[外電] The Case for Josh Childress : Don't …
連接 http://0rz.tw/yN3PZ
文章有點長 請服用~
The Case for Josh Childress : Don't Trade Him. Play Him More.
by Eutychus
Josh Childress has been a name mentioned in some rumor circles that the Suns
are looking to move by the trade deadline.
Childress的名字出現在交易截至前幾則太陽尋求交易的乳摸中。
No thank you.
不賣，謝謝。
I understand we have a ton of wings... but Childress can and should be a vital
part of the future of this organization. For the life of me I don't know why
he would be on the trade block - and it frustrates the crap out of me that
Vince Carter (regardless of what he is/is not doing), who is essentially a
loaner/leach, or better, a byproduct of the Gortat/Pietrus trade is playing
when I believe the Suns would have a better chance at winning day in day out
with Childress playing the minutes Carter is sleeping through.
我理解我們隊上有很多的外線球員...但是Childress可以且應該是這個球隊日後重要的一
員。就我而言我不明白為何他會被擺上等待交易名單--還有我完全無法理解的是Carter(不
管他是或不是)，基本上是一位代替品/濾渣，或者更好一點，Gortat/Pietrus交易中的附
贈品，相較於Childress在場上的表現，在我認為太陽隊能夠有更多的機會取得贏得勝利的
那段時間中，Carter就像是睡著了。
Here is my case for Josh Childress. Don't Trade Him. Play him more.
這是關於我如何處理Josh Childress的文章。 不交易。 讓他有更多的上場時間。
The Nostalgia Matrix
讓人緬懷的Matrix
Recently after one of the games where Jared Dudley threw down one of his 2 or 3
dunks of the season, Steve Nash was asked in a post game interview where he
(Dudley) ranked among Nash's all time most explosive targets to pass to over
the years.
最近，在Dudley灌進賽季第二還是第三次籃的比賽後，Nash在賽後記者會上被問到了
Dudley能夠在Nash生涯中最勁爆的傳球對象中排第幾。
Jokingly, Steve responded (something like this),
Steve開玩笑的回應了(類似的)，
"Well without a doubt a doubt I'm going to have to say Shawn Marion was
number one... then Amare, then Jared Dudley - he's a beast."
"毫無疑問地我會說Shawn Marion會是第一...然後是Amare,再來是Dudley-他是一支野
獸。"
It was a funny joke and I chuckled. But then I cried.
這個笑話還不錯笑。 但笑完之後我卻留下了眼淚。(幹 是洋蔥)
Ah Shawn Marion.... he was my favorite member of the Suns during the Nash/
Marion era [2004-2008]. I miss him as most of us do - it was his tireless and
consistent effort every game, his explosiveness to the rim, his nose for the
ball, his quick second, third, and sometimes fourth jumps on the glass and
scrapping for loose balls that won me over. Those are probably the very same
things that makes Steve Nash, without hesitation, drop his name when asked the
question above.
Shawn Marion啊( ￣ c￣)y▂ξ...在Nash和Marion時代[04-08]他是我最愛的太陽球員。
我和大家一樣懷念他-他貫徹每一場比賽的努力不懈，對籃框的衝擊，敏銳的落球點判斷，
快速兩次，三次有時甚至四次跳起來爭搶籃板和拼搶補籃征服了我。同樣的當Nash的名字
被放到這個問題上，對我來說也是一樣，不需要有任何的猶豫。
Though he was one of my favorites... I won't lie and say don't feel a small
grain of satisfaction when I see him struggle without Nash and away from
Phoenix considering the circumstances under which he was shipped out of town.
But still - Shawn Marion was himself an element of the essence of the
revolutionary style that embodies Phoenix Suns Basketball. Chew on that.
儘管他是我最愛的太陽球員之一...當我看到他在離開太陽失去了Nash之後的掙扎表現且考
慮到他被送出太陽的情況時，我不會撒謊說沒有感覺到一絲的欣慰。但是 - Marion本身依
然是太陽革命性球風基本元素的體現。仔細想想吧。
What Shawn Marion brought to the table here in Phoenix is something we've
missed and really haven't been able to replace since his departure.With
'Gang-Rebounding', Gortat, and the development of some players like Channing
Frye for example - we've been able to improve our rebounding issues... but we
still struggle to reclaim the consistent hustle-play-born possessions and
offensive rebound-possessions that Marion manufactured day in and day out.
我在這裡提到Marion的原因是他帶給太陽的正是我們所缺乏的且在他離去後面依然無法被
取代。有了'Gang-Rebounding'的Gortat，還有像Frye等不斷進步的球員-我們得以改善我
們在籃板方面的問題...但是我們依舊無法持續打出企圖心旺盛球和進攻籃板球- 這些過去
Marion日復一日所帶給這支球隊的。
I think that's why we all love Jared Dudley - he does those things... but it's
not exactly the same. Help me out, but I'm concluding that it's because Jared
Dudley is all 'below-the-rim'. That's impressive in it's own right, don't get
me wrong - but it was just another dimension to the Suns arsenal when Shawn
Marion could create those kind of hustle-plays above the rim and finish with
power and authority - the kind of authority that injects adrenaline and
confidence in teammates and fans alike that Jared's under-the-hoop scrap can't
quite always duplicate.
我想這就是為何我們大家都喜歡Dudley- 他也為球隊作出了同樣的事情...當然也不是完全
相同。我想不懂，但我的推斷是因為Dudley是一位全'籃框以下'的球員。以他本身的條件
來說這讓人印象深刻，請不要誤會我- 當Marion能夠在籃框上打出旺盛企圖心同時用力量
和權威來完成進攻時Dudley就只是太陽軍火庫中的另一件相似物品而已- Marion表現的權
威激起了隊友的自信心且讓觀眾像是注射了腎上腺素般，而Jared在籃框下的拼搶不見得能
夠複製出一樣的事情。
Shawn Marion-Lite
精簡版Marion
All of this winded introduction relates to why I was so excited to hear that
the Suns had signed Josh Childress this past off-season. If you've ever heard
Josh compared to Marion it's usually because their jumpshot is of a very
similar style... UGLY.
所有這一長傳的介紹和我為開季前太陽簽下Childress感到興奮有關。如果你曾經聽過他們
兩者的比較是來至於他們相似的...難看跳投。
Let me remind you of Marion's 3 point shooting form.
讓你回憶一下Marion的三分。
http://0rz.tw/FXXg1
Now take a look at Josh Childress' 3 point shooting form - since we have hardly
seen Josh this year on the floor and only 9 times total from behind the arc...
再來看看Childress的- 而因為我們沒有大多機會見到Childress在場上因此他只有9次的三
分出手...
http://0rz.tw/lZVMb
You can see why Childress can be compared to Marion. But what also is
interesting is that they both play the same way as well - both would much
rather cut to the hoop and finish at the glass or banging on the rim if given
the option. Childress plays with the same frantic effort - he has a similar
nose for the ball, and a similar speed on his second and third jumps in the
paint. Childress does not have the verticle that Marion had here in Phoenix -
but in his own right he can jump out of the gym.
你也許看得出為何會將兩者作比較。但是讓人有興趣的是兩者在比賽中完成的事情是一樣
的- 如果要做出選擇他們兩位都傾向於切入禁區然後以擦板或是灌籃來完成進攻。
Childress表現出同樣的瘋狂努力- 同樣敏銳的落球點判斷，重復跳起來爭搶籃板和拼搶補
籃的速度。Childress沒有Marion在太陽時的垂直起跳高度- 但是他有權利利用健身來達到
這個高度。
Another thing we have (maybe prematurely) surmised is that his defensive
solidity is not quite what we had hoped. Meaning this is probably the main
reason he is truely 'Shawn-Marion-Lite'. His ability to gaurd smaller, quicker
gaurds isn't something we've seen him be able to really accel at... but then
again, I feel he really hasn't been able to show what he can do when a) he's
fully healthy and not nursing a badly broken finger and b) confident in his
role as a consistent minutes player for the team.
Those thing do make a difference.
另外一件事情我們已經(也許現在說還太早)推斷的是他的防守強度沒有達到大家預期的。
這也許就是為何他被認為是'精簡版的Marion'的主要原因。關於他對於矮小或快速後衛的
防守並沒有讓我們真正的看到進入二檔的他...再一次，我認為他沒能展現當他處於 a)徹
底的健康然後沒有糟糕的手指骨折以及 b)在他被球隊確信能夠在比賽中每一分鐘持續貢獻
的時候 他將可以真正的展現他的能力。
So despite the somewhat initial defensive disappointment, we've seen that
Childress can give us a big chunk of the offensive rebounds, blocks, the steals
and overall scrappiness and above the rim action that Marion provided... and
again, for the life of me I can't understand why he isn't playing more.
除了上面最初說到的失望防守，我們可以看到Childress為我們補上了進攻籃板，火鍋，抄
截這很大的一塊部分然後像Marion一樣的到處撿漏和在籃框周圍工作...再一次，我還是不
明白為何作為精簡版的他不能得到更多的上場時間。
Why They Say it Might Not Work...
為何他們會說這不會有效...
Okay - so I have a couple ideas as to why he's not playing. And if you're
wanting to know who 'they' is, I don't know maybe I made this all up... but it
makes sense to me.
好- 對於為何他不能上場我有了一些想法。如果你想要知道這些問答來至於那裏，我也不
清楚或許都是我自己提出來的...但是這些對我來說都是合理的。
LOGJAM
˙He's not playing because Vince Carter is here - because Grant Hill is here -
because Jared Dudley is here - and because Mickael Pietrus is playing. LOGJAM
- HEEEEELLLO?
˙他沒有上場是因為Carter在這裡- 是因為Hill在這裡- 是因為Dudley在這裡- 還有是因
為Pietrus在場上。醒醒吧!
That's two spots and 4 guys - I love Grant Hill, I love Jared Dudley, I feel
like Pietrus deserves minutes and I don't feel like Vince Carter should be
playing. I know it sounds stupid - and I'd bet my liver that the Vince-lovers
will be in full force to run Vinsympathy parties down my throat... but I'm not
concerned.
兩個位置和四位球員- 我喜歡Hill，我喜歡Dudley，我認為Pietrus應該得到上場時間同時
我不認為Carter應該上場。我知道這聽起來很蠢- 我用我的肝臟賭VC迷會盡全力組織'同情
VC聚會'來舌戰我...但是這都不是我關心的。
I am of the opinion, as I mentioned before that Vince is a byproduct. He's like
the annoying little dog that you have to inherit when you marry the hot
super-model babe. The difference is, we won't have to wait forever for the
little dog to die - later this year the Suns will pay him his guaranteed 4
Million and we'll be rid of him, maybe he'll retire.
我認為，正如我提到過的，Vince是一個副產品。他就像只討厭的小狗，當你娶了超級性感
的模特兒你必須繼承它。不同的是，我們不必永遠等待小狗死-太陽隊今年晚些時候將付給
他400萬，我們將保證擺脫他，也許他會退休。
Here's my logic for that opinion: We signed Childress to a 5 year 33M dollar
deal - We will NOT pay Vince 18M to NOT lead the team in scoring.
我對選擇的想法:我們和Childress簽下5年33M的合約- 然後對沒有成為球隊得分王的Vince
不支薪。
Am I heartless? Maybe. Will the Suns do what I want? Probably not. Vince is an
established pro and an All-Star, and I imagine it can't be representative of
anyone's reputation here in PHX to be known as the dude/s who stuffed VC on the
bench to wither and die. Maybe it's some kind of Basketball etiquette that I
don't understand or just want to abrogate.
我是否太冷血?也許。太陽是否會做出和我一樣的行為?可能不會。Vince是公認的頂級和全
明星球員，我能想象這不能代表所有在太陽裡將會為VC被塞在板凳而尋死的傢伙/傢伙們做
出聲明。也許這是某種類型我不明白的或是我想要廢除的籃球禮節。
Regardless of whether or not Vince plays and Childress doesn't - but following
my same above logic - it makes no sense to trade Childress right now. He's a
young long-term asset.
對於任何關於Vince做得到Childress無法完成的 恕我直言- 根據我上面的想法- 目前交易
Childress是不合理的。他是我們的長期資產。
Floor Spacing
˙He can't space the floor like the Suns and Steve Nash need since he doesn't
shoot the 3 ball very well.
˙他不能拉大太陽的場上進攻空間和Nash所需要的場上進攻空間因為他沒有很好的三分。
False.
錯。
How do you know he can't shoot the 3 ball well? After his career night on
Tuesday against the Utah Jazz where he nailed 5 3-pointers, Channing Frye said,
你怎麼知道他沒有很好的三分?星期四晚上和爵士的比賽打出了生涯新高全場投進5顆三分
的Frye說，
(譯者:根據當天比賽的Box Frye投進了6顆三分)
"I just went out there with confidence.. you know, when you shoot as many
3's as I do, you start to get good at it - just like if I were to write the
letter 'A' a whole bunch of times, I'd be pretty good at writing the letter
'A' at some point".
"我只是打出自己的信心而已...在我練習這麼多的三分後，我開始找到感覺了- 就像
是我在坐板凳的時候所表現的，我也能夠在需要的時候表現的一樣好。"
Getting good at something, especially something like 3-point shooting is a
matter of repetition and confidence.
在需要的時候有良好表現，特別是三分這個項目就是不斷重復和自信心的問題而已。
Let's look at Shawn Marion as an example - why? Because he was a below-average
3-point shooter coming out of UNLV... then he was a below-average 3-point
shooter in his first couple years here in Phoenix, but then what happened,
because the Suns could all of a sudden play Marion and space the floor just
fine for Steve Nash?
讓我們以Marion為例子- 為什麼?因為來自UNLV的Marion是一位低於聯盟平均的三分射手..
在Marion前幾年在太陽的時間裡他是一位低於聯盟平均的三分射手，但是接下來的有關于
Marion突然在太陽裡打出來和拉大場上進攻空間來配合Nash的原因究竟是什麼呢?
Oh - he became an average 3-point shooter, and partly that is enough to space
the floor for a Steve Nash team.
哦- 他變成了高於聯盟平均的三分射手，這也是能夠為擁有Nash的這支球隊提供了足夠的
場上進攻空間。
It was because he started putting up more 3-point shot attempts - and you know
what that is? Repetition. What did we say comes with repetition? Confidence.
What happens when somebody is confident? They make ish happen.
這都是因為他提高了三分出手次數- 你知道這是為何嗎?不斷的重復。我們說和不斷的重復
一起出現的是什麼? 信心。一位球員有了信心後會發生什麼事情? 近乎完美。
Take a look a the graph below - you'll have to click and enlarge to soak it all
in.
看看下面的圖表- 你可以點選放大它。
http://0rz.tw/c386i
This Graph chronicles Shawn Marion's 3-point shooting career.
這張圖表按年份記錄了Marion生涯三分成績。
As you can see - he only took 22 shots his first year in the league, and of
those he only netted 4 for a terrible 18.2 3P%... you'd never have guessed that
with his ugly shot, and those horrible numbers that he'd turn into a legitimate
though below average weapon from beyond the arc.
正如你說見- 在聯盟的第一年三分出手只有22次，命中4球3P%為糟糕的18.2%...你絕對想
不到根據他難看的出手動作，以及這項糟糕的數據使他成為了一位合理的不合格三分球射
手。
As his career went on he began taking more shots and consequently he made more
and more and shot a higher percentage.
隨著職業生涯的發展他開始提高三分的出手次數也因此他逐年提高他的三分命中率。
Now pay close attention to the years 2004-05 through 2007-08 because those are
the years that Steve Nash was in town and the Suns made 2 trips to the Western
Conference Finals, a trip to the Western Semi-Conference Finals, and an early
exit in the first round of the playoffs the final year. For all 4 of those
years - Marion averaged a 3-point shooting percentage of just about 33%. That
is below average, yet it was enough to space the floor - that is my point.
現在請注意04-05年到07-08年的數據因為這段時間是Nash在太陽的時間且太陽兩度闖入西
區決賽，一次闖入西區半決賽，以及07-08年止於季後賽第一輪。在這四年中- Marion的平
均三分命中率僅只是達到了33%。這是低於平均的，但是這已經足夠拉大場上進攻空間了-
這是我想表達的。
Can Childress shoot around that mark from the 3-point line? I believe he can
and here's why, check out his career 3-point shooting graph.
Childress的三分是否能達到Marion同樣的成績?我相信他可以而這是原因，看看他生涯的
三分成績。
http://0rz.tw/oU1kP
Though Childress has yet to attempt more than 100 3-point shots in a year - the
trend is the same. The more shot attempts he gets up, the more he makes and
generally the higher his percentage ends up.
考慮到Childress還沒有在一個球季三分出手超過100次- 兩者的趨勢是一樣的。如果他提
高越多的出手則命中越多，一般來說他就會有更高三分命中率。
He hasn't been given enough opportunity to play consistent minutes - it's got
to be only that much harder to develop confidence in your 3-point shot when
your confidence in playing time isn't even a constant. Now go back to Marion's
graph... after his years in Phoenix - he went right back to virtually no
3-point attempts, and a horrible 3P%.
他還沒有獲得足夠的機會得到持續的上場的時間- 在你上場的時間不是一個常數的情況下
這只會讓你三分出手的信心發展更加的困難。現在回到Marion的圖表...之後在太陽的幾年
裡- 他又變成幾乎沒有三分出手，還有糟糕的3P%。
He must play more. That's the only way he can have the opportunity to space the
floor - until he plays there is no reasonable argument that trumps mine here
that can prove he would not be able to space the floor enough for our offense
to click.
他必須要獲得更多的上場時間。這是讓他能夠拉開場上進攻空間的唯一辦法- 直到他獲得
上場前沒有任何合理的爭論能夠打敗我 證實在不需要他拉開場上進攻空間的情況下我們能
夠達到我們的進攻點數。
Enter Euty's Imagination
進入Euty的想法
I broke down the 3-point shooting percentages of the starting line-ups for
those 4 years that Nash and Marion ran the floor together. Here's what we have.
我將那四年和Nash以及Marion一起先發的球員三分命中率個別分開。下面我們來看看。
2004-05 [62-20 - Western Conference Finals] 04-05年 62勝20負 西區決賽
Starting Line-Up -- 3-Point % 先發三分命中率
J.Johnson = .478 [This was a J.Johnson career high year 3P% -
his career average is .369] 生涯最高 生涯平均.369
S.Marion = .334
S.Nash = .431
Q.Richardson = .358 [226/631 - Career high attempts by almost double the next
closest year, looking at his career, in the years that
Q does not come close to attempting 300 3-Point shots or
more, his 3P% is VERY pedestrian]
生涯最多出手 兩倍於下一年，從觀其生涯出手次數少於300次的
賽季裡 他的3P%是非常路人的
A.Stoudemire = .188 [3/16]
In each of these year's we're just not even going to consider the 3P% from the
Center position - Amare rarely shot threes, same with Kurt Thomas as we will
see.
中鋒不在我們的討論裡- Amare三分出手極少，Thomas也是一樣。
So let's take the average of the 4 other players on the floor and identify
their collective 3P% as one of the main floor spacing mechanism that allows
Steve Nash to drive and kick and effectively run the Pick and Roll with "pick
your poison" consequences.
所以討論另外四位球員就好然後我們可以發現到他們的集體三分命中率是一種用以拉開進
攻空間的手段使得Nash可以運球、傳球及有效率的執行擋切並伴隨"你自己選一種死法吧"
這樣的結論。
(譯者: "pick your poison" 我想應該是指場上每個人的3P%都蠻高的 所以Nash傳給其中
一人都有很大的機會命中 隨便傳都有 這樣的意思 請指正 Orz )
The 2004-05 collective average was the highest it's ever been in the
Steve Nash era = .400
04-05年的 整體三分命中率是Nash時代最高的 為.400
I think it should also be noted that almost every one of these teams has had
2 players off the bench who also shoot a threatening percentage from 3-point
range. This year it was,
我想我必須要指出一下這支球隊還有兩位板凳球員擁有具威脅性的3P%，使得這支球隊看起
來每個人都有三分能力。下面是這兩位的，
BENCH 板凳
L.Barbosa = .367 [51/139]
Jim Jackson = .459 [68/148]
2005-06 [54-28 - Western Conference Finals] 05-06年 54勝28負 西區決賽
Starting Line-Up -- 3-Point %
R.Bell = .442
B.Diaw = .267 [8/30 - did not attempt many at all] 出手次數不多
S.Marion = .331
S.Nash = .439
Kurt Thomas = .000 [0/0]
Funny thing about this team... really only 3 players with 3-point weaponry
(including Marion's below average %)... yet floor spacing was not an issue at
all.
關於這支球隊有趣的地方...只有三位球員真正有3分能力(包括低於平均命中率的Marion)
...所以談不上進攻空間這個議題。
The 2005-06 collective average = .370
05-06年三分命中率 為.370
BENCH 板凳
L.Barbosa = .444
J.Jones = .386
2006-07 [61-21 - Western Conference Semi-Finals] 06-07年 61勝21負 西區半決賽
Starting Line-Up -- 3-Point %
R.Bell = .413
B.Diaw = .333 [ 15/45 - again, not a big 3P shooter]
還是一樣 不是一位多產的三分射手
S.Marion = .317
S.Nash = .455
A.Stoudemire = .000 [0/3]
Again - only 3 players needed shooting from the perimeter to space the floor.
還是一樣- 只有3位球員在三分線外開火是有威脅的。
The 2006-07 collective average = .380
06-07年整體三分命中率 為.380
BENCH 板凳
L.Barbosa = .434
J.Jones = .378
2007-08 [55-27 1st Round Early Exist from the Playoffs] 07-08年 55勝27負 首輪
Starting Line-Up -- 3-Point %
R.Bell = .401
G.Hill = .317
S.Marion = .347 [ His best year shooting from the perimeter with Steve Nash
, after 3 years of sub-average shooting... he shot around
the league average 3P%, more than enough to be considered
a threat]
和Nash配合最好的一年，經過低於平均的三年後...他高於平均的
3P%，剛好足以被視為一種威脅
S.Nash = .470
A.Stoudemire = .161 [5/31]
This was the year Shawn Marion was traded and Shaq was acquired... Also we
only had 1 real threat from the bench this year, L.Barbosa = .389.
這是Marion被交易找來Shaq的一年...而我們的板凳裏只有一位球員有威脅性的三分，
Barbosa的 .389。
The 2007-08 collective average = .384
07-08年整體3P% 為.384
NOW this brings us to our Starting Line-up for this year...
現在來看看今年的先發表現...
2010-11
Starting Line-Up -- 3-Point %
V.Carter = .381 [45/118]
G.Hill = .388 [19/49 - doesn't shoot many... but on track for more than
B.Diaw ever did in a year]
沒有太多次出手...但比Diaw之前的每一年都多
S.Nash = .411 [62/151]
C.Frye = .388 [112/289]
R.Lopez = .000 [0/0]
And from the BENCH 來自於板凳的
M.Pietrus = .325 [27/83]
J.Dudley = .379 [64/169]
As our line-up is currently - the 2010-11 collective 3P% is .392, that's second
only to the amazing 2004-05 season 3P% of .400. We have a great line-up with 4
threats from the out-side... so here's the redundant argument made against
Josh Childress - he can't shoot from 3 and subsequently doesn't space the floor
enough for Steve Nash....REALLY?
我的這個陣容是目前的- 10-11年的整體3P% 為.392，僅次於04-05賽季神奇的 .400。這樣
的陣容中我們有四位三分射手...所以這裡是關於Childress多餘的爭論- 他沒有三分因此
無法為Nash拉大場上的進攻空間...真的嗎?
I've already expressed my opinion as to the fact that he should play more - and
with more minutes he will shoot arguably more/better from the perimeter, just
like we saw Shawn Marion develop.
我已經表達我的意見作為一個事實就是他需要他獲得更多上場時間- 隨著更多的上場時間
可以說他將會有更好的三分成績，就像我們看到的Marion一樣。
But let's just take his shooting percentage from distance for what it is. As
he stands, Childress currently has a career 3P% of .348.
讓我們先撇開Childress在這個賽季的三分命中率。他的生涯三分命中率為 .348。
The league average 3P% for this year is .359 which is the 6th highest it's ever
been in 32 years of NBA 3-Point shooting. That means there are a lot of good
3-point shooters out there and Childress is just below average.
今年聯盟的平均三分命中率為 .359是過去32年裡第6高的。這表示聯盟中有一大票優秀的
三分射手而使得Childress低於聯盟的平均。
As my observations have pointed out - the Suns haven't always needed 4 players
on the floor who can shoot from the perimeter in order for the floor to be
spaced sufficiently. AND even when they only have 3 shooters on the floor -
we've seen that (Shawn Marion) one of those players can have sub-par shooting
percentages and still create the stir needed to keep players at home defending
shooters and consequently space the floor as needed for Steve Nash.
正如我的觀點所指出的- 太陽並不總是需要4個球員在場上從外線投籃以便拉開足夠的空間
。而甚至當他們只有3射手在場上的時候- 我們可以看到即使在(Marion)場上的其中一位球
員有著低於標準的三分命中率的情況下，仍然能夠創造出足以讓其他球員保持命中率以及
拉開進攻空間正如Nash所需一般。
(譯者: we've 到Nash一長段不太確定 請指正 Orz)
If we plunk Josh Childress in for Vince Carter...
如果我們以 .348的Childress代替Carter...
J.Childress = .348
G.Hill = .388
S.Nash = .411
C.Frye = .388
R. Lopez = .000
The collective 2010-11 3P% could/would be = .384
10-11年的整體三分命中率可能/將會是 .384
So now please tell me how Josh Childress can't space the floor as a member of
the Phoenix Suns? Try me.
現在請告訴我為何Childress不能像其他太陽隊成員一樣創造場上的空間? 說吧。
One concern is that Hill and Childress are similar in style - both slashing
cutting wings... and that they are both wings as well is a concern. But as
we've seen all too well, Grant Hill is more than capable of gaurding younger/
smaller guards in this league, while Josh could take the SF - I don't defensive
matchups as quite the problem. I do see the offensive potential as appealing -
with Childress on the floor with Grant Hill, Josh and Hill can rotate either
crashing the glass or leaking-out on the break as we know Hill (and possibly
Chilly) can do best. Childress would be a much better rebounder than Vince
Carter or a majority of the gaurds we could imagine on our team - plus his
natural nose for the ball and quick elevation would benefit the team by
providing more offensive rebounds and 2nd chance points.
我考慮的是Hill和Childress的相似的風格- 他們都是強力切入的搖擺鋒...同樣是搖擺人
這點也是我考慮的。但正如我們所看到的全部，Hill在防守年輕或矮小後衛做的比聯盟中
其他人同位置球員來的好，而Childress只能守SF- 我不會在這點上和你爭辯。我看到的是
來自進攻潛力的呼喚- 當Childress和 Hill一起上場的時候，Childress和 Hill能夠輪流
衝擊籃框或是完成快攻因為我們知道 Hill(也許Childress)可以做到最好。Childress的籃
板比Carter或是大部分你想得出我們隊上的後衛都來的好- 加上他敏銳的落球點判斷，重
復跳起來爭搶籃板將有助於提升球隊的進攻籃板和獲得二次進攻機會。
Conclusion 結論
Don't trade Josh Childress. Play him more.
請不要交易他。 讓他獲得更多上場時間。
--
先說一下 這是17號的文章了 = = 所以交易也截至了(對吧?)
所以可以討論的就剩下他在球隊的角色這點了 (￣ ￣;)
請原諒小弟的爛英文 因為看到板上沒有所以來翻一下
另外再和VC說聲抱歉 我也是VC迷 所以文章中關於VC的部分盡量選用了中性字句
如果還是有讓你不高興的地方 歡迎推文讓我改正
新手 文章中其他有錯的地方也請指正 Orz
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 122.117.16.132
推
02/26 17:11, , 1F
02/26 17:11, 1F
推
02/26 17:12, , 2F
02/26 17:12, 2F
推
02/26 17:13, , 3F
02/26 17:13, 3F
推
02/26 17:15, , 4F
02/26 17:15, 4F
→
02/26 17:15, , 5F
02/26 17:15, 5F
推
02/26 17:16, , 6F
02/26 17:16, 6F
→
02/26 17:17, , 7F
02/26 17:17, 7F
推
02/26 17:18, , 8F
02/26 17:18, 8F
推
02/26 17:19, , 9F
02/26 17:19, 9F
→
02/26 17:19, , 10F
02/26 17:19, 10F
→
02/26 17:23, , 11F
02/26 17:23, 11F
→
02/26 17:25, , 12F
02/26 17:25, 12F
推
02/26 17:28, , 13F
02/26 17:28, 13F
→
02/26 17:33, , 14F
02/26 17:33, 14F
推
02/26 17:37, , 15F
02/26 17:37, 15F
→
02/26 17:39, , 16F
02/26 17:39, 16F
→
02/26 17:41, , 17F
02/26 17:41, 17F
→
02/26 17:43, , 18F
02/26 17:43, 18F
→
02/26 17:47, , 19F
02/26 17:47, 19F
推
02/26 17:51, , 20F
02/26 17:51, 20F
推
02/26 17:56, , 21F
02/26 17:56, 21F
推
02/26 17:59, , 22F
02/26 17:59, 22F
推
02/26 17:59, , 23F
02/26 17:59, 23F
推
02/26 18:06, , 24F
02/26 18:06, 24F
推
02/26 18:14, , 25F
02/26 18:14, 25F
推
02/26 18:27, , 26F
02/26 18:27, 26F
推
02/26 18:29, , 27F
02/26 18:29, 27F
推
02/26 18:35, , 28F
02/26 18:35, 28F
→
02/26 18:36, , 29F
02/26 18:36, 29F
推
02/26 18:44, , 30F
02/26 18:44, 30F
推
02/26 18:46, , 31F
02/26 18:46, 31F
推
02/26 18:47, , 32F
02/26 18:47, 32F
推
02/26 18:50, , 33F
02/26 18:50, 33F
推
02/26 18:56, , 34F
02/26 18:56, 34F
→
02/26 18:56, , 35F
02/26 18:56, 35F
推
02/26 19:02, , 36F
02/26 19:02, 36F
推
02/26 19:07, , 37F
02/26 19:07, 37F
推
02/26 19:13, , 38F
02/26 19:13, 38F
推
02/26 19:17, , 39F
02/26 19:17, 39F
還有 31 則推文
→
02/27 00:02, , 71F
02/27 00:02, 71F
推
02/27 00:02, , 72F
02/27 00:02, 72F
→
02/27 00:02, , 73F
02/27 00:02, 73F
推
02/27 00:35, , 74F
02/27 00:35, 74F
推
02/27 00:40, , 75F
02/27 00:40, 75F
推
02/27 10:49, , 76F
02/27 10:49, 76F
→
02/27 10:49, , 77F
02/27 10:49, 77F
→
02/27 10:50, , 78F
02/27 10:50, 78F
→
02/27 10:50, , 79F
02/27 10:50, 79F
→
02/27 10:51, , 80F
02/27 10:51, 80F
→
02/27 10:51, , 81F
02/27 10:51, 81F
→
02/27 10:51, , 82F
02/27 10:51, 82F
推
02/27 10:57, , 83F
02/27 10:57, 83F
推
02/27 12:58, , 84F
02/27 12:58, 84F
→
02/27 12:58, , 85F
02/27 12:58, 85F
→
02/27 12:58, , 86F
02/27 12:58, 86F
→
02/27 12:58, , 87F
02/27 12:58, 87F
→
02/27 12:59, , 88F
02/27 12:59, 88F
→
02/27 12:59, , 89F
02/27 12:59, 89F
推
02/27 13:02, , 90F
02/27 13:02, 90F
→
02/27 13:02, , 91F
02/27 13:02, 91F
→
02/27 13:03, , 92F
02/27 13:03, 92F
→
02/27 13:04, , 93F
02/27 13:04, 93F
→
02/27 13:04, , 94F
02/27 13:04, 94F
推
02/27 13:23, , 95F
02/27 13:23, 95F
→
02/27 13:25, , 96F
02/27 13:25, 96F
推
02/27 13:26, , 97F
02/27 13:26, 97F
推
02/27 13:40, , 98F
02/27 13:40, 98F
→
02/27 17:43, , 99F
02/27 17:43, 99F
→
02/27 17:45, , 100F
02/27 17:45, 100F
→
02/27 17:45, , 101F
02/27 17:45, 101F
→
02/27 17:46, , 102F
02/27 17:46, 102F
→
02/27 17:46, , 103F
02/27 17:46, 103F
→
02/27 20:07, , 104F
02/27 20:07, 104F
推
02/27 20:34, , 105F
02/27 20:34, 105F
推
02/27 20:38, , 106F
02/27 20:38, 106F
→
02/27 20:38, , 107F
02/27 20:38, 107F
→
02/27 20:38, , 108F
02/27 20:38, 108F
→
02/27 20:39, , 109F
02/27 20:39, 109F
推
02/28 04:42, , 110F
02/28 04:42, 110F