[外電] How good is Paul George?已回收
※ [本文轉錄自 PACERS 看板 #1IYU3Ol0 ]
作者: kiawe (未來 好遠好遠) 看板: PACERS
標題: [外電] How good is Paul George?
時間: Mon Nov 18 17:41:39 2013
第一次翻譯外電, 有錯的地方歡迎給建議 XD
原文: http://hoopshype.com/columns/rosen/how-good-is-paul-george
The fact that Paul George was voted to last season’s All-NBA 3rd Team means
that he’s at least one of the best 15 players in the league. Good, but not
good enough. For the Pacers to unseat the Heat, George has to be better than
good. He has to be great.
去年PG入選NBA第三隊證明了他在NBA至少是最好的15人之一：還不錯，但不夠好。
如果Pacers想要擊敗 火，那PG必須要比不錯還要更好。他必須要是個偉大球員
Coming into Saturday’s visit to Chicago, George was indeed as great as he had
to be. Pacing the undefeated Pacers in scoring, shooting at an admirable clip
from near and far, as well as playing earnest defense. Although the 6-9,
220-pound George played exclusively on the wing, his one-rebound every five
minutes was an excellent accomplishment. In fact, his only problematic
not-even-good per-game stat was his 2.8 turnovers compromising his 3.2 assists.
在最近一次的芝加哥比賽之前，PG確實達到了他應該要有的高度。他用他讓人佩服的投籃本
領以及認真的防守，帶領無敗績的溜馬持續向前邁進。儘管只有著六尺九的身高以及220磅
的體重，並且僅僅負責在側翼的工作，PG每五分鐘就有1板的成績是個非常重要的貢獻。實
際上，PG唯一的問題在於，他每場3.2次助攻，但卻有2.8次的失誤
In any case, Indiana’s 110-94 loss to the Bulls revealed several illuminating
aspects of George’s game.
無論如何，94:110輸給牛牛的這場比賽顯示出很多PG打球上特點。
進攻
His numbers were atrocious: 3-14, 12 points, 2 assists, and 3 turnovers.
However, George and his teammates were extremely discomforted by Chicago’s
diligent, quick, paint-packing defense that virtually shut down the visitor’s
half-court attack. Indeed, George’s initial shot came on a curl off staggered
weak-side picks that produced an uncontested 18-footer that he calmly buried.
And this bucket turned out to be the only one he scored in Indiana’s
half-court offense – the other two coming on fast-break drives.
他的比賽數字有點可怕，投14中3，12分，2助攻，3次失誤。但是，整場比賽下來PG跟隊友
們都被公牛隊主動快速的收縮防守所困擾著，這種防守讓客隊的半場進攻毫無用武之地。而
實際情況上，PG是可以在比賽一開始從弱邊利用擋人製造出投籃機會得分。但是這卻是唯一
的一次半場進攻系統下得分，另外兩次是快攻才得到。
The Pacers’ set-up offense only generated two other open shots for George: A
misfired 18-footer on a wing-iso, and an open-lane layup that missed only
because the three blind mice ignored his being clearly fouled.
溜馬的進攻戰術僅僅只有替PG製造出兩次空擋，一次是18呎的側翼iso，另外一次是底線空
擋上籃卻沒進，因為三個瞎了的裁判沒看到PG被犯規。
Otherwise, George’s half-court offense was limited to an awkward step-back
jumper that missed, two blocked layups, and several attempts to force interior
shots through the teeth of the ferocious Chicago defense.
此外，PG的半場進攻就是一些step-back miss，兩個被巴的上籃，以及好幾個被迫面對牛牛
可怕的防守壓力下出手。
Yet George never let up – fearlessly setting rugged picks on the Bulls bigs,
and constantly moving without the ball. Plus, two of his passes created layups
for teammates who missed both shots.
但是PG不放棄，繼續勇敢地在巨牛間找擋人機會，並且持續無球跑動尋找出手機會。另外，
他還用他的傳球替隊友製造兩次出手機會，但是都放槍...
Also, on several sequences, defensive switches had George being guarded by the
6-3 Derrick Rose – but Indiana never tried to take advantage of this mismatch
even when George backed Rose into the low-post.
同時，有好幾次進攻時因為換防讓PG可以面對矮他很多的玫瑰，但是溜馬卻沒有利用這個
mismatch的優勢讓PG可以被筐打玫瑰。
Yes, along with everybody else on the Pacers, George had a bad game. Such
things happen over the course of the long season. Even so, Indiana ran only a
handful of isos for George, and never got him involved in pick-and-roll
situations.
沒錯，跟所有人的認知一樣，PG這場比賽爛斃了。這種事情在這麼長的賽季總是會發生。但
是儘管如此，溜馬教練團只有替PG做了一些iso的機會，永遠沒有讓他參與擋拆的進攻。
So blame an inadequate game plan, the Bulls nasty defense, and the law of
averages for George’s subpar performance here.
所以這場輸球就是怪罪在錯誤的進攻戰術，牛牛可怕的防守，還有PG不怎樣的performanceꄊ
防守
The good: Bumping cutters, boxing out, battling for rebounds, denying Luol Deng
good position in the pivot, and working hard to get through picks. Yes, Deng
tallied 23 points but only nine of these came in George’s watch.
好的一面
PG在阻擋空切，卡位，搶版，讓滷蛋搶不到好位置做轉傳，被pick時會努力繞出這幾個方面
做的不錯。沒錯，滷蛋是得了23分，但是只有9分是射在PG臉上。
The bad: Gambled on a steal that left Deng open for a trey that made the net
dance. Paid for turning his head with a back-door cut and basket by Deng. Was
so annoyed by the non-call on his missed layup that he committed a highly
unnecessary bump-foul on Kirk Hinrich near the time-line. It even seemed as
though George deliberately fouled Hinrich to stop the clock and give him an
opportunity to yap at the refs.
爛的一面
賭博是的抄球防守讓滷蛋輕鬆得到空擋並且優雅的得分。愛東看西看的結果就是被滷蛋開後
門。一次放槍就見效轉生氣對Hinrich犯了一個時間快到點的規，這超沒必要的啊。這個犯
規看起來就像PG故意搞的，讓他有機會去幹橋裁判剛剛他被犯的那球為什麼沒有響哨。
The ugly: Lunging at a wide-open Jimmy Butler beyond the arc, and thereby
committing a foul that resulted in a four-point play. An example, here, of bad
judgment and foolish over-hustling.
無法忍受的地方
Butler在三分線外要出手的時候，PG居然像一頭白癡小馬衝過去犯規，讓Butler有四分打的
機會。這裡就是一個例子，PG防守判斷超爛，而且積極到有笨。
Even so, George never took a play off on the defensive end – which is more
than can be said for several of his teammates.
儘管如此，PG防守上永不鬆懈，這方面比其他幾位隊友好多了。
So, how to evaluate Paul George? He has the versatility, but not the mass or
the strength, of LeBron James. The all-out-all-the-time hustle of Shane
Battier. And the offensive package of Dwyane Wade.
所以，如何評斷PG呢？他就真的是多才多藝，但是卻比不上LBJ那麼全面。防守態度上跟八
爺一樣總是全力以赴，手段跟點尾一樣多。
At the same time, his passwork is iffy, and he still has to demonstrate a
degree of consistency.
但同樣地，他還沒有找到自己的打球方式，並且他必須要想辦法如何保持穩定的輸出。
The primary considerations, though, are that George is still only 23 years old
and that he has just commenced playing in his fourth NBA season. It’s too
early for George to be celebrated as a good enough player to be the mainspring
of a championship squad.
最重要的地方是PG只有23歲，並且才打四年球而已。目前還太早去慶祝PG是好到可以當成冠
軍球隊的中流砥柱。
However, it is equally as clear that, given George’s admirable work ethic, the
best is yet to come.
儘管如此，目前很確定的是，就算PG現在的成就還不錯，他最好的一面還沒有展現出來。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.112.17.191
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
※ 轉錄者: kiawe (140.112.17.191), 時間: 11/18/2013 17:45:38
→
11/18 17:47, , 1F
11/18 17:47, 1F
推
11/18 17:48, , 2F
11/18 17:48, 2F
→
11/18 17:50, , 3F
11/18 17:50, 3F
推
11/18 17:54, , 4F
11/18 17:54, 4F
噓
11/18 17:55, , 5F
11/18 17:55, 5F
推
11/18 17:56, , 6F
11/18 17:56, 6F
→
11/18 17:56, , 7F
11/18 17:56, 7F
推
11/18 17:56, , 8F
11/18 17:56, 8F
→
11/18 17:57, , 9F
11/18 17:57, 9F
→
11/18 17:57, , 10F
11/18 17:57, 10F
推
11/18 17:57, , 11F
11/18 17:57, 11F
推
11/18 18:01, , 12F
11/18 18:01, 12F
噓
11/18 18:01, , 13F
11/18 18:01, 13F
推
11/18 18:01, , 14F
11/18 18:01, 14F
噓
11/18 18:06, , 15F
11/18 18:06, 15F
噓
11/18 18:07, , 16F
11/18 18:07, 16F
噓
11/18 18:08, , 17F
11/18 18:08, 17F
噓
11/18 18:08, , 18F
11/18 18:08, 18F
推
11/18 18:11, , 19F
11/18 18:11, 19F
→
11/18 18:12, , 20F
11/18 18:12, 20F
噓
11/18 18:14, , 21F
11/18 18:14, 21F
推
11/18 18:14, , 22F
11/18 18:14, 22F
噓
11/18 18:17, , 23F
11/18 18:17, 23F
推
11/18 18:18, , 24F
11/18 18:18, 24F
噓
11/18 18:19, , 25F
11/18 18:19, 25F
噓
11/18 18:20, , 26F
11/18 18:20, 26F
→
11/18 18:20, , 27F
11/18 18:20, 27F
※ 編輯: kiawe 來自: 1.171.170.99 (11/18 18:21)
→
11/18 18:21, , 28F
11/18 18:21, 28F
→
11/18 18:23, , 29F
11/18 18:23, 29F
噓
11/18 18:29, , 30F
11/18 18:29, 30F
推
11/18 18:35, , 31F
11/18 18:35, 31F
→
11/18 18:37, , 32F
11/18 18:37, 32F
→
11/18 18:38, , 33F
11/18 18:38, 33F
推
11/18 18:46, , 34F
11/18 18:46, 34F
推
11/18 18:54, , 35F
11/18 18:54, 35F
推
11/18 19:01, , 36F
11/18 19:01, 36F
→
11/18 19:01, , 37F
11/18 19:01, 37F
噓
11/18 19:04, , 38F
11/18 19:04, 38F
推
11/18 19:07, , 39F
11/18 19:07, 39F
噓
11/18 19:22, , 40F
11/18 19:22, 40F
推
11/18 19:27, , 41F
11/18 19:27, 41F
噓
11/18 19:58, , 42F
11/18 19:58, 42F
推
11/18 20:15, , 43F
11/18 20:15, 43F
噓
11/18 20:16, , 44F
11/18 20:16, 44F
推
11/18 20:27, , 45F
11/18 20:27, 45F
噓
11/18 20:28, , 46F
11/18 20:28, 46F
噓
11/18 20:33, , 47F
11/18 20:33, 47F
噓
11/18 20:40, , 48F
11/18 20:40, 48F
推
11/18 21:00, , 49F
11/18 21:00, 49F
推
11/18 21:14, , 50F
11/18 21:14, 50F
推
11/18 21:25, , 51F
11/18 21:25, 51F
推
11/18 21:25, , 52F
11/18 21:25, 52F
噓
11/18 21:38, , 53F
11/18 21:38, 53F
推
11/18 21:45, , 54F
11/18 21:45, 54F
噓
11/18 21:49, , 55F
11/18 21:49, 55F
推
11/18 22:48, , 56F
11/18 22:48, 56F
噓
11/18 22:51, , 57F
11/18 22:51, 57F
→
11/18 22:56, , 58F
11/18 22:56, 58F
噓
11/18 23:41, , 59F
11/18 23:41, 59F
推
11/18 23:45, , 60F
11/18 23:45, 60F
推
11/18 23:45, , 61F
11/18 23:45, 61F
→
11/18 23:47, , 62F
11/18 23:47, 62F
推
11/19 01:37, , 63F
11/19 01:37, 63F
噓
11/19 05:23, , 64F
11/19 05:23, 64F