[討論]現在球星用90年代攻防規則會命中率大降?
今年無敵勇士在球場的表現,擺明就是比其他nba強隊高一個等級
有人說勇士像72勝公牛的水準,可是勇士在比賽表現比當年72勝公牛還可怕,
勇士跟其他nba強隊的程度差異大概類似,奧運比賽的美國夢幻隊跟其他球隊
最近很多90年代球員都跳出來說,
如果用90年代進攻跟防守規則,72勝公牛或1993年太陽可以打敗現在的無敵勇士
大嘴米勒跟放話說,他在巔峰期可以打敗神射手柯瑞curry
就算用90年代的進攻跟防守規則
像勇士這樣的高命中率的神射球隊,有可能被防守強的公牛守到命中率烙賽嗎?
這幾年一堆高命中率球星(不是中鋒,但命中率超過5成)
像是現在的浪花兄弟,常常連三分命中率都超過60%
前幾年的詹皇跟鬼神wade也常命中率破5成
如果比賽適用90年代攻防規則,現在球星真的會大幅降低命中率嗎?
如果會的話,那90年代球星說72勝公牛能贏無敵勇士才有可信度吧?
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 114.25.27.92
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/NBA/M.1450487564.A.4EA.html
※ 編輯: seacore07 (114.25.27.92), 12/19/2015 09:13:55
推
12/19 09:13, , 1F
12/19 09:13, 1F
→
12/19 09:13, , 2F
12/19 09:13, 2F
推
12/19 09:14, , 3F
12/19 09:14, 3F
→
12/19 09:14, , 4F
12/19 09:14, 4F
推
12/19 09:15, , 5F
12/19 09:15, 5F
推
12/19 09:16, , 6F
12/19 09:16, 6F
推
12/19 09:17, , 7F
12/19 09:17, 7F
→
12/19 09:17, , 8F
12/19 09:17, 8F
噓
12/19 09:18, , 9F
12/19 09:18, 9F
推
12/19 09:27, , 10F
12/19 09:27, 10F
推
12/19 09:27, , 11F
12/19 09:27, 11F
推
12/19 09:29, , 12F
12/19 09:29, 12F
噓
12/19 09:29, , 13F
12/19 09:29, 13F
噓
12/19 09:30, , 14F
12/19 09:30, 14F
推
12/19 09:31, , 15F
12/19 09:31, 15F
→
12/19 09:31, , 16F
12/19 09:31, 16F
推
12/19 09:32, , 17F
12/19 09:32, 17F
推
12/19 09:32, , 18F
12/19 09:32, 18F
推
12/19 09:32, , 19F
12/19 09:32, 19F
→
12/19 09:32, , 20F
12/19 09:32, 20F
推
12/19 09:33, , 21F
12/19 09:33, 21F
噓
12/19 09:36, , 22F
12/19 09:36, 22F
推
12/19 09:37, , 23F
12/19 09:37, 23F
噓
12/19 09:37, , 24F
12/19 09:37, 24F
推
12/19 09:37, , 25F
12/19 09:37, 25F
→
12/19 09:37, , 26F
12/19 09:37, 26F
推
12/19 09:38, , 27F
12/19 09:38, 27F
→
12/19 09:39, , 28F
12/19 09:39, 28F
推
12/19 09:40, , 29F
12/19 09:40, 29F
推
12/19 09:43, , 30F
12/19 09:43, 30F
→
12/19 09:43, , 31F
12/19 09:43, 31F
推
12/19 09:45, , 32F
12/19 09:45, 32F
→
12/19 09:47, , 33F
12/19 09:47, 33F
推
12/19 09:48, , 34F
12/19 09:48, 34F
→
12/19 09:49, , 35F
12/19 09:49, 35F
→
12/19 09:54, , 36F
12/19 09:54, 36F
→
12/19 09:54, , 37F
12/19 09:54, 37F
推
12/19 09:54, , 38F
12/19 09:54, 38F
推
12/19 09:55, , 39F
12/19 09:55, 39F
還有 51 則推文
→
12/19 11:54, , 91F
12/19 11:54, 91F
→
12/19 11:54, , 92F
12/19 11:54, 92F
→
12/19 11:54, , 93F
12/19 11:54, 93F
→
12/19 11:55, , 94F
12/19 11:55, 94F
→
12/19 11:55, , 95F
12/19 11:55, 95F
→
12/19 11:56, , 96F
12/19 11:56, 96F
→
12/19 11:56, , 97F
12/19 11:56, 97F
推
12/19 11:56, , 98F
12/19 11:56, 98F
→
12/19 11:56, , 99F
12/19 11:56, 99F
→
12/19 11:56, , 100F
12/19 11:56, 100F
推
12/19 11:59, , 101F
12/19 11:59, 101F
→
12/19 11:59, , 102F
12/19 11:59, 102F
→
12/19 11:59, , 103F
12/19 11:59, 103F
→
12/19 11:59, , 104F
12/19 11:59, 104F
→
12/19 11:59, , 105F
12/19 11:59, 105F
推
12/19 12:02, , 106F
12/19 12:02, 106F
→
12/19 12:03, , 107F
12/19 12:03, 107F
→
12/19 12:03, , 108F
12/19 12:03, 108F
→
12/19 12:03, , 109F
12/19 12:03, 109F
推
12/19 12:05, , 110F
12/19 12:05, 110F
→
12/19 12:05, , 111F
12/19 12:05, 111F
→
12/19 12:12, , 112F
12/19 12:12, 112F
→
12/19 12:12, , 113F
12/19 12:12, 113F
→
12/19 12:19, , 114F
12/19 12:19, 114F
→
12/19 12:20, , 115F
12/19 12:20, 115F
推
12/19 12:23, , 116F
12/19 12:23, 116F
→
12/19 12:23, , 117F
12/19 12:23, 117F
→
12/19 12:24, , 118F
12/19 12:24, 118F
推
12/19 12:25, , 119F
12/19 12:25, 119F
噓
12/19 12:44, , 120F
12/19 12:44, 120F
推
12/19 12:49, , 121F
12/19 12:49, 121F
→
12/19 12:50, , 122F
12/19 12:50, 122F
推
12/19 12:54, , 123F
12/19 12:54, 123F
→
12/19 12:54, , 124F
12/19 12:54, 124F
推
12/19 13:17, , 125F
12/19 13:17, 125F
→
12/19 13:17, , 126F
12/19 13:17, 126F
→
12/19 13:18, , 127F
12/19 13:18, 127F
推
12/19 15:42, , 128F
12/19 15:42, 128F
噓
12/19 16:44, , 129F
12/19 16:44, 129F
推
12/21 11:33, , 130F
12/21 11:33, 130F