原文網址 － http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/62762/the-unguarded
The venerable Justin Kubatko, founder of Basketball-Reference and a lion of the TrueHoop Stat Geek Smackdown (although, it must be said, a cowardly one -- he won the thing twice and has refused to compete since) wrote (Insider) about teams that under and overachieved last year.
令人尊敬的Justin Kubatko是BBR的創始者，也是TrueHoop（譯按：ESPN的專欄網站）數據怪胎論戰中的雄獅。（雖然我必須說，是隻膽小的雄獅。他贏了兩次後就不敢再比了。）他寫篇文章關於去年令人失望和令人驚艷的球隊。
He noted something interesting, specifically that the Thunder were just 3-6 in close games last season, while a year earlier they had been much better. Kubatko writes:
他具體的點出一件有趣的事。雷霆隊去年在分數膠著的比賽中只有三勝六敗的表現，然而再一年前他們表現卻更好。Kubatko文中寫到：
Some might want to blame that performance on the loss of James Harden, one of the league's most efficient fourth-quarter scorers in 2011-12. But Harden's replacement, Kevin Martin, led the NBA with an effective field goal percentage of .793 on shots taken in the fourth quarter or overtime with a scoring margin of three or fewer points.
「有些人可能會把結果怪罪於James Harden的離隊，因為他是2011-12年聯盟中第四節得分效率最高的球員之一。但補上Harden空缺的Kevin Martin在第四節或延長賽比賽分差三分內時出手有效命中率（eFG%）高達.793，在這個數據他領銜全聯盟。」
This piece of news is, for me personally, surprising, delightful and problematic all at once.
這個消息對我個人而言是既充滿驚喜、愉悅又狐疑的。
First: Raise your hand if you were once a devoted listener to Ryen Russillo's NBA Today podcast.
第一：若你是Ryan Russillo的NBA today網路廣播的忠實聽眾請取手。
The story goes like this: In early 2011 I wrote a bunch of stuff about how Kobe Bryant -- despite his reputation -- was no king of crunch time because he misses a hell of a lot. People's thinking about Hero Ball has evolved some in the interim. But back then Kobe won every crunch time poll, whether from players, GMs or fans. That he might not be the best counted as earth-shattering. My friend Russillo was among those to say, essentially, what the hell.
故事是這樣的：在2011年初時我寫了一堆關於Kobe Bryant不是關鍵時刻之王，儘管他有這個美譽，因為他關鍵時刻打了很多鐵。在球季間，人們漸漸開始討論關鍵英雄的議題。但在過往，Kobe贏得每個關於關鍵時刻能力的民調，無論球員、GM、或是球迷都投他。若他不被選為最好的則會被視為驚天動地之事。我朋友Russillo就是那些對於不選他會說出「殺小？！」的人。
Russillo asked me, on his podcast, something like: If the stats showed that some other player, like, say, the famously efficient Kevin Martin, had much better crunch time stats than Bryant, would I give the ball to Martin over Bryant?
在他的節目中，Russillo問我一些像是：「若數據顯示其他球員，像是有名的高效率球員Kevin Martin有著比Bryant更好的關鍵時刻數據，我會把球給Martin還是Bryant？」
I said that if the stats showed somebody was way better than Bryant at making late shots, I would pick that guy to take that late shot.
我回答「若數據顯示其他人的最後一擊數據比起Bryant來的好的話，我會選擇那個人來投最後一擊」。
And in a small, Internetty kind of way, all hell broke loose. In the retelling, the fun little story among Russillo's listeners has become that I'm the nut who said I'd take Kevin Martin over Kobe Bryant, HA HA HA. It still comes up now and again. Even though I never said that. Such is life.
故事接下來，用個網路用語來說，天要塌下來了。在重講這個Russillo聽眾間的有趣小故事時，內容就變成我是個選擇Kevin Martin而非Kobe Bryant的瘋子，哈哈哈。甚至到現在還會被提到，即使我從未這樣說過。人生啊～
Now I know better. Now I know that's the wrong question, for two reasons. First, because crunch time shooting percentages, based on tiny sample sizes, bounce around like crazy from year to year and nobody is consistently near the top. Maybe nobody is truly "clutch."
過了兩季後，我懂更多了，我懂那是個錯誤的問題。首先，關鍵時刻的命中率是基於小樣本，所以每年的變動幅度很大，而且沒有人一直立於頂端。或者可以說沒有人是真正的「關鍵殺手」。
But more importantly, picking any guy to take the last shot, no matter what the defense does, is dumb. Teams with go-to scorers who don't pass much are a cinch to defend and struggle to score, because all five defenders know who'll take the shot, which means that guy never has an open shot.
但更重要的是，不管選擇「誰」，無視防守情形的來執行最後一擊都是愚蠢的。當球隊的最後一擊執行者不會傳球的話，防守既簡單也能讓他不容易得分，因為五位防守者都知道誰會投最後一球，也就是說這個人不可能有機會有空檔出手。
Covered shots are very hard for any player to make, and that's exactly why the super-talented Bryant misses nearly 75 percent of the time late in close games.
被守住的投籃無論對誰都是難以投進的，而這也是為什麼超級進攻好手Bryant會投丟75%的關鍵一擊。
And it's also why, now, this story has taken a twist and, for a season at least, Martin is among the best anywhere at hitting in crunch time: Last season he played with two spectacular late-game ballhogs in Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook.
同時也是為什麼這個故事來個急轉彎，至少有理由解釋為什麼Martin是關鍵時刻的最佳得分手之一：上一季他和兩個拉鋸戰的超級球霸，Kevin Durant和Russell Westbrook一起打球。
Which meant, by and large, Martin did not get the ball in crunch time. Simple as that.
總的來說，代表Martin關鍵時刻根本碰不到球。就這麼簡單。
He'd go dozens of minutes without launching a shot, as commentators said things like "this has got to be Durant's time." And so it was. On NBA.com/stats I just noodled around with the stats and found in the last five minutes of a game within five, the Thunder's two stars combined to take 176 shots ... to Martin's 12. Their shooting was crummy -- both below 40 percent -- but Martin barely missed.
當球評說「這是Durant接管的時間了」時，他在第四節的時間裡無法投出任何一球。而事實也是如此。在NBA.com的數據中，我翻來翻去後發現最後五分鐘、五分差內的比賽，雷霆隊的兩大球星總共投176球……比對Martin的12球。他們的出手都是濫投－兩個人命中率都低於40%－但Martin幾乎不會打鐵。
My suspicion, in seeing Martin's killer numbers was: That's because Martin didn't get the ball unless he was wide open.
我看到Martin的神級數據後猜想：因為Martin沒有空檔是拿不到球的。
And sure enough, I looked up the video, and that's precisely what it shows. Here's Martin nailing a 3 in overtime against Dallas. There he is breaking the hearts of Nuggets fans on the road, putting the visitors up one with 1:25 left. There he is in Memphis, doubling a three-point lead with a 3. In a season's worth of crunch time 3s, the defense was consistently distorted to Durant and never got close to Martin.
在看過影片後，我發現就是這麼一回事。Martin在對達拉斯的延長賽時砍近一個三分球。他又在客場比賽中傷透金塊球迷的心，讓雷霆隊在比賽剩一分二十五秒時領先一分。在曼菲斯時也是一樣，用一顆三分球將三分領先擴大到六分。在面對價值一個球季的關鍵三分時，防守方一直影響Durant而毫不理會Martin。
The defense was betting Martin simply would not get the ball -- and it was usually correct.
防守方賭Martin不會拿到球，而這樣賭通常是正確的。
On the odd nights he did get a crunch time shot, he usually made it, because he has always been an excellent shooter, and in other seasons was his team's go-to offensive weapon. These are warm-up shots for him. Martin played 98 minutes with the game within five in the closing five minutes, and over all that time he took six 3-pointers without missing a single one. He was wide open every single time. He attacked with his dribble six times, and scored twice. The rest of the time he didn't shoot.
在些少見晚上，他真的有機會投關鍵一擊，而他通常能投進，因為他一直以來都是個優質射手，而且在其他幾季也是他所屬球隊的關鍵進攻武器。對他來說就像投籃練習。在所有五分鐘內小於五分差的比賽，總共98分鐘裡他六顆三分球全部命中。每次出手他都是空檔。其餘六次的進攻是運球後出手，而這六次中命中兩次。其他的時間他都在打醬油。
Now, I don't know how much this does, if anything, to help Martin's reputation in the minds of fans and Russillo listeners. Martin is making shots lots of players can make, which doesn't make him more talented than Kobe ... there may be no way to rank them or anyone else. Any good scorer can score well in crunch time if the opportunities are there, and crunch time is rare enough that it might never be possible to prove anyone is, long-term, superior.
現在我不知道這些內容有沒有幫助到Martin在球迷及Russillo的聽眾的心中的名聲，如果能有幫助的話啦。Martin投進多數球員能投進的球，這不代表他比Kobe更有天份……這兩人本來就不可能放一起比。任何好的得分手能在關鍵時刻給予機會時順利得分，而關鍵時刻是少見到可能無法證明誰是永遠的關鍵殺手。
What's inferior, though, is running the "archangel" offense that the Bulls used for a time with Michael Jordan. If Durant and Westbrook had passed just a little more, the team would have scored more points. Advanced analysis has long shown the Thunder offense is better when the two stars do a little less. The same goes for Bryant, and all the NBA's "closers." Move it to the open man. The team gets better looks, and scores more, 'cause that wide open guy has it easy. Get him the ball, not because of who he is, but because of how alone he is.
較差的進攻是像公牛隊以前設計給Michael Jordan的戰術－「球給23號」。如果Durant和Westbrook能多傳點球的話，球隊便能多得點分。進階數據分析一直以來都顯示雷霆隊進攻在兩大球星少做點事時更佳。這對Bryant和其他的NBA「終結者」都是一樣的。傳給空檔的人，球隊能有更佳的進攻選擇、能得更多分，因為空檔出手更為簡單。把球給他，不是因為他是特定的誰，而是他有多大空檔。
留言列表
