[討論] Curry的防守是有退步嗎
小弟我看最近板上又盛行了一股討論Curry的風氣,畢竟是全票MVP,自然也會成為眾人
討論的焦點,但是最近小弟我發現一件奇怪的事情,因為我不是勇士球迷,對勇士隊
的比賽不熟,就雙斜線/搜尋了curry、防守,看了許多有關Curry防守的文章,其中
最有印象的就是這篇#1LXX897D (NBA),因為是唯一的爆文,各種用數據來表示Curry
是防守悍將,什麼別被可愛的外表騙,"就算進入防守第一隊也不意外",所有說Curry
防守差的全部變成印象派,我一看,大吃一驚,因為跟現在板上的評價不是完全相反嗎!
而且文章的作者也在板上發過不少的優質文章,照理來說是有一定的可信度的,下面的
推文也是一面倒的贊同,彷彿把Curry當成能攻能守的全能球員,印象派的才會說Curry
防守差,完完全全跟現在的風向完全不同,讓我開始有點搞不清楚狀況了,滿頭問號
再看看一下最近的新聞,Curry的防守也被雷霆的Westbrook跟拓荒的CJ嘲笑和瞧不起,
照理來說防守除非上了年紀,體力與速度跟不上之類的,基本上應該是不會退步的
怎麼Curry會從一開始的"進入防守第一隊都不意外"被打成"連Barkley的阿嬤都守不住"呢
有人可以告訴我為何會變成這種情況嗎?
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 43.248.17.240
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/NBA/M.1472712105.A.9F5.html
推
09/01 14:42, , 1F
09/01 14:42, 1F
推
09/01 14:44, , 2F
09/01 14:44, 2F
推
09/01 14:44, , 3F
09/01 14:44, 3F
→
09/01 14:44, , 4F
09/01 14:44, 4F
推
09/01 14:45, , 5F
09/01 14:45, 5F
→
09/01 14:45, , 6F
09/01 14:45, 6F
→
09/01 14:46, , 7F
09/01 14:46, 7F
推
09/01 14:46, , 8F
09/01 14:46, 8F
推
09/01 14:46, , 9F
09/01 14:46, 9F
推
09/01 14:49, , 10F
09/01 14:49, 10F
噓
09/01 14:49, , 11F
09/01 14:49, 11F
噓
09/01 14:49, , 12F
09/01 14:49, 12F
→
09/01 14:49, , 13F
09/01 14:49, 13F
推
09/01 14:51, , 14F
09/01 14:51, 14F
推
09/01 14:53, , 15F
09/01 14:53, 15F
推
09/01 14:53, , 16F
09/01 14:53, 16F
推
09/01 14:54, , 17F
09/01 14:54, 17F
推
09/01 14:55, , 18F
09/01 14:55, 18F
→
09/01 14:56, , 19F
09/01 14:56, 19F
→
09/01 14:56, , 20F
09/01 14:56, 20F
推
09/01 14:56, , 21F
09/01 14:56, 21F
→
09/01 14:56, , 22F
09/01 14:56, 22F
推
09/01 14:58, , 23F
09/01 14:58, 23F
推
09/01 14:58, , 24F
09/01 14:58, 24F
推
09/01 14:58, , 25F
09/01 14:58, 25F
→
09/01 14:58, , 26F
09/01 14:58, 26F
→
09/01 14:59, , 27F
09/01 14:59, 27F
→
09/01 15:00, , 28F
09/01 15:00, 28F
→
09/01 15:00, , 29F
09/01 15:00, 29F
→
09/01 15:01, , 30F
09/01 15:01, 30F
→
09/01 15:01, , 31F
09/01 15:01, 31F
→
09/01 15:02, , 32F
09/01 15:02, 32F
→
09/01 15:02, , 33F
09/01 15:02, 33F
推
09/01 15:02, , 34F
09/01 15:02, 34F
推
09/01 15:02, , 35F
09/01 15:02, 35F
→
09/01 15:03, , 36F
09/01 15:03, 36F
推
09/01 15:03, , 37F
09/01 15:03, 37F
推
09/01 15:04, , 38F
09/01 15:04, 38F
→
09/01 15:04, , 39F
09/01 15:04, 39F
還有 129 則推文
噓
09/01 22:19, , 169F
09/01 22:19, 169F
→
09/01 23:28, , 170F
09/01 23:28, 170F
→
09/02 00:02, , 171F
09/02 00:02, 171F
噓
09/02 00:32, , 172F
09/02 00:32, 172F
→
09/02 00:33, , 173F
09/02 00:33, 173F
→
09/02 00:34, , 174F
09/02 00:34, 174F
噓
09/02 00:45, , 175F
09/02 00:45, 175F
→
09/02 00:46, , 176F
09/02 00:46, 176F
推
09/02 01:35, , 177F
09/02 01:35, 177F
噓
09/02 01:36, , 178F
09/02 01:36, 178F
→
09/02 01:36, , 179F
09/02 01:36, 179F
推
09/02 02:21, , 180F
09/02 02:21, 180F
→
09/02 09:59, , 181F
09/02 09:59, 181F
推
09/02 10:22, , 182F
09/02 10:22, 182F
→
09/02 10:24, , 183F
09/02 10:24, 183F
→
09/02 10:26, , 184F
09/02 10:26, 184F
推
09/02 11:06, , 185F
09/02 11:06, 185F
→
09/02 11:31, , 186F
09/02 11:31, 186F
推
09/02 12:28, , 187F
09/02 12:28, 187F
噓
09/02 12:47, , 188F
09/02 12:47, 188F
→
09/02 12:47, , 189F
09/02 12:47, 189F
→
09/02 12:48, , 190F
09/02 12:48, 190F
噓
09/02 12:48, , 191F
09/02 12:48, 191F
→
09/02 12:49, , 192F
09/02 12:49, 192F
推
09/02 13:20, , 193F
09/02 13:20, 193F
→
09/02 13:22, , 194F
09/02 13:22, 194F
→
09/02 13:24, , 195F
09/02 13:24, 195F
→
09/02 13:25, , 196F
09/02 13:25, 196F
推
09/02 14:19, , 197F
09/02 14:19, 197F
→
09/02 14:19, , 198F
09/02 14:19, 198F
→
09/02 14:19, , 199F
09/02 14:19, 199F
噓
09/02 14:43, , 200F
09/02 14:43, 200F
→
09/02 14:44, , 201F
09/02 14:44, 201F
→
09/02 14:45, , 202F
09/02 14:45, 202F
→
09/02 14:45, , 203F
09/02 14:45, 203F
推
09/02 15:30, , 204F
09/02 15:30, 204F
推
09/02 16:13, , 205F
09/02 16:13, 205F
噓
09/03 02:38, , 206F
09/03 02:38, 206F
噓
09/03 18:16, , 207F
09/03 18:16, 207F
推
09/04 16:12, , 208F
09/04 16:12, 208F