推 michael0728n:未看完先推XD 05/27 12:20
推 joumay:最後一大段... 馬刺也是有人開無雙就對了~~~ 05/27 14:54
推 AriesC:好文推一個 05/27 23:18
這個系列賽可說是萬人矚目，網路上各家preview相當的多。
（當然大家也絕不能錯過本板前面已經貼出的精采評析）
底下選一些我覺得比較有趣的點來分享。
首先，進階數據流的馬刺迷分析可以看：
http://www.48minutesofhell.com/series-preview-western-conference-finals-okc-vs-sas
看到底下的預測，想必大家一定會覺得相當樂觀，
不過我們也應該看一下非馬刺迷網站的分析。
其中，底下這幾篇是我覺得寫得比較深入的，
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/27924/the-coming-western-war-oklahoma-city-san-antonio-preview
http://basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2312
http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012/05/25/tony-parker/
http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012/05/25/spurs-thunder/
這兩篇是同一個作者寫的，而他在3月的時候就回顧過馬刺剋雷霆這件事：
http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012/03/19/monday-musing-oklahoma-city-has-major-problems-with-the-spurs/
http://offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/thunder-and-spurs-set-to-battle-on-the-boards/
值得注意的點：
1.馬刺不擅防守high pick-and-roll的弱點。
雖然對上快艇的時候我們對CP3的side pick-and-roll防守十分成功，
但Westbrook與Harden都偏好在中間高位執行P&R。而馬刺守檔拆守的相當糟糕。
Oklahoma City's signature play on offense is the high pick-and-roll. This was
very effective for them against the Lakers, and it will be even more
important against the Spurs because San Antonio doesn't defend it well.
According to Synergy, the Spurs were the worst team in the league when it
came to preventing the ball handler from scoring off of pick-and-rolls, and
that has continued in the postseason. They have given up an average Points
Per Possession (PPP) of 0.832 and 44.3 percent shooting on these plays, 12th
out of 16 playoff teams.
如果馬刺在防守上加強對持球者的防守，
那邊雷霆的大個子能否對此加以回應就會是系列賽的關鍵。
Will Ibaka capitalize? It's hard to say. He is a very capable mid-range
shooter, and he was successful in pick-and-pop situations during the regular
season, posting a PPP of 1.091 (the 92nd percentile) while shooting 54.5
percent. However, he has been struggling in the same situations this
postseason, hitting just two of 10 shots. But if both Westbrook and Ibaka are
hitting their jumpers, it could be a real challenge for the Spurs.
Ibaka的中距離，以及雷霆其他長人的rolling，
從過去的數據看來對馬刺不會造成太大的傷害。但這只有打了才知道。
另外關於Westbrook的投籃，有個有趣的圖可以看：
http://courtvisionanalytics.com/russell-westbrook/
希望馬刺的助理教練手上有類似的數據並且分給後衛群們。XD
2.反過來說，馬刺也是打擋拆的球隊，只是馬刺的擋拆最後常以定點跳投作結，
特別是無人防守下的大空檔：
The key play for the Spurs is their spot-up jump shots. During their eight
games this postseason, spot-ups accounted for 20.9 percent of their
possessions and they posted a PPP of 1.183 (most among all playoff teams) on
45.5 percent shooting. Breaking it down even further, in catch-and-shoot
situations (according to Synergy, this includes spot-ups and attempts off of
ball screens), the Spurs posted a PPP of 1.169 (again highest in the league)
on 41.9 percent shooting. As you can tell from these numbers, they feast on
open jump shots, converting at a very high rate. Out of the 160
catch-and-shoot jumpers the Spurs have taken this postseason, 98 were
unguarded and they scored 132 points off of them. This translates to 46.9
percent shooting and a PPP of 1.347, again best in the league.
在前兩輪可以說馬刺就是靠這些空檔投射射死對手。
好消息是，雷霆很常釋出這種空檔機會：
So far this postseason, the Thunder have defended 138 catch-and-shoot
jumpers. A whopping 93 (67.4 percent) of those shots were considered
unguarded by Synergy Sports, third-most among all playoff teams.
2.雷霆的大個子們沒有能夠力壓馬刺禁區的進攻能力，
但相對的，季賽時TD對上他們的防守也進攻得很吃力，命中率只有36%。
好消息是，TD的籃板數據無論是對上Ibaka或Perkins都有顯著的上升，
雖然活動力強的雷霆在搶進攻籃板上表現不錯，
但馬刺在這一點上的劣勢會比對上爵士的時候相對小一點。
此外，Ibaka積極補防的特性讓他容易在防守籃板上失位，
或許這是TD的籃板數據占優勢的原因。
禁區內的對決，重點應該會放在籃板而非直接的攻守對位上。
3.雷霆的小球陣容效率很高，把KD放到大前鋒且把三槍同時放在場上，
可說是完全解放他們的進攻，KD可裡可外的進攻讓他成為極佳的screener，
比雷霆其他的大個子要好用很多，
KD與Harden的P&R可能會是馬刺最難防守的進攻模式。
To wit: The Thunder scored 101 points per 100 possessions with Durant at
small forward this season and 113 points per 100 possessions with him at
power forward — without sacrificing much on the defensive end. The reason is
obvious: Going “small” allows the Thunder to play their three best
offensive players — Durant, Westbrook and Harden — and remove an
unproductive big man.
相較於湖人，馬刺不太有用擺雙塔去對抗雷霆小球的空間，
因為馬刺現在沒有什麼太有效的低位進攻選擇，除非TD真的吃了仙豆。
但相對來說，馬刺也有打小球的本錢，就看口愛跟船長能頂到什麼程度，
因為無論是Diaw或Bonner要對上KD可能都不會太樂觀。
4.幾乎所有人都指出讓沙發先發去守Green是個浪費，
但也幾乎所有人都認為Brooks不會一開始就冒險改變陣容讓Harden先發，
然後讓沙發替補去對上Manu，
不過因為雷霆這些年輕人幾乎每個都可以隨時燒個40分鐘，
所以這個問題也可能不像這些分析所指出的那麼嚴重。
至於會不會用Green去守Westbrook，則意見不一，
以Pop的習慣，應該是會輪流用不同的人去看管KD，對Westbrook也可能如此，
不過另一種可能是讓TP延續季賽的策略：引誘Westbrook進入one on one的mindset。
5.最後，看一下Budenholzer怎麼談馬刺的進攻：
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2012/05/26/bonus-feature-talking-spurs-offense-with-mike-budenholzer/
Bonus feature: Talking Spurs offense with Mike Budenholzer
Posted on May 26, 2012 at 12:25 pm by Jeff McDonald
In this morning’s dead-tree edition of the Express-News, we took a look at
the Spurs’ evolving offense, which has gradually shifted from featuring Tim
Duncan post-ups to a multi-facted attack based on Tony Parker pick-and-rolls.
That piece clocked in at 880 words, and still could not tell the whole story.
What follows is a transcript of a 10-minute interview with longtime Spurs
assistant coach Mike Budenholzer conducted for that article, detailing the
evolution of the Spurs’ offense from then to now. Consider it a bonus
feature to the fully formed E-N piece linked above:
Q. Do you remember when the subject was first broached, “Hey, we’re going
to move away from this Duncan-centered offense and toward something faster
paced?”
Budenholzer: “The funny part to me is we’ve always talked about playing
with pace. A lot of our pace (in the past) was more getting a rim run and
getting a deep early post-up and playing early in the clock out of the post.
I always thought pace was a big part. Now, I think pace is mentioned more
(but) it’s a lot of early pick-and-rolls instead of early post-ups, playing
with the defense not set. Strangely enough, that part of it is not that
different.”
Q. In your mind, how long has this transition been in the works?
Budenholzer: “Three or four years, probably.”
Q. What precipitated the switch?
Budenholzer: “Just as Tony and Manu (Ginobili) got better and the league
changed a little bit. And to really post up and play through the post a lot,
it takes a lot of energy and effort and pounding on Timmy. I think it was
good for his energy and his body (to change). Tony’s good at it, Manu’s
good at it. It was kind of a win-win for everybody. We still want some early
post-ups. But it’s considerably less than what we used to have.”
Q. The last time you were in the Western Conference finals, in 2008 against
the Lakers, was that still a “dump-it-to-Duncan” kind of offense?
Budenholzer: “I would say we still played through Timmy a lot. I think that’
s probably going too far back. The next year probably would have been the
start of trying to play faster and play more early pick and rolls.”
Q. Was losing to the Lakers in that series sort of the “last straw” that
pushed you toward wanting to become a more high-scoring team?
Budenholzer: “I don’t think so. I don’t remember it that way. I don’t
even remember that series, except for we should have won the first game.”
Q. Is there any overlap between what you did in previous championship seasons
and what you’re doing now, or is it really night and day?
Budenholzer: “There’s definitely overlap, but it’s close to night and day.
I think a lot of the championship years, late in games, we would get
methodical and play through the post and play through Timmy. Teams had to
decide whether they were going to double team him or play him one-on-one. So
we were really capable of playing slower, if that’s how we wanted to.
“We really don’t do that often anymore, although the first two series (this
postseason) Timmy’s been really good and we have played through Timmy some.
It’s been a nice addition to some of the other stuff we’ve been doing. A
lot of the spacing and a lot of the concepts, there is a lot of overlap. It’
s subtle, but I think that’s why it’s been easy for the players to
transition to it. There is some overlap.”
Q. The way the Spurs run offense now seems to have a European flair to it. Is
that a fair statement?
Budenholzer: “Yes and no. I think there’s a lot of European concepts, as
far as catching and driving and not holding the ball. Boom, boom. There’s
definitely some truth to that. In a strange way, they do some things (in
Europe) that are more scripted. They have five legs to it and they execute it
well and do it well. Whereas, we wouldn’t really do something like that —
really complicated, six passes before you’re really looking to score.
“But there are some general concepts that are very European. Catch and drive
and space, hit the open man, drive it and don’t hold it, the ball movement,
the people movement — which as a general concept is very European and very
much what we are trying to instill.”
Q. Duncan, obviously, was probably the player most affected by the change in
offensive philosophies. I mean, he won four championships playing another
way. How accepting was he of this switch?
Budenholzer: “It’s basically impossible if your franchise player and the
most important player for the last 10 or 15 years is not in agreement. If he’
s not on board, and he’s not buying in, you’re going to have problems.
There will be friction. Without him, none of this could happen. He’s amazing
that way.
“He still wants (the ball) and still gets it some. With the evolution of how
we play and the evolution of his game — he’s become a great mid-range
shooter. He’s a real threat. That’s part of what makes it work. For him to
be able to pick and still make those pop shots, it doesn’t work without him
doing that. Just like our offense wouldn’t have worked without him in the
post when he was younger. He’s a vital cog to it. It’s just different.
“If he didn’t have that kind of relevance, if he was just setting screens
and nobody ever threw it back to him, maybe he says, ‘I’m not doing this.’
I think it’s a different importance, a different way of being a vital cog
to the offense.”
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 99.125.165.60