[外絮] 廢止（無用的）NBA分組制度已回收
Abolish (Useless) NBA Divisions: Step 1 of Radical Plan
廢止（無用的）NBA分組制度：徹底改變NBA生態計劃的第一步
（底下連結有部落格版）
The NBA landscape will look much different toward the end of the regular
season than it does now, but it’s still insane to think about. If the season
ended today, the Toronto Raptors, who aren’t even sure if they should be
trying to win this season, would “earn” the no. 4 playoff seed in the
Eastern Conference by capturing the Atlantic Division. In related news: They
are 5-7, and not very good at professional basketball.
NBA球隊排行榜在球季結束時和現在的排行相比將會大相逕庭，但光用想的依然覺
得現在的排行榜很誇張。如果球季在今天結束，多倫多暴龍隊這支還不確定這季
是否該拼季後賽的球隊，將會靠著大西洋組龍頭位置「賺到」東區第四種子。附
上一個相關消息：他們戰績5勝7敗，並且球隊實力並不優秀。
The Atlantic Division probably won’t stay this awful, though that depends
almost entirely on one of the New York teams finding its footing. And that
seems less a certainty now than it did a week ago, as early-season hiccups
morph into long-term problems. The Knicks are 3-8, miserable on both ends of
the floor, with a defensive keystone who still might be a month away from
roster injured. Meanwhile, the Sixers have regressed after the 3-0 hysteria,
returning. The Nets are also 3-8, looking old and slow, with half their
roster injured. Meanwhile, the Sixers have regressed after the 3-0 hysteria,
and the Celtics are bad — and could make themselves worse via trade.
大西洋組球隊可能不會保持低迷戰績，雖然這幾乎要靠兩支紐約球隊中的某一支
站穩腳步。和一周前比起來，由於開季的小撞牆期變成長期的問題，這兩支球隊
越來越無法保證戰績會爬升。尼克隊現在3勝8敗，攻守兩端都糟透了，而且球隊
的防守重心可能還需要一個多月的時間才能回到球場。籃網隊也是3勝8敗，球隊
看起來又老又慢，而且陣容中有一半的球員都在傷兵名單中。同時，七六人在發
瘋的開季三連勝後慢慢變回原形。而塞爾迪克是支糟糕的球隊，甚至可能會透過
交易讓球隊變得更爛。
Perhaps this is the year, then, that the NBA will finally have to confront
the reality that divisions are stupid and should be abolished. If some putrid
Atlantic Division team limps into the playoffs with a 39-43 record, and yet
still snags the no. 4 seed and a better-than-deserved first-round matchup, it
will be embarrassing for everyone involved. The only thing that could stave
off such humiliation is the Eastern Conference being so abjectly horrible
that a team could finish 39-43 and actually have the fourth-best record in
the conference. The Eastern Conference right now is a three-team league.
These are bad, bad times on the right coast.
所以，今年可能就是NBA當局該面對分組制度是個愚蠢且該廢除的制度這個事實的
時候。如果某支糟糕的大西洋組球隊帶著39勝43負的戰績爬進季後賽，而且依舊
獲得第四種子並有著不應得的第一輪對戰組合，那麼這將令每位參與者都丟臉至極。
Divisions exist, in theory, to invigorate rivalries and ease travel. They
accomplish neither. Geographic proximity creates rivalries, but geographic
proximity will always exist regardless of divisions. The Knicks-Nets
crosstown thing, the subject of endless silly preseason hype (WHAT DOES
RAYMOND FELTON THINK OF THE THING PAUL PIERCE SAID??? AND HOW WILL J.R. SMITH
RESPOND???), won’t die if the league suddenly vaporized the Atlantic
Division.
理論上而言，分區的存在是位了鼓勵世仇的產生和減輕旅行負擔。結果兩個目標
都沒達成。鄰近地理位置創造出世仇，但無論有沒有分區制度，鄰近的地理位置
都將存在。即便聯盟突然讓大西洋組消失掉，尼克和籃網的紐約情節，這無盡又
愚昧的季前宣傳（Raymond Felton會怎麼看待Paul Pierce說的話？J.R. Smith
又會怎麼回應？）並不會就此停止。
Playoff history also creates rivalries. The Clippers have a better rivalry
with the Grizzlies than they do with any team from the Pacific Division, save
perhaps for the Lakers. Knicks-Pacers means more than Knicks-Sixers or
Knicks-Raptors.
季後賽的歷史也會製造世仇。可能除了湖人外，其他太平洋組的球隊跟快艇間的
世仇感都不比灰熊來的多。尼克和溜馬大戰比尼克大戰七六人或尼克大戰暴龍有
意義多了。
The travel argument hasn’t held for a long, long time. Teams play each
divisional rival four times per season. Guess what? They also play six of
their remaining conference rivals four times per season, and the remaining
three conference teams three times each. Dividing the league into two
conferences, West and East, eases travel. Dividing the conferences into
divisions does not; for the Celtics, all the way up in frigid New England,
there is no difference this season between the nearby Knicks and warm-weather
Magic. They play both four times.
球隊移動論點老早就站不住腳。每隊和分組對手每季都要對戰4次。你猜怎麼著？
每隊也要和剩下六隊分區對手對戰4次，並和另外三支分區球隊對戰3次。把聯盟
劃分成東西兩區的確減輕旅行負擔。再把區劃分成組則沒有這種作用。以塞爾迪
克這支在寒冷北方的新英格蘭區球隊來說，鄰近尼克和溫暖的魔術對這季的他們
並無不同。因為都要和他們對戰4次。
Nobody cares about divisions, anyway. Teams are sheepish about hanging
division championship banners, and some choose not to do so. Several players,
including Gerald Wallace in a recent rant (as if Crash has done anything but
rant this season), have rather loudly proclaimed the irrelevance of divisions.
反正也沒人在乎分組制度。有些球隊怯於掛上分組冠軍的旗幟，而有些則選擇不
掛。有些球員，包含近來誇下海口的Gerald Wallace（他這季除了放話外也沒做
什麼事），也大聲表示分組制度的不恰當。
Rewarding a division winner in any way in terms of postseason seeding is
stupid. The league knows this, too, which is why it has taken steps to
minimize the reward over the last half-decade or so. The nadir came in 2006,
when the league was still using a system that guaranteed the three division
winners in each conference the top three playoff seeds. Denver won the
pathetic Northwest Division, whatever that is, with a 44-38 record, and
secured the plum no. 3 spot even though six other Western Conference playoff
teams had better records. That group included Dallas, which finished 60-22,
the second-best record in the conference, but good enough only for second
place in the brutal Southwest Division.
以季後賽席次來獎勵分組龍頭不管怎麼看都是件愚蠢的事。聯盟也知道這很愚蠢
，這也是為什麼近五年來聯盟有在採取行動減少其獎勵效果。轉折點在2006年，
當時聯盟依然使用獎勵分組龍頭季後賽前三席次的制度。金塊隊藉著44勝38敗的
戰績贏得西北組分區龍頭，並確保住令人垂涎的第三種子，即使西區其他六個球
隊的戰績比金塊還好。這些球隊中包括60勝22敗的小牛隊，雖是西區第二名，但
只能在競爭激烈的西南組排第二。
What happened? The league slotted the Mavs into the no. 4 spot, and the
Grizzlies and Clippers staged a furious late-season tank-off to slide into
the no. 6 seed — avoiding Dallas and snagging a matchup with the overmatched
Nuggies.
接下來發生什麼事呢？聯盟把小牛隊安排在第四種子，而灰熊隊和快艇隊開始一
場激烈的季末擺爛對決，才能跑到第六種子避免對戰小牛，同時能在第一輪碰到
實力不對等的金塊。
The league realized the problem and tweaked the rules so that a division
winner is now guaranteed a top-four seed, and little else. If only one non–
division winner finishes with a better record than a divisional “champion,”
all is well — the team with the better record gets the no. 3 seed, and the
sad-sack divisional champ falls to no. 4. The situation isn’t even all that
dire if two non–divisional winners finish with better records than a
divisional champ. In that case, one of those non-winners gets the no. 3 spot,
and the other one, with the lesser record, gets the no. 5 spot — and
home-court advantage over the divisional winner in the (undeserved) no. 4
seed. This is what happened in 2011-12, for instance, when the Celtics won
the Atlantic Division with a 39-27 record, earning the no. 4 seed over the
40-26 Hawks, but had to go on the road for the first two games of that
Atlanta-Boston series. Boston was the no. 4 seed in name only, and the
post-2006 rules punished them with home-court disadvantage and the no. 4 spot
that comes with a near-guarantee of meeting the top seed in the second round.
No harm, no foul.
聯盟意識到這個問題的存在，並盡快的修改規則讓分組冠軍變成保證前四種子以
及一些其他的規定。假使只有一個非分組龍頭球隊最終戰績比某個分組冠軍還好
的話，一切都沒問題。戰績較好的球隊將獲得第三種子，而戰績較差的分組冠軍
滑落至第四種子。如果兩個非分組龍頭球隊最終戰績都比分組冠軍來的好的話，
情況也不算太糟。這個狀況下，其中一個非龍頭隊會是第三種子，而另一支戰績
稍差的球隊會是第五種子，並且在對戰第四種子（不應得）的分組龍頭時擁有主
場優勢。舉例來說，2011-12就發生過這狀況。當時塞爾迪克靠著39勝27敗戰績
贏得大西洋組龍頭，獲得比40勝26敗戰績的老鷹隊更高的第四種子，但卻要在客
場開打第一輪季後賽。塞爾迪克只是名義上的第四種子，2006後的新規則藉著客
場劣勢和幾乎保證要遇到戰績第一名的第四種子來懲罰他們。沒什麼大問題。
But if you get three non–division winners with better records than a
division winner, a rare occurrence, the system collapses on itself. And
divisions have additional relevance on seeding. Winning a division is the
first tiebreaker to decide seeding between teams that finish with the same
record, a quirk that benefited the Lakers when the Pacific Division was
terrible (in 2010-11, for instance) and very nearly came into play last
season, when Denver, Memphis, and the Clippers were very close to finishing
with identical records.
不過當有三個非龍頭球隊的戰績都優於分組冠軍隊時，這個罕見的狀況會讓分組
冠軍制度自動崩潰。而且分組制度和季後賽席次還有其他的關連。分組冠軍是第
一個決定戰績平手的手段。而這個奇怪的制度有利於太平洋組很爛時的湖人隊（
2010-11球季就是個好例子），並且差點在上個賽季就要再度啟用，因為當時金塊
、灰熊和快艇幾乎就要以相同戰績結束賽季。
How to Fix It
如何解決？
I mean, seriously: Reread those last four paragraphs. Divisions aren’t worth
this much mathematical hand-wringing. Just get rid of them, use a
two-conference system, and pick the top eight teams. The league wouldn’t
even have to change the 82-game monstrosity of a schedule one bit.
我認真的說，重新讀一下前面四段。分組制度不值得這些絞盡腦汁的數學計算。
把它廢掉就好了，使用兩個分區制度，然後各選戰績前八球隊。聯盟甚至不需要
修改龐大的82場比賽賽程。
Of course, the ineptitude of the Atlantic Division brings another long-term
trend into stark relief: The Western Conference is so much better than the
Eastern Conference that it is, to use the word again, embarrassing. The
league really, really needs the Nets and Knicks to get their shit together in
order to shrink the interconference quality gap to a less laughable size.
想當然耳，大西洋組的糟糕狀況也進而讓另一個長期趨勢展現出鮮明的對比。也
就是西區比東區強弱差到必須再用這個詞一次－丟臉至極。聯盟急需籃網隊和尼
克隊振作起來，才能讓分區間的差距縮小一些。
This isn’t new, of course. The no. 8 seed in the Western Conference has had
a better record than the no. 8 seed in the East every single season since the
lockout-shortened 1998-99 campaign. Every one! The last seed in the West has
been 5.5 games better than its Eastern counterpart on average during that
span. Each season has seen an average of 3.5 Western Conference lottery teams
finish with better records than the last Eastern Conference playoff team.
這當然也不是新聞了。自從1998-99縮水賽季後，西區第八種子戰績一直以來都比
東區第八種子好。每一年都是！這段期間內的西區最後一名平均勝場比東區最後
一名多5.5場。每個球季平均3.5支西區樂透區球隊最終戰績比東區第八種子高。
But, holy crap, have the two conferences gotten off to polar opposite starts
this season. The West is 37-17 (!) against the East, and every borderline
playoff team in the Western Conference that is trying to win is actually, you
know, winning. Portland, Dallas, and Minnesota are all over .500, and Denver
and New Orleans lurk just one game under.
不過真的見鬼了，兩個分區的開季狀況真的是有夠極端。西區對戰東區目前是37
勝17敗！而且每支西區的想要贏的季後賽邊緣球隊是真的在贏球，你懂我的意思
。拓荒者、小牛和灰狼都超過五成勝率，而金塊和鵜鶘差一場勝場在後面虎視眈
眈。
Almost literally the opposite has happened in the East. Borderline playoff
teams that desperately want to win haven’t managed to do it. They made bold
playoff proclamations after winning the lottery (again!), signed big-name
free agents, traded future first-round picks, came out against tanking, and
wrote “playoffs” on their shoes, but the
Detroit-Washington-Cleveland-Milwaukee quartet of sadness cannot get out of
their own way. The Wiz have at least won two straight after another
dispiriting start, an annual tradition now in D.C. They’re still just 4-7.
Detroit had the worst defense in the league until just two days ago, when the
awful Jazz fell past Detroit — and into last place in both offensive and
defensive efficiency, a rare double. Half of Milwaukee’s roster is injured,
and the new franchise centerpiece got into a barroom brawl, left his dogs out
in the cold, and lost his all-caps status in this space.
幾乎完全相反的狀況在東區發生。想要贏球的季後賽邊緣球隊無法贏球。這些球
隊在贏得選秀樂透簽後大膽宣稱自己要打進季後賽（再次宣布！）、簽自由市場
大魚、把未來首輪選秀簽交易掉、表現出反對擺爛的態度，然後表示打進季後賽
的決心，但是活塞、巫師、騎士、公鹿悲劇四重奏卻無法順利贏球。巫師在每年
慣例的灰心喪志開季後至少連贏兩場。他們依然只有4勝7敗。活塞在兩天前爐主
爵士還沒超車時，還有著聯盟最爛的防守。而爵士是一舉達成攻守效率墊底，罕
見的雙冠王頭銜。公鹿陣容有一半都在傷兵名單，而且球隊的新建隊重心不但讓
自己身陷酒吧衝突中、也讓他的狗在外受寒，並且失去被人關注的地位。
Some of these teams will turn things around. But as things stand now, the
winning percentage gap between the no. 8 seed in the West (or, heck, the no.
9 seed) and the no. 8 seed in the East is larger than it has ended up in any
season since the 1999 lockout. That doesn’t have much meaning since it’s
very early, and fewer games naturally creates bigger jumps (and falls) in
winning percentage.
裡面某些球隊會谷底反彈。不過現狀就是西區第八（靠！甚至是第九種子）和東
區第八的勝率差距比1999封館以來任一年的最終戰績都還來的大。由於球季還早
討論這還沒什麼意義，而且較少得比賽自然而然對勝率造成更大的上升（和下跌）。
But if the trends keep up, this season could at least enliven the discussion
about fairness and playoff spots. Look, the league isn’t eliminating
conferences, placing all 30 teams into one pool, and balancing the schedule —
even if doing so would prevent what happened in 2007-08 and 2009-10, when it
took 50 wins to make the Western Conference playoffs and just 41 (in 2010)
and 37 (in 2008) to make it in the East. As long as you’re playing 82 games,
you can’t ask the Clippers to play the Knicks and Nets as often as they do
the Kings and Lakers. It’s too much. Teams in the Northwest Division,
especially the Blazers, already log thousands more air miles per season than
teams from the other five divisions. Punishing them with more is unfair. If
you want to lump all 30 teams into the same playoff-seeding pool, you’re
wading into a much different argument about schedule length.
不過這個趨勢繼續保持的話，這季可能至少激起一些公平性和季後賽資格的議題
。瞧瞧，聯盟並沒有消除分區制度、把30支球球隊放一起，並平衡賽程難度。即
使這麼做便可避免2007-08年和2009-10年發生的狀況，當時西區球隊要打進季後
賽需要50勝，而東區只需要41（2010年）和37勝（2008年）。當需要打82場比賽
，你不可能要求快艇對戰尼克和籃網的次數和對戰國王跟湖人一樣多。這太超過
了。西北組的球隊每季在飛機上花的時間已經比其他五區球隊都還多，尤其是拓
荒者隊。用更多的飛機里程數折磨他們並不公平。如果你想要把30支球隊放進同
一個季後賽區塊來決定席次，則涉入一個完全不同的賽制長度議題。
It would be easier to scrap the conference system and just take the 16 best
teams into the playoffs if the league adopted something like a 58-game
schedule, in which every team would play every other team just twice — and
had that schedule unfold over the same time period as the current 82-game
set, to not overburden teams with travel. But that’s not happening anytime
soon.
如果聯盟採取58場賽制之類的話，廢掉分區制度並單純讓16支最好的球隊進季後
賽會簡單得多。這個賽制下每支球隊只需要對戰其他隊各兩次就好，而且賽程長
度會和現在的82場賽制一樣，這樣一來便減輕球隊的旅行疲累。不過這短期內是
不可能發生的。
So what’s the solution? The boss here has gotten a lot of traction by
suggesting the Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament, in which the top seven seeds
in each conference get guaranteed playoff spots, and the other 16 teams enter
a tournament to win the last two seeds. I like the general concept, and I’d
be game to expand the tournament so that only the top six seeds are
guaranteed postseason spots.
所以解決方法到底是什麼？這裡的老闆因為建議「超有趣錦標賽」而大受青睞。
這方法便是分區前七保證有季後賽資格，而其他16支球隊爭奪最後兩席。我喜歡
這個大方向，而且我有意讓這個錦標賽擴大到只有前六支球隊保證進季後賽。
But should every team below that get to participate in the
Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament? How about if we just took the four best
non-playoff teams in each conference — the nos. 7-10 seeds — and put them
into some kind of tournament for the final two postseason spots in each
conference? The four semifinalists would all make the real playoffs, and the
last two rounds of the tournament would determine their seedings. That way,
the Eastern Conference bottom-dwellers would have to earn their playoff spots
by actually beating Western Conference teams.
但每支第六名以下的球隊都能參加超有趣錦標賽嗎？如果我們只在每個分區都各
選四支非季後賽球隊，也就是第七到第十種子，然後把他們擺到某種錦標賽來爭
奪分區最後兩席會怎樣呢？這四位半決賽勝出者都會打進真正的季後賽，然後最
後的兩輪將會決定他們的席次。這麼一來，東區後段班球隊會真的透過打贏西區
球隊來贏得他們的季後賽席次。
That sounds great in theory. But how would you slot the four “new” playoff
teams into the real playoffs? If the semifinals involve all four Western
Conference participants, which ones shift into the Eastern Conference
bracket? And is that fair to the top two Eastern Conference seeds, which
might end up facing better teams than the lucky duck no. 3 seed?
這理論上聽起來不賴。但你要怎麼把這四支新季後賽球隊擺進真正的季後賽程中
？如果半決賽結果是四個西區參加者，哪一支要被放到東區中呢？而當最後可能
會面對比幸運的第三種子還優秀的球隊時，這對東區前兩名公平嗎？
You could get around these issues by rejiggering the rules in any number of
ways, but each rejiggering creates new ripple effects. And introducing
concepts like this would have profound consequences on team-building
strategies, to the point of upending a team’s short-term goals. Simply
picking the 16 teams with the best records doesn’t quite work, in pure
fairness terms, unless the league balances the schedule.
你可以藉著不斷重新安排各種規則來躲避這些爭議，但每個新安排都會引起新的
漣漪。而且設立這種新概念會對球隊建隊策略有重大的影響，可能大到影響球隊
的短期目標。單純選16支最好的球隊在公平面而言不太有作用，除非聯盟能平衡
賽程難度。
Finding the right fix is hard, but Step 1 is easy: Good-bye, silly divisions.
對症下藥不容易，但第一步很簡單：再見，愚蠢的分組制度。
原文網址－
http://tinyurl.com/qepcelk
心得：
我想不只原作者，季後賽席次的公平問題已經每年都在吵
但是這個詭異的開季讓這個議題又跳出檯面
現狀就是，紐約雙凱子意外的糟糕
而且看起來短期內難以好轉
造成大西洋組呈現人人搶狀元的窘狀
加上東區幾支季前補強不錯的球隊似乎磨得很不順利
而西區補強和磨合都太過順利
造成前8競爭太過激烈
因此，不得不再度面對制度問題
球季的確還長
但西區拼死拼活搶季後賽，而東區則是悠哉混進季後賽
這種情況勢必要想辦法遏制
NBA官方，你們有在想辦法嗎？
--
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: 124.218.28.55
推
11/23 23:57, , 1F
11/23 23:57, 1F
推
11/23 23:59, , 2F
11/23 23:59, 2F
推
11/24 00:00, , 3F
11/24 00:00, 3F
那邊應該是在講Larry Sanders
但詳細的內容我不確定
有請高手提出修正
推
11/24 00:00, , 4F
11/24 00:00, 4F
※ 編輯: idiotsmart 來自: 124.218.28.55 (11/24 00:02)
推
11/24 00:01, , 5F
11/24 00:01, 5F
推
11/24 00:02, , 6F
11/24 00:02, 6F
→
11/24 00:02, , 7F
11/24 00:02, 7F
推
11/24 00:03, , 8F
11/24 00:03, 8F
→
11/24 00:03, , 9F
11/24 00:03, 9F
→
11/24 00:03, , 10F
11/24 00:03, 10F
→
11/24 00:03, , 11F
11/24 00:03, 11F
推
11/24 00:03, , 12F
11/24 00:03, 12F
→
11/24 00:03, , 13F
11/24 00:03, 13F
→
11/24 00:04, , 14F
11/24 00:04, 14F
→
11/24 00:04, , 15F
11/24 00:04, 15F
推
11/24 00:05, , 16F
11/24 00:05, 16F
→
11/24 00:06, , 17F
11/24 00:06, 17F
推
11/24 00:06, , 18F
11/24 00:06, 18F
推
11/24 00:07, , 19F
11/24 00:07, 19F
推
11/24 00:08, , 20F
11/24 00:08, 20F
→
11/24 00:08, , 21F
11/24 00:08, 21F
→
11/24 00:09, , 22F
11/24 00:09, 22F
推
11/24 00:10, , 23F
11/24 00:10, 23F
推
11/24 00:14, , 24F
11/24 00:14, 24F
推
11/24 00:15, , 25F
11/24 00:15, 25F
→
11/24 00:15, , 26F
11/24 00:15, 26F
→
11/24 00:15, , 27F
11/24 00:15, 27F
推
11/24 00:16, , 28F
11/24 00:16, 28F
→
11/24 00:16, , 29F
11/24 00:16, 29F
→
11/24 00:16, , 30F
11/24 00:16, 30F
推
11/24 00:17, , 31F
11/24 00:17, 31F
→
11/24 00:17, , 32F
11/24 00:17, 32F
→
11/24 00:18, , 33F
11/24 00:18, 33F
→
11/24 00:19, , 34F
11/24 00:19, 34F
推
11/24 00:19, , 35F
11/24 00:19, 35F
推
11/24 00:20, , 36F
11/24 00:20, 36F
推
11/24 00:23, , 37F
11/24 00:23, 37F
還有 36 則推文
推
11/24 01:14, , 74F
11/24 01:14, 74F
→
11/24 01:15, , 75F
11/24 01:15, 75F
→
11/24 01:16, , 76F
11/24 01:16, 76F
推
11/24 01:29, , 77F
11/24 01:29, 77F
→
11/24 01:35, , 78F
11/24 01:35, 78F
推
11/24 01:43, , 79F
11/24 01:43, 79F
→
11/24 01:43, , 80F
11/24 01:43, 80F
→
11/24 01:44, , 81F
11/24 01:44, 81F
推
11/24 01:48, , 82F
11/24 01:48, 82F
推
11/24 01:48, , 83F
11/24 01:48, 83F
→
11/24 01:49, , 84F
11/24 01:49, 84F
推
11/24 01:50, , 85F
11/24 01:50, 85F
→
11/24 01:51, , 86F
11/24 01:51, 86F
噓
11/24 01:51, , 87F
11/24 01:51, 87F
推
11/24 01:58, , 88F
11/24 01:58, 88F
推
11/24 02:01, , 89F
11/24 02:01, 89F
推
11/24 02:21, , 90F
11/24 02:21, 90F
推
11/24 02:22, , 91F
11/24 02:22, 91F
推
11/24 02:31, , 92F
11/24 02:31, 92F
→
11/24 02:32, , 93F
11/24 02:32, 93F
推
11/24 02:34, , 94F
11/24 02:34, 94F
推
11/24 02:45, , 95F
11/24 02:45, 95F
推
11/24 02:54, , 96F
11/24 02:54, 96F
→
11/24 03:56, , 97F
11/24 03:56, 97F
推
11/24 05:32, , 98F
11/24 05:32, 98F
推
11/24 07:34, , 99F
11/24 07:34, 99F
→
11/24 07:37, , 100F
11/24 07:37, 100F
→
11/24 07:38, , 101F
11/24 07:38, 101F
推
11/24 07:40, , 102F
11/24 07:40, 102F
推
11/24 08:21, , 103F
11/24 08:21, 103F
推
11/24 08:31, , 104F
11/24 08:31, 104F
→
11/24 08:32, , 105F
11/24 08:32, 105F
→
11/24 09:09, , 106F
11/24 09:09, 106F
推
11/24 10:44, , 107F
11/24 10:44, 107F
推
11/24 10:51, , 108F
11/24 10:51, 108F
推
11/24 11:27, , 109F
11/24 11:27, 109F
推
11/24 14:35, , 110F
11/24 14:35, 110F
推
11/24 16:47, , 111F
11/24 16:47, 111F
推
11/24 18:24, , 112F
11/24 18:24, 112F
推
11/24 19:00, , 113F
11/24 19:00, 113F
討論串 (同標題文章)