[ DT ]Finding position in a positionless wo …

看板Thunder (奧克拉荷馬市雷霆)作者poning (TI78。)時間15年前 (2010/08/07 02:08)推噓4(4推 0噓 1→)

留言5則, 4人參與討論串1/1

That’s the rub for Green apologists. How Oklahoma City scores or wins doesn’t matter – it’s that it does. You can repeat it until you’re blue in the face, but Green played major minutes on the youngest squad in the league that also won 50 games and darn near beat the NBA champs. Now, one could also mention that according to advanced metrics, Green was one of the worst defenders in the league and also had OKC’s lowest plus/minus. That’s why this debate continues, and continues, and continues. Nobody really has a firm grip on the role of Uncle Jeff. And nobody REALLY knows his true value either. 對於分析Green，其實有個困難的地方。先不管雷霆怎麼得分或怎麼贏球-反正事實就是這樣-讀者可以一直repeat直到口齒不清-但Green在這隻年輕、拿下50勝、季後賽差點幹掉湖人的隊伍裡上場時間非常多。現在，根據一些進階數據，Green是聯盟裡防守最差的球員之一，同時他也是雷霆裡+/-最差的。這就是為何爭論總是不停。沒有人真正掌握住 Uncle的角色，也沒有人真正了解他真正的價值。 I’m not crystal clear on how positional classifications really fit in. I’m not really sold on scrapping it altogether. Basketball is a funny game. It’s free-flowing with players switching on defensive assignments constantly. It’s not like in baseball where if a guy is playing shortstop, that’s what he’s playing. Or in football where if he’s at quarterback, that’s the position he plays (though teams have begun to flex on that with the wildcat formation). Basketball is a game where you score and defend and though you may have 「SF」 next to your name, it really doesn’t matter as long as you’re doing to job and fulfilling the role you’re supposed to. Most basketball schemes and plans are based around the five position set, so positions make sense there. But say your shooting guard gets caught in a switch and is defending a power forward and forces a miss. He did his job right? So what’s it matter? 我不是算命的，我也不知道到底他適合用哪種方法來分析。我也沒有全然接受這些理論。籃球是很有趣的東西，球員在場上的防守任務經常變動，不像棒球，今天派你當SS，你整場就只負責SS該負責的事情，也不像美式足球，派你當四分衛，你就必須專心在這個位子上(譯註：美式足球我不懂，所以原文括號的地方我就不翻了)。回到籃球，雖然你掛著SF 這個角色，但你還是要得分、要防守，不管怎樣你就是要做好這些工作，完成你應該做到的事情。大部分的籃球戰術規劃都是以五人組合為主，所以位置分配是有必要的，不過讓我們假設一個情景：你的2號因為交換防守，守到對方的4號，而他表現不錯把對方4號守住了。他有做好他的工作嗎？(有的話)此時位置重要嗎？ The point is, you want to always grab favorable matchups at wherever those positions may be. So you want players in situations where they can perform at their best. A center isn’t going to be able to defend a point guard for 85 possessions. So you find a place for him and find another player he can match up with. We’re going to see some great examples of all this with Team USA in Turkey. Players will be playing everywhere. We might see Derrick Rose at the 4 or something. And if it works, does it matter? 重點在於：你要確定你的球員對於他們對上的球員都有優勢存在，不論他們的位置是什麼，所以球員在任何狀況下都必須要作到最好。當中鋒對上控衛，可預見中鋒很難守住控衛，所以我們要找另外一個球員去負責。今年世錦賽美國隊會提供一個很好的觀察樣本，球員將必須有辦法打每一個位置。也許我們可以看到Derrick Rose打4號之類的。如果這樣成效良好的話，我們會認為有差嗎？ So just like Rob did, let’s place each Thunderer into a respective offensive and defensive category and see what we come up with. Obviously this is a rough draft and may be way off in your mind. So feel free to adjust. 所以我學著Rob Mahoney的方法，為雷霆球員試著做一個進攻角色/防守角色的配置，來看看會變成什麼樣子。很明顯這只是個粗略的規劃，也許讀者很有意見，大家可以自己玩玩看。 (這應該很簡單，不翻沒關係吧！) Russell Westbrook – D1/D2, Creator/Handler/Scorer Kevin Durant - D2/D3/D4, Scorer Thabo Sefolosha – D2/D3, ? Daequan Cook - D2, Scorer Nick Collison - D4/D5, Rebounder Jeff Green – D3/D4, Scorer/Rebounder James Harden – D2/D3, Scorer/Creator Serge Ibaka – D4/D5, Rebounder Royal Ivey – D1/D2, Handler Nenad Krstic – D5, Rebounder Morris Peterson – D2/D3, Scorer D.J. White – D4, Scorer/Rebounder Eric Maynor – D1, Handler/Creator Byron Mullens - D4/D5, Rebounder Obviously some will disagree, but in regards to Green, I think it’s a discussion worth continuing. He’s really a poster boy for this debate and while yes, advanced statistics say one thing, often times the eye test says another. And it’s hard to forget his value in a number of big wins last season. Though at the same time, it’s hard to forget a game like Game 3 against the Lakers when he sat and the Thunder cranked it up defensively. That’ s why he’s so hard to nail down. 一定會有人對某人的分類不是很贊同，不過對於Green的角色，我想很有繼續討論下去的價值。他就是這次討論的主題，而且我們都知道，他的進階數據是一回事，然而實際看比賽的時候，又是另外一回事。我們很難忘記他去年好幾次的關鍵表現，不過我們也很難忘記他季後賽第三戰表現很差的時候。這就是為何我們難以去評斷他。 Is Jeff Green a power forward? By traditional standards, absolutely not. But just like some teams play with two point guards or two centers (ie the Lakers), why can’t OKC play with two small forwards? Why must Green actually be considered a power forward? Again, I’m not saying that Jeff Green should start at the 4 and play there for 82 games the next 10 years. As I’ve said a million times, I don’t know where he really fits in yet. Though something worked last year, even against the evidence of advanced stats. Green helped this team win. How you can calculate that, I don’t know. Green是一個大前鋒嗎？就傳統的標準，毫無疑問的是否定答案，但就像其他的隊伍，同時上兩個控衛，或者像湖人同時讓兩個中鋒上場，為何雷霆不能同時用兩個小前鋒上場？為何Green一定要被視為大前鋒？我要強調，我不是說Green應該會打10年先發大前鋒，我還不知道到底怎樣才是最適合Green的。雖然有些時候這個組合運作很好，即使進階數據看起來不好，然而Green卻是幫助我們贏球的那一個人。到底要怎麼評量，我不知道。 You know in the radio introductions before each game, every player says their name, their number and their position. One player doesn’t say a position. It’ s Jeff Green. And that’s exactly it. While maybe he doesn’t have a position on this roster, he certainly has place on it. 你一定知道廣播轉播每場比賽開始前介紹球員的時候，播報員會報告他們的背號跟位置，不過只有一個球員例外-Green。播報員不會講出他的位置，而這是很中肯的。當然在名單裡他可能位置不詳，但在球隊裡他的地位卻顯而易見。 -- 『也許你想從我身上尋求許多東西。可是我卻一點也沒有感覺自己有什麼被需求。』 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 220.132.168.231