[外電] Pushing the Boundaries of the Four Factors

[SexyCassell (其實我很帥)]

Pushing the Boundaries of the Four Factors

By Zach Lowe

http://rubyurl.com/4Edk


很棒的外電一篇，翻譯參考了hoopchina的翻譯，若還有其他不足之處或錯誤，
麻煩告知~


-------------------------------------------


Barring a change in the roster or the team’s style of play, the 2010 Celtics
have a chance to answer this question: Can a team contend for an NBA title
despite ranking near the bottom of the league in three of the so-called Four
Factors of winning on offense? No team has come close to doing so in the No
Hand Check era (i.e., since 2004). The C’s may provide the best test so far.

會不會有一支球隊在「進攻四要素」的三項排名墊底，卻仍能奪冠呢？

近幾年(從2004年起)，目前尚無球隊完成上面所說的這件事情，而超塞今年將有機會挑戰。

Dean Oliver pioneered the so-called Four Factors of winning, the four variables
on offense (and the corresponding four on defense) that have the greatest
impact in deciding who wins a basketball game. Do these four things well, and
your team will usually win.

Dean Oliver提出所謂的「贏球四要素」，涵蓋了進攻端與防守端，兩方係相對的。
當把這四件事情做好，有助球隊經常獲勝。

For the uninitiated, The Four Factors:

以下是贏球四要素：

1) Effective Field Goal Percentage (offense) and Effective Field Goal
Percentage allowed (on defense)—a stat that adjusts regular FG% to account for
the fact that three-pointers are worth more than regular field goals.

1) 己身(進攻端)的有效投籃命中率 與 對手(防守端)的有效投籃命中率


2) Offensive Rebounding Percentage: The percentage of available offensive
rebounds your team gets. If the C’s miss 40 shots and rebound 10 of them,
their ORB % is 25 percent. (The defensive version of this factor is Defensive
Rebounding Percentage).

2) 進攻籃板率

3) Turnover Percentage: How many of a team’s offensive possessions end in
turnovers? (The defensive version measures how often your team forces
turnovers).

3) 失誤率

4) Free Throw Attempts/Field Goal Attempts: How often does your team get to the
foul line on offense? (The defensive version measures how often a team sends
opponents to the foul line).

4) 罰球次數/投籃次數

進攻端看來是我們站上罰球線的次數，反之則是我們將對手送上罰球線的次數。

Before addressing the offensive Four Factors, let’s say this up front: The C’
s are an incredible defensive team. Right now, they are the only team in the
NBA to rank in the top 10 in all Four Factors defensively, according to
Basketball Reference.

在開始下面的討論之前，首先我們知道超塞是支很棒的防守隊伍，超塞是目前全聯盟
唯一一支在「防守四要素」都位居前十名的球隊

Still: No team has even gotten to the conference finals since 2004 while
ranking as poorly as the C’s project to rank in three of the Four Factors on
offense.

但值得注意的是──自2004年起，沒有任何一支球隊在打進分區決賽的同時，其在
「進攻四要素」的表現像超塞一樣如此貧乏。

Right now, the C’s rank:

這是超塞目前在「進攻四要素」的排名：

2nd in Effective Field Goal %

有效投籃命中率排第二

18th in Turnover %

失誤率排第十八

25th in Offensive Rebounding %

進攻籃板率排第二十五

25th in FTA/FGA ratio

罰球數/投籃數 排第二十五

In other words: The Celtics shoot exceptionally while turning the ball over a
lot and rarely grabbing offensive boards or getting to the foul line. And that
18th ranking in turnover % is a big improvement;  the team finished 29th in
that category in each of the last two seasons.

根據以上，超塞的投籃相當精準，進攻籃板抓的少，同時也很少站上罰球線，但卻經常
失誤。而今年，超塞的失誤率排名十八，比起過去兩季的二十九已是一大進步。

The big drops so far this year have been in free throw attempts and offensive
rebounding; the C’s ranked in the top 10 in each category last season. The
fall-off isn’t entirely surprising—the C’s lost their best offensive
rebounder and most prolific foul-drawer (Leon Powe) and replaced him with
Rasheed Wallace, who does little of either at this stage in his career. The team
’s other solid offensive rebounder (Glen Davis) punched his friend in the face
and broke his thumb.

超塞的罰球數和進攻籃板率在今年下滑的很明顯，但去年超塞在這兩個項目都是排在
前十，今年下滑的原因和POWE離去有關，而補進的SHEED偏偏在職業生涯裡做最少的
就是這兩件事。

而也會搶進攻籃板的大寶因為和朋友打架.......(在此略過)

Davis will eventually help the ORB numbers and the maybe the free throw
attempts. But this team projected poorly in each category before Baby’s
injury; one of the stat systems they use over at Basketball Prospectus
predicted huge drops in each category.

大寶歸隊後也許會改善超塞在這方面的窘境，但事實上大寶沒有受傷之前，超塞
也不是這方面的能手。

So: Can you win a title ranking, say, 25th or worse in three of the Four
Factors on offense? What about 20th or worse?

所以──有球隊能在「進攻四要素」的三項排名落在二十五名外卻還能贏得總冠軍嗎？
又如果是落在二十名外呢？

Of course, we don’t know. But we do know this: No team has made the conference
finals since 2004 while ranking 20th or worse in three of the factors on
offense. Of the 20 conference finalists since ‘04, only one (the 2006 NBA
champion Miami Heat) ranked 15th or worse in three categories (though that Heat
team ranked no lower than 18th in any of them) .

我們不知道是不是真的有球隊可以做到，但我們知道的是：從2004年起，還沒有任何球隊
做到過。過去季後賽的二十支球隊裡，僅僅只有2006年的熱火在該年「進攻四要素」的三
項排名排第十五，但卻也沒低於第十八過。

A small handful of those 20 teams have been terrible at two of the four factors
on offense, but not three. More than a handful have been outstanding at one and
league-average at the other three, but, again, none have been truly bad at
three of the Four Factors—on offense.

這二十支隊伍，有一部分的球隊在「進攻四要素」的其中兩項，表現很出色，但並非三個
項目都很優秀；大多數的球隊通常是在其中一項表現優異，其他三項接近聯盟的平均值。

但是──二十支隊伍裡沒有一支球隊是在三個項目都很欠缺。

Here are some interesting cases:

下面是些有趣的例子：

The 2008 Spurs ranked 26th in offensive rebounding % and 24th in FTA/FGA but
10th in eFG% and 7th in turnover rate. Any Spurs fan could tell you the team
hasn’t pounded the ball inside much in the last two seasons (thus the low
foul-drawing rate) and basically punts offensive rebounding to focus on
transition defense. Like the C’s, they shot the ball well. Unlike the C’s,
they took care of it.

Ditto for the 2007 Spurs. The NBA champs that season ranked 27th in ORB and
20th in FTA/FGA—both well below average. But they ranked 2nd in eFG% and 8th
in turnover percentage. Again, a very similar offensive profile to this year’s
Celtics—with the (rather large) exception of turnovers.


2008年的馬刺：26th in offensive rebounding % and 24th in FTA/FGA
              10th in eFG% and 7th in turnover rate.

2007年的馬刺(這年他們奪冠)：27th in ORB and 20th in FTA/FGA
                            2nd in eFG% and 8th in turnover percentage

這兩年的馬刺和超塞有點類似，最大的不同是他們不像超塞有那麼多失誤。


(The Seven Seconds or Less Suns of 2005 and 2006 put up very similar profiles,
with the 2006 squad finishing dead last in ORB% and FTA/FGA but 1st and 2nd in
the other two categories).

(2005和2006的太陽，數據也很接近，2006年的他們在ORB%和FTA/FGA是墊底，
但有效投籃命中率卻是聯盟第一，而且失誤率第二。)

The 2005 Finals between the Pistons and the Spurs provides some encouragement
for the C’s; both teams were mediocre offensive units (especially Detroit) and
yet both won because they were outstanding defensively. But even their
offensive Four Factor rankings weren’t as extreme as Boston’s might end up:

2005年冠軍賽，活塞對決馬刺，多少能成為超塞的借鏡。當年這兩支球隊皆非強調進攻
(尤其是活塞)，但他們的防守卻都非常出色。

然而即使如此，馬刺和活塞在「進攻四要素」的排名也不像超塞一般貧乏。

‘05 Spurs: 8th in eFG%, 12th in Turnover %, 13th in ORB% and 21st in FTA/FGA

‘05 Pistons: 23rd, in eFG%, 13th in TO%, 4th in ORB% and 14th in FTA/FGA

The thing is, I believe the Celtics can contend for a title as currently
constructed. The one offensive factor they are  good at (creating good shots
and making those shots) is especially powerful—and the C’s are really good at
it. And you can live with a lack of offensive rebounding if it means the team
will excel at transition defense.

最重要的是──我(作者)相信超塞可以爭奪總冠軍！超塞精於「創造投籃機會」並且
「使之命中」，他們非但擅長，更深諳此道。

是的──你可以沒有前場籃板，只要你的球隊攻防轉換夠好！

And the low foul-drawing rate? We’ll see if that holds up when the stakes are
highest and Paul Pierce decides to attack the basket more aggressively.

造犯規率過低？

當比賽陷入僵局，我們就會看到真理挺身而出！

There’s also the hope that the team’s early improvement in turnover rate will
last. Rasheed Wallace has an extremely low turnover rate (much lower than Powe’
s), and two of the team’s younger guys (Rondo and Perk) will likely turn the
ball over less as they mature. (Perk has led the team’s regulars in turnovers
the last two seasons, in part because of all those damn moving screen calls).

而超塞今年在失誤率上的進步，希望能持續維持。

SHEED是一個極少失誤的球員，遠遠低於POWE，而RONDO和PERK還會越來越成熟。(PERK
在過去領先全隊的失誤，有很大部分來自他的掩護失利。)

Can the C’s win the title the way they are now? I say they can. But their job
would be a lot easier if they could get better at one of these three factors.
Get to it, Doc.

這樣的超塞有沒有辦法用他們的打球方式贏得總冠軍？

我說他們可以！但倘若他們在「進攻四要素」上能做的更好一點，他們就能贏得再更輕鬆
一點！


Note: Here’s the ranking of the 20 conference finalists since 2004 based on
the sum of their offensive Four Factors rankings. (Example: A team that ranked
1st in all four categories would score a 4; lower is better). The ‘06 Mavs
blow everyone away. League champions in bold.

下面是2004年以來，季後賽二十支隊伍在「進攻四要素」排名的總排名：

(包含：有效投籃命中率、進攻籃板率、失誤率、FTA/FGA ratio
 加總後，總分越低者為佳。)


1) 2006 Mavericks: 25 ( ※ 排第一的2006小牛遙遙領先排第二的2007爵士)

2) 2007 Jazz: 32

3) 2009 Lakers: 35

4) 2008 Pistons: 37

5) 2009 Cavs: 39

6) 2008 Lakers: 41

7) 2006 Pistons: 42

   2009 Nuggets: 47

9) 2005 Heat: 48

10) 2005 Suns: 50

11) 2007 Pistons: 51

12) 2006 Heat: 52

13) 2005 Spurs: 54

13) 2005 Pistons: 54

13) 2008 Celitcs: 54

16) 2007 Cavs: 55

17) 2009 Magic: 56

18) 2007 Spurs: 57

19) 2006 Suns: 63

20) 2008 Spurs: 67

What’s fascinating about this list and this topic in general is just how many
ways there are to be successful in the NBA. The Nuggets win because they play
good defense, get to the foul line a lot and pound the hell out of the boards.
The Spurs win because they shoot well, take care of the ball and play solid
defense. Two completely different offensive styles with similarly successful
results.

上面的舉證只是說明在NBA想要成功有很多方法，金塊贏在他們的進攻，樂於站上罰球
線，以及積極衝搶籃板；而馬刺贏在他們精準的投籃，低失誤和穩定的防守。兩種不同
進攻策略，但結果卻都同樣成功。

The NBA is endlessly fascinating.

呵呵！NBA果然迷人！


#

-------------------------------------


--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 114.25.250.222
推 rayensighner:KP很常出現掩護犯規..=  =
→ piercepaul  :KP的進攻犯規真的讓人一肚子火
推 r9210117    :他自己道士一臉疑惑阿
推 rainingdayz :進攻籃板真的是...今天看到嘔血
推 david760615 :推KP的一臉狐疑XD 明明每次就是犯規自己還要生氣
推 roccat      :呵~我喜歡他的最後一句~跟，他的立場~gogoCEL!!!