[外絮] 把JLin放在替補使湖人更好嗎?
Has benching Jeremy Lin improved the Lakers?
By Harrison Faigen
http://ppt.cc/yb8O 出自SB Nation silverscreenandroll.com
節省時間以下重點式翻譯:
When Los Angeles Lakers coach Byron Scott made his decision to change the
starting lineup -- sitting Carlos Boozer and Jeremy Lin down to be replaced
by Ed Davis and Ronnie Price -- he was widely mocked (by yours truly
included). Since losing in their debut, the new lineup has gone 3-2 since the
change, including a three-game winning streak sandwiched in between two
losses.
The Lakers did post a seemingly quality win over the San Antonio Spurs
(albeit while Tony Parker was not at his best or healthiest), but otherwise
have beaten up on one of the dregs of the league in Minnesota, as well as a
mediocre Sacramento outfit literally plagued with viral meningitis to it's
best player. That these wins came between blowout losses to a mediocre New
Orleans Pelicans team and a just-plain-bad Indiana one, coupled with the wins
all being fairly close in margin against weak teams, it leaves one thinking
that any assertions this is a sustainable performance improvement is
extremely premature. This seems especially true when considering the smaller
sample size of performance in which to assess the new starters (106 minutes)
versus the old ones (337). With all of these contextual factors out in the
open, let's compare, and more specifically look at the performance of Jeremy
Lin and Ronnie Price.
當史考特決定用Price和Davis換Lin跟Boozer時遭到很多嘲笑，替換之後戰績3-2。湖人
贏了Parker非完全健康的馬刺，爛隊灰狼，和有個好球員生病的國王。但被中等球隊
鵜鶘和中下的溜馬爆掉。這代表湖人表現進步了嗎? 這是一個小樣本，現在來比較一
下新舊陣容，特別是Lin和Pirce。
Jeremy Lin may "regret" his play thus far, but when looking at his individual
numbers and the Lakers primary alternative at the point, it's hard to. Lin
has certainly been better than Price. Lin's field goal percentage (42.5),
effective field goal percentage (48.1) and three point percentage (33.8) are
significantly higher than Price's (29.1%, 34.5% and 22.9%, respectively).
While Lin does have a significantly worse AST/TO ratio (1.98 assists for
every turnover compared to Price's 3.36), part of this is a sort of
"creativity tax," i.e. that Lin is more often asked to create opportunities
for teammates, whereas Price is more often just making a simple entry pass or
moving the ball along in the offense.
Lin很後悔他的表現，其實不用，Lin絕對優於Price(進攻數據)，Lin的助攻失誤比遠
低於Price，但這是因為他在進攻的創造力使然，Lin經常製造機會給隊友，而Pirce
只是為傳球而傳球單純只是讓球流動。
However, when looking at statistics that factor in team performance, one can
certainly make a case for Price starting over Lin. The two players' offensive
ratings are separated by a mere .6, a small enough number to be statistically
insignificant, but Price's defensive rating (106.9) is much better than Lin's
(113). This information strongly fits the established narrative of Price's
defensive superiority. Price shifted into the starting lineup at the same
time as Davis (who is the Lakers one player who could be graded as a
defensive plus), whereas Lin has played more alongside Boozer, whose defense
consists of attempting to kick the ball out of bounds on pick-and-rolls,
trying to distract players with the gleam from his head, and a LOT of
screaming. Given these have been their standard big man pairings whether they
are starting or on the bench, it's hard to definitively separate who is
responsible for these numbers just by looking at the statistics.
只有一個數據能使Price看起來比Lin好那就是Defensive Rating，Price 106.9好於Lin
的113，這個數據應證了Pirce比較會防守這句話。然而跟Price移到先發的還有Ed Davis
，他在防守端是一個正影響，跟Lin搭配的是一個防守時會把球踢到界外，試圖用光頭
讓對手分心，和亂吼去擾亂的Boozer，基於這點，很難從數據上去分別到底防守是Lin
比較好還是Pirce。
When judging by the eye test, it's easy to see Jeremy Lin is a far more
skilled offensive player than Ronnie Price. He has great speed both in
transition and on drives to the rim, although the effectiveness of both has
been hampered by how the paint is clogged with bodies due to the Lakers lack
of spacing. This is in stark contrast to how Price doesn't seem to do
anything particularly well on offense other than give the ball to Kobe and
get out of the way. On defense, Price does appear to be a marginally better
defender than Lin, definitely more of a pest in how he is constantly trying
to steal the ball at every opportunity, although neither of them can even
charitably be described as good on that end. When judging by watching them in
conjunction with the stats, it seems clear that most of Price's massive
advantage on Lin in defensive rating is likely due to playing alongside
superior defensive personnel (Davis).
沒有近視的話應該很容易看出Lin的進攻技巧要比Price高上非常多，Lin在transition
和切入速度很快，雖然它的效用在禁區因為湖人沒有spacing擠滿防守大個而被影響
，這跟Price只會球給Kobe有著相當大的差距，在防守端Price比較惱人和愛抄截看似比
Lin好，但其實攻防兩端都無法被稱為好。就數據而言Price會比Lin好也不過就是因為
Price跟Ed Davis搭配罷了。
Another factor to consider in all of this is whether using a 36-year old Kobe
Bryant as the lone creator in the starting five is a wise move. Bryant was
already beginning to speak about, and show, signs of fatigue. Having him work
as the center of gravity in an offensive lineup that doesn't have a single
other player that can be counted on to generate their own shot is not going
to help him get his legs back under him. Kobe seems to be making questionable
passes and coming up short on a lot of his jump shots late in games. This is
where Lin could probably help the most, as his offensive talents should take
some of the burden off Kobe in more creatively designed offensive sets,
possibly in conjunction with Nick Young providing spacing with his
three-point shooting.
另一個考量是老普的先發是為了要給Kobe投球，但看得出Kobe身體的倦怠，進攻上全
部仰賴Kobe沒有其他人可以幫他會讓他更累，Kobe在比賽末端傳球造成一堆失誤，
投籃偏短，Lin在進攻端的天賦可以幫助Kobe不要這麼累，也許搭上一個Young拉開
空間。
All of this begs the question: How have the new starters as a whole fared
compared to the old ones? The Lin-Boozer-Bryant-Johnson-Hill lineup posted an
offensive rating of 102.7 and defensive rating of 117.7 for a net rating of
-15. That is .... not good. However, the new lineup, swapping Price and Davis
for Lin and Boozer has only been marginally more effective, with offensive,
defensive, and net ratings of 98.6, 111.1, and -12.5. That 98.6 offensive
rating would put the Lakers in possession of the sixth-worst offense in the
league. The 111.1 defensive rating posted by this new group would still be
the worst in the league, which the Lakers are seemingly going to finish with
no matter what this year. If that is the case, I personally would rather
watch a slightly more effective offense than the Kobe-killing brick-fest we
are currently witnessing.
That is why I would argue for experimenting with starting Lin over Price,
while keeping the Davis over Boozer swap, and seeing if that could help Los
Angeles maintain the defensive "improvement" (if one can even call it that)
while also getting a slight up-tick in offense as well. Regardless of any
changes though, it is clear there aren't many options for lineups on this
wretched team, and it will likely continue to be one of the league's worst
outfits for the entire season. Byron has the right idea in defense being the
main problem, but there's not much that can be done with this roster.
問題來了，到底變陣有變好嗎? 舊的陣容offensive rating 102.7, defensive rating
117.7，新的陣容off rat 98.6, def rat 111.1，所以新的陣容把進攻搞成倒數第六爛
，而防守還是一樣最爛。我個人還寧願看進攻效率較好的比賽而不是Kobe打鐵秀。
這是我為何不支持Lin被Pirce取代但支持Ed Davis換Boozer，這會讓湖人隊防守進步
進攻也稍微進步。 雖然怎麼變這陣容還是一樣沒救。
感想: 這篇文章只是更加證明把Lin變替補會變好是一個假議題拉...當球迷白X喔..
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 184.180.220.229
※ 文章網址: http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Jeremy_Lin/M.1418936914.A.E2E.html
推
12/19 05:33, , 1F
12/19 05:33, 1F
→
12/19 05:33, , 2F
12/19 05:33, 2F
推
12/19 05:56, , 3F
12/19 05:56, 3F
推
12/19 07:01, , 4F
12/19 07:01, 4F
→
12/19 07:02, , 5F
12/19 07:02, 5F
→
12/19 07:02, , 6F
12/19 07:02, 6F
→
12/19 07:03, , 7F
12/19 07:03, 7F
→
12/19 07:04, , 8F
12/19 07:04, 8F
→
12/19 07:53, , 9F
12/19 07:53, 9F
→
12/19 07:54, , 10F
12/19 07:54, 10F
推
12/19 08:51, , 11F
12/19 08:51, 11F
→
12/19 09:27, , 12F
12/19 09:27, 12F
推
12/19 09:46, , 13F
12/19 09:46, 13F
→
12/19 09:55, , 14F
12/19 09:55, 14F
→
12/19 09:56, , 15F
12/19 09:56, 15F
推
12/19 09:58, , 16F
12/19 09:58, 16F
→
12/19 09:59, , 17F
12/19 09:59, 17F
→
12/19 10:00, , 18F
12/19 10:00, 18F
→
12/19 10:00, , 19F
12/19 10:00, 19F
→
12/19 10:00, , 20F
12/19 10:00, 20F
→
12/19 10:03, , 21F
12/19 10:03, 21F
→
12/19 10:03, , 22F
12/19 10:03, 22F
→
12/19 10:04, , 23F
12/19 10:04, 23F
推
12/19 10:05, , 24F
12/19 10:05, 24F
→
12/19 10:06, , 25F
12/19 10:06, 25F
推
12/19 10:07, , 26F
12/19 10:07, 26F
→
12/19 10:07, , 27F
12/19 10:07, 27F
→
12/19 10:08, , 28F
12/19 10:08, 28F
推
12/19 10:12, , 29F
12/19 10:12, 29F
推
12/19 10:20, , 30F
12/19 10:20, 30F
→
12/19 10:20, , 31F
12/19 10:20, 31F
推
12/19 10:56, , 32F
12/19 10:56, 32F
推
12/19 10:58, , 33F
12/19 10:58, 33F
推
12/19 11:10, , 34F
12/19 11:10, 34F
→
12/19 11:11, , 35F
12/19 11:11, 35F
→
12/19 11:15, , 36F
12/19 11:15, 36F
推
12/19 11:16, , 37F
12/19 11:16, 37F
推
12/19 11:19, , 38F
12/19 11:19, 38F
推
12/19 11:24, , 39F
12/19 11:24, 39F
推
12/19 12:10, , 40F
12/19 12:10, 40F
→
12/19 12:13, , 41F
12/19 12:13, 41F
推
12/19 12:21, , 42F
12/19 12:21, 42F
推
12/19 13:28, , 43F
12/19 13:28, 43F
推
12/19 14:24, , 44F
12/19 14:24, 44F
推
12/19 15:46, , 45F
12/19 15:46, 45F
→
12/19 16:07, , 46F
12/19 16:07, 46F
推
12/19 16:47, , 47F
12/19 16:47, 47F
→
12/19 17:47, , 48F
12/19 17:47, 48F
→
12/19 17:48, , 49F
12/19 17:48, 49F
→
12/19 17:49, , 50F
12/19 17:49, 50F
→
12/19 17:50, , 51F
12/19 17:50, 51F
→
12/19 17:52, , 52F
12/19 17:52, 52F
推
12/19 18:02, , 53F
12/19 18:02, 53F
推
12/19 18:02, , 54F
12/19 18:02, 54F
→
12/19 18:03, , 55F
12/19 18:03, 55F
推
12/19 18:09, , 56F
12/19 18:09, 56F
推
12/19 18:17, , 57F
12/19 18:17, 57F
※ 編輯: senaswong (184.180.220.229), 12/19/2014 18:19:32
→
12/19 18:38, , 58F
12/19 18:38, 58F
→
12/19 18:38, , 59F
12/19 18:38, 59F
→
12/19 22:46, , 60F
12/19 22:46, 60F
→
12/19 22:46, , 61F
12/19 22:46, 61F
→
12/22 21:56, , 62F
12/22 21:56, 62F