knowledge
sprinkled throughout this was an interesting conversation about post play.
前幾天，Grantland做一個問與答專欄，主角是作家Zach Lowe和波士頓塞爾迪克
總教練Brad Stevens。在這些有趣的籃球知識問答中，有一段關於背框戰術的問
答相當引人注目。
Here is the short exchange:
以下擷取自他們對話：
Q: Analytics folks say the post-up, or at least a post-up shot, is a
low-efficiency play. But there's a way to reconcile that, right?
問：數據派表示背框戰術，或說至少背框出手，是屬於低效率的進攻。但，有辦
法去使背框戰術有效率，對吧？
A: There are two ways to get inside-out: driving or posting.
答：有兩個方法可以由內往外分球，就是切入或背框。
Q: In other words: The post-up is more a vehicle for passing and other shots,
rather than necessarily for a post-up shot itself?
問：換句話說，背框戰術算是為了傳球然後獲得其他出手選擇的手段，而不是一定
要背框單打，對嗎？
A: It's a vehicle for playing inside-out. That's right.
答：沒錯。這是個由內往外分球進攻的手段。
That back-and-forth inspired an interesting question: Is a post-up — one of
the most common ways to score across all levels of basketball — really an
inefficient play?
這段問答引發一個有趣的問題。任何籃球場上都看得到的戰術－背框進攻，真的是
沒效率的戰術嗎？
the play itself. A strict back-to-the-basket (though a player can face up
from that position) post-up usually occurs anywhere from the block to
mid-post on either side of the floor. The result of most of these situations,
on the NBA level at least, are jump hooks or turnaround jumpers. So despite
the image you might have in your head of a player going to work deep in the
paint, right near the basket, the actual shot results are typically short to
midrange 2s anywhere from roughly four to 12 feet from the hoop. As the
analytics movement has told us, shots from those locations produce a worse
points-per-possession outcome than the three key scoring areas on the floor:
at the rim, behind the 3-point line, and at the free throw line.
為了能回答這個問題，我們必須先去對背框戰術做些基本的分析。一個嚴謹的背
框戰術通常發生在籃框兩側的低位和腰位區域（雖然一個球員也可以在那個位置
轉為面框進攻）。多數這些進攻都會以勾射或是轉身跳投作結，至少在NBA這個層
級是如此。儘管你腦中的畫面是用力打進禁區，在籃框附近攻擊，但實際的的結
果是典型的中短距離兩分球，約莫在4到12呎的區域內出手。從數據分析可得知，
這些區域的每回合進攻效率是比起三個主要的得分區域來的差。這三個區域分別
是：籃下出手、三分出手，和罰球。
That isn’t to say that post-ups can’t ever generate any of those efficient
looks. There are certain things that can be trained into a player’s game —
the use of fakes with the ball to draw fouls, counters such as spins and
step-throughs to get shots at the rim — to produce the type of results
empirical data has shown to be the most productive. The problem is, even with
the right approach, it’s impossible to expect any player to consistently get
to the line or to the rim off a post-up.
並不是說背框進攻無法獲得上述那些有效率的出手。球員可以訓練某些技巧，來
獲得數據上較為有效率的出手機會。像是假動作賺犯規、利用轉身或是低位腳步
取得籃框附近的出手機會。問題在於，即使方法正確，也不可能去期待任何球員
持續的在背框進攻時賺到罰球機會或是打到籃下出手。
In a way, post attacks in the NBA are really something of a paradox. On one
hand, a player posting up has to possess enough skill (or have a big enough
strength/height advantage) over an opponent to convert short- to medium-range
shots, while occasionally creating opportunities at the rim or drawing fouls.
Without this, using a post-up like a “vehicle” for better shots, like
Stevens states above, becomes much more difficult. Smart defenses will simply
force nonthreatening players to try to score in one-on-one matchups. The
tricky part comes when a player proves capable of doing so. At that point, it
becomes using the threat of his scoring — and not the scoring itself — to
produce efficient looks.
某方面來說，NBA的背框進攻是件自相矛盾的事。一方面，一位背框進攻選手需要
有足夠的技巧（或是有足夠的力量及身高優勢）才能在防守者面前獲得中短距離出
手機會得分，並從中創造籃下出手或上罰球線的機會。如果沒有上述的能力，要像
Stevens所說的利用背框當作獲得更好出手機會的手段，變得更為困難。聰明的防
守就單純迫使一位沒有背框威脅力的球員嘗試一對一出手。而當球員證明自己有能
力背框單打得分時，這件事就變得有些微妙。此時，戰術變成利用球員的背框得分
威脅來製造有效率的出手機會，而不是背框進攻本身。
Last season’s Knicks, the 2011 Mavericks, and the Stan Van Gundy era Magic
subscribed to this philosophy. Those teams used great individual threats —
Carmelo Anthony, Dirk Nowitzki, and Dwight Howard, respectively — to create
as many efficient looks as possible (primarily 3s in the case of the Knicks
and Magic). To counter this, some coaches around the league are warming to
the idea of a strict “no double-teams” policy in their defensive
philosophy, a major change from even the recent past, when nearly every
player with even a middling reputation as a post scorer was met with endless
waves of double-teams. The idea for those Magic, Mavs, and Knicks teams, as
Stevens was suggesting to Lowe, wasn’t only to get the best out of Howard,
Nowitzki and Anthony, but to allow their individual brilliance to create
openings for either uncontested 3s or clear driving/cutting gaps to the rim
that allow for layups and fouls.
去年的尼克隊、2011年的小牛隊，以及Stan Van Gundy時期的魔術隊，這三支球
隊的進攻便包含此籃球哲學。這三支球隊利用頂尖的個人單打威脅，分別是Carmelo
Anthony、Dirk Nowitzki和Dwight Howard，來創造大量的高效率出手機會（以尼
克和魔術的例子來說，這些出手主要是三分球）。為了對付這種進攻，「絕對不
要包夾」的概念漸漸在聯盟裡某些教練的防守哲學中發酵。這讓一直以來的防守
策略有了相當大的改變。在過往即使是普通的背框得分手，也會遇到無限的包夾
地獄。如同Stevens像Lowe暗示的內容，那些像魔術隊、小牛隊或是尼克隊等球隊
的進攻概念，不只是要讓Howard、Nowitzki和Anthony等球員有最佳得分機會，而
是藉著這些球員強大的個人能力，創造出隊友三分的空檔，或是能上籃或賺犯規
的切入和空切縫隙。
But as we’ve seen with Anthony, a player hell-bent on finishing for himself
off a post-up (or isolation) can drag down an entire offense, even if he’s
converting a high percentage of his own shots. Anthony is brilliant when it
comes to creating clean looks for himself, and that prompts double-teams or
shifts from an opposing defense. The problem is that Anthony falls into the
trap of not using those double-teams to create better looks for his teammates
nearly as often as he could.
但我們也看到Anthony這位在背框（或拉開單打）時，想要自己出手的球員，是可
以將球隊的進攻體系拖垮的。即使他自己單打的的命中率很高。當Anthony能讓自
己有好的出手機會，而對手為他作出即時的包夾或改變防守策略時，他是出色的
球員。問題在於Anthony不盡量利用那些包夾製造隊友更好的出手機會時，便掉入
對手的陷阱。
On the other hand, there are players like Washington’s Nene. The Brazilian
big man ranks in only the 61st percentile converting chances against single
coverage in the post, according to the Synergy Sports database. Because he’s
not on the same level as Anthony when it comes to putting pressure on a
defense, Nene, a willing and skilled passer, produces middling results when
moving the ball out of a post-up — he ranks only in the 58th percentile on
passes from the post to spot-up shooters.
另一方面，有些球員，像巫師隊的Nene。根據Synergy Sports的數據，這位巴西
來的大個子在一對一背框單打時，得分百分等第只排在61。因為在面對防守壓力
時，他和Anthony的等級差很多。所以Nene這位傳球技巧雖好，也願意傳球的球員
，把球從背框單打傳出去的得分率卻也普普。他在背框情形下將球傳給定點射手
的得分百分等第只排在58。
It’s with players like Nene where the inefficiency of post-ups starts coming
to light. Despite ranking worse in the latter category, those passes out to
shooters produce a PPP (points per possession) rate of 1.143. In comparison,
Nowitzki ranks sixth in the league (minimum of 25 attempts) with a PPP of
1.137, according to the Synergy Sports database. That means Nene, despite a
middling effectiveness as a post player, creates better offense simply by
passing out of a post-up than the future Hall of Famer does by taking a shot.
而正是Nene這種球員讓沒效率的背框進攻看到一絲曙光。儘管在傳球部份的排名
不佳，那些傳給定點射手球的PPP（每回合進攻的得分）是1.143。以Nowitzki作
為比較，根據Synergy Sports的數據，他的背框進攻PPP是1.137，排名聯盟第六
（出手至少25次者）。意思是，儘管Nene的背框進攻效率普通，單單在背框時把
球傳出去，就創造出比未來名人堂球員Nowizki還好的進攻效率。
This isn’t a universal trend. Not every player is substantially better at
passing out of the post rather than scoring for themselves. But the trend
generally does suggest that the most efficient play out of a post-up is a
shot by someone other than the player posting up.
這並不是個潮流。不是每位球員的傳球效率都比自己得分來的高。但這個趨勢大
致上代表著最有效率的背框進攻方式是由背框球員以外的人出手。
So the answer to the question above is both “yes” and “no.” A post-up,
for the vast majority of players, is generally an inefficient way to score.
Yet by finding players who excel in such an uneconomical action, NBA teams
are presented with the opportunity to unlock opposing defenses and extract
the efficient shots they crave.
所以一開始問題的答案既是「是」也是「不是」。對大多數的球員來說，背框不
是一個有效的得分方式。不過，藉著某些球員精通這種沒效率的低位進攻，球隊
讓自己有機會破解對方防守，並從中獲得人人渴望的高效率出手機會。
原文網址－
http://tinyurl.com/k9fpw78
心得：
其實是一陣子的文章了
只是翻完一直忘了放上來XD
這個議題非常有趣
因為現今籃球比較少看到把球掉進低位一對一的狀況
規則、戰術，或是會打低位的球員變少了....
不管哪種原因，在數據效率分析上，低位單打出手的效率的確偏低
但是不管看哪隊比賽，各個球隊的戰術還是離不開低位進攻
而我想這篇文算是將原因表達的非常清楚
我想不只文章所說的三位球員
和Dirk一樣的老人TD，他的低位破壞力在去年季後賽有目共睹
輸給小牛後的LBJ也特地加強這塊，在這兩年季後賽也展現出低位的效果
而今年和小牛隊進攻類似的拓荒者
也是有Aldridge這個低位進攻武器，才能讓戰術執行更順暢
溜馬隊的West在球隊進攻不順暢時，也能適時的用低位進攻幫助球隊運轉進攻
如果沒有優秀的低位單打能力
就不能吸引包夾，也無法執行一系列的戰術
空切沒有效果、三分沒有空檔...
所以我認為，對一支想要爭冠的球隊來說
一位強力的低位好手是不可或缺的
--
新手NBA外電翻譯+數據分析部落格；內有網誌好讀版
http://mola79321.pixnet.net/blog
歡迎來討論!!!
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 36.231.252.133
推
01/13 20:35, , 1F
01/13 20:35, 1F
推
01/13 20:38, , 2F
01/13 20:38, 2F
推
01/13 20:40, , 3F
01/13 20:40, 3F
推
01/13 20:41, , 4F
01/13 20:41, 4F
→
01/13 20:46, , 5F
01/13 20:46, 5F
→
01/13 20:46, , 6F
01/13 20:46, 6F
推
01/13 20:46, , 7F
01/13 20:46, 7F
推
01/13 20:46, , 8F
01/13 20:46, 8F
推
01/13 20:48, , 9F
01/13 20:48, 9F
推
01/13 20:49, , 10F
01/13 20:49, 10F
推
01/13 20:49, , 11F
01/13 20:49, 11F
→
01/13 20:49, , 12F
01/13 20:49, 12F
※ KISSFORMISS:轉錄至看板 BLAZERS 01/13 20:49
推
01/13 20:50, , 13F
01/13 20:50, 13F
→
01/13 20:50, , 14F
01/13 20:50, 14F
→
01/13 20:50, , 15F
01/13 20:50, 15F
→
01/13 20:52, , 16F
01/13 20:52, 16F
→
01/13 20:52, , 17F
01/13 20:52, 17F
→
01/13 20:53, , 18F
01/13 20:53, 18F
推
01/13 20:55, , 19F
01/13 20:55, 19F
→
01/13 20:55, , 20F
01/13 20:55, 20F
推
01/13 20:58, , 21F
01/13 20:58, 21F
→
01/13 20:58, , 22F
01/13 20:58, 22F
→
01/13 20:58, , 23F
01/13 20:58, 23F
→
01/13 20:59, , 24F
01/13 20:59, 24F
→
01/13 20:59, , 25F
01/13 20:59, 25F
→
01/13 20:59, , 26F
01/13 20:59, 26F
→
01/13 21:00, , 27F
01/13 21:00, 27F
→
01/13 21:00, , 28F
01/13 21:00, 28F
→
01/13 21:00, , 29F
01/13 21:00, 29F
→
01/13 21:01, , 30F
01/13 21:01, 30F
→
01/13 21:02, , 31F
01/13 21:02, 31F
推
01/13 21:04, , 32F
01/13 21:04, 32F
推
01/13 21:05, , 33F
01/13 21:05, 33F
推
01/13 21:10, , 34F
01/13 21:10, 34F
推
01/13 21:14, , 35F
01/13 21:14, 35F
→
01/13 21:15, , 36F
01/13 21:15, 36F
推
01/13 21:15, , 37F
01/13 21:15, 37F
推
01/13 21:17, , 38F
01/13 21:17, 38F
推
01/13 21:18, , 39F
01/13 21:18, 39F
→
01/13 21:18, , 40F
01/13 21:18, 40F
推
01/13 21:33, , 41F
01/13 21:33, 41F
推
01/13 21:33, , 42F
01/13 21:33, 42F
推
01/13 21:44, , 43F
01/13 21:44, 43F
推
01/13 22:05, , 44F
01/13 22:05, 44F
推
01/13 22:13, , 45F
01/13 22:13, 45F
推
01/13 22:20, , 46F
01/13 22:20, 46F
推
01/13 22:25, , 47F
01/13 22:25, 47F
推
01/13 22:28, , 48F
01/13 22:28, 48F
→
01/13 22:39, , 49F
01/13 22:39, 49F
→
01/13 22:40, , 50F
01/13 22:40, 50F
→
01/13 22:40, , 51F
01/13 22:40, 51F
推
01/13 23:30, , 52F
01/13 23:30, 52F
推
01/13 23:38, , 53F
01/13 23:38, 53F
推
01/13 23:38, , 54F
01/13 23:38, 54F
推
01/13 23:41, , 55F
01/13 23:41, 55F
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
※ 轉錄者: species (128.59.63.220), 時間: 01/13/2014 23:42:06
→
01/13 23:45, , 56F
01/13 23:45, 56F
推
01/14 00:02, , 57F
01/14 00:02, 57F
→
01/14 00:03, , 58F
01/14 00:03, 58F
推
01/14 01:31, , 59F
01/14 01:31, 59F
推
01/15 09:10, , 60F
01/15 09:10, 60F
→
01/15 09:11, , 61F
01/15 09:11, 61F
推
01/15 09:15, , 62F
01/15 09:15, 62F
→
01/15 14:35, , 63F
01/15 14:35, 63F
推
01/15 15:27, , 64F
01/15 15:27, 64F
→
01/15 15:27, , 65F
01/15 15:27, 65F
→
01/15 15:28, , 66F
01/15 15:28, 66F
Nets 近期熱門文章
PTT體育區 即時熱門文章
