[外電] Lebron James Dominates the Celtics in Crunch Time

[bri (.....................)]

http://0rz.tw/3c45k

Lebron James Dominates the Celtics in Crunch Time

It wasn't the prettiest game to watch by any stretch of the imagination, but
the Cavs and Celtics traded baskets for about 44 minutes before Lebron James
took control of the game. 

不管出自什麼想像，這都不是最好看的比賽，但是騎士隊和 Celtics你來我往了大約44
分鐘，直到LeBron James接管了比賽。

I watched the TNT after show after the game and they kept talking about the
Celtics, what's wrong with the Celtics, how they can't win on the road, how
they'll have problems against Detroit, etc... Kenny said the Celtics are a
"front-running team", meaning they can only play with a big lead. Chuck said
he felt that the Celtics are bad 1v1 defenders. Magic made the comment about
the Celtics not knowing who their go to guy was.

我看了TNT的賽後講評，他們一直在討論Celtics， Celtics怎麼了，他們如何不能在客
場贏球，他們遇到底特律會有什麼問題等等。Kenny說Celtics是支「順風球」球隊，意
思是他們只會在大比數領先時打球。Chuck說他感覺Celtics是不好的一對一防守者。
Magic評論說Celtics不知道他們的go-to-guy。

Though they did mention Lebron, I think they were missing the main point. The
sole reason why the Cavs won the game tonight was due to Lebron James. 7-for-20
isn't a good shooting night, but LBJ did have 13 assists and 6 rebounds. Most
importantly, Lebron was a part of every single big play from the Cavs in the
last 4 minutes. I like analyzing sequences so here is roughly between 4min to
1min:

雖然他們的確提到LeBron，我認為他們都錯過了重點。騎士隊今晚能贏球的唯一理由就
是LeBron James。投20中7不是個好表現，但是LBJ卻有13次助攻6籃板。最重要地，
LeBron是騎士隊最後四分鐘內每一個關鍵進球的其中一部分。我喜歡分析結果，這裡是
最後四分鐘到一分鐘內大約發生的事。

3:16 73-79 LeBron James makes 25-foot three point jumper 
2:55 75-79 Paul Pierce makes 13-foot two point shot
2:38 75-82 Daniel Gibson makes 25-foot three point jumper (LeBron James assists)
2:19 Paul Pierce misses 25-foot three point jumper (LeBron closes out)
2:18 Boston offensive rebound
2:15 Jumpball: Kevin Garnett vs. Joe Smith (Ray Allen gains possession)
2:06 Ray Allen misses 25-foot three point jumper
1:45 75-84 LeBron James makes two point shot
1:25 LeBron James blocks Paul Pierce's 9-foot jumper
1:09 75-86 Anderson Varejao makes 11-foot two point shot (LeBron James assists)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ2oe2OD4yw


On-ball screen:
The Cavs "crappy offense" as Chuck calls it, is deceivingly simple. Yet, when
you have the NBA's best player, why make things complicated. On the 3-pointer,
they run a simple ball-screen with Varejao. The Celtics don't switch and sag
allowing him to take the outside shot,

持球掩護：
騎士隊有”很糟的進攻”，這是 Chuck所言，這是令人誤解的太簡單了。畢竟，如果你
有NBA最好的球員，為什麼要把事情弄得很複雜。在一個三分球，他們用Varejao作一個
簡單的持球掩護。Celtics沒有交換人防守，退下讓他能夠投這球外線。


http://0rz.tw/12476


In the second clip, Joe Smith comes to set the ball screen. You'll see 3
Celtics, Posey, Garnett and Rondo (I think). Point is, that they don't really
make a play on Lebron. You must not allow him to get to the rim, take a charge
or wrap him up,

在第二個片段，Joe Smith上來作個持球掩護。你看到三個Celtics球員，Posey、Garnett
和Rondo (譯註：我認為是Pierce)。重點是，他們不是真的能夠擋住LeBron。你絕對不
能讓他攻擊籃框、被犯規、讓他完成。


http://0rz.tw/7044R


Chuck thinks the Celtics 1v1 defense is bad. I think they actually defended
both plays as good as possible. I would've sagged to give Lebron the shot. On
the dunk, that's just Lebron being Lebron. You could've fouled him, but that's
easier said then done.

Chuck認為Celtics的一對一防守不好。我認為他們在這兩個play都已經盡可能地防守好
了。要是我也會退下給LeBron投那球。至於灌籃，那就是LeBron之於LeBron。你可以犯
他一規，但是這說的比作的簡單。

In the end, I thought this game was decided by the fact that the Cavs have the
best player on the floor. The Celtics do have a go-to-guy, it's Paul Pierce.
But Lebron > Pierce. 

最後，我認為這場比賽最後決定的事實就是，騎士隊有場上的最佳球員。 Celtics的確
有個go-to-guy，他就是Pierce。但是Lebron＞Pierce。

Summary:
I've coached both football and basketball in my life. In football, you can have
a star RB but you need an O-line to block for him. You can have a star QB, but
you need athletes that can catch. You can have a devastating LB or rush end,
but the offense can always run to the other side. 

我當過美式足球和籃球的教練。在美式足球，你可以有個明星跑鋒，但是你需要一個O-
line替他擋人。你可以有個明星四分衛，但是你需要一個運動員可以接球。你可以有個
毀滅性的線衛或邊鋒，但是進攻總是可以從另一邊。

Basketball differs in that I think 1 superstar player and 4 average players
can actually be better than 5 good players. My traditional thinking has been I
would prefer 5 good players over 1 superstar + 4 average. But, if that 1
superstar was a special player like Lebron, maybe that is better...

籃球不一樣在於，我認為一個超級明星跟四個一般球員，可以真的比五個很好的球員好
。我的傳統想法是我比較喜歡五個很好的球員，而不是一個超級明星加四個一般球員。
但是，如果那個超級明星是像LeBron那樣特別的球員，也許那會比較好……

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 218.166.206.181
→ bri         :結論很痛苦, but i take that.
推 cyjoe       :重看這一場的第四節才痛苦,I'm about to cry...
推 mminlyrics  :推翻譯
推 nwohippo    :我不認為五個很好的球員一定輸超級球星+四個好球員
→ nwohippo    :籃球是團隊運動~今年沒巨星的KU就幹掉北卡和曼非斯
→ nwohippo    :當年活塞也能幹掉F3湖人
→ nwohippo    :但超賽明明有三個超級巨星啊><
→ mda748      :我只能說小皇帝是超超級巨星....而且還在進化
推 david760615 :我不同意樓上論點  輸球純粹是戰術問題
→ david760615 :如果戰術設計多給GAP打 比賽一定會好打很多
→ david760615 :就算呂布可以吃包皮 另兩位一定可吃爆其他騎士球員
推 mminlyrics  :問題是騎士也知道你要玩什麼阿 他們就放軟豆 守死GAP
→ mminlyrics  :Wally跑位滿積極的 累死雷槍
→ bri         :應該這麼說  我也不認為長期下來5個好球員比不上一個
→ bri         :超級明星  但是今天的比賽在最後的三分鐘  是那個超
→ bri         :級明星接管了比賽  投進了那個三分和灌籃  就只在這
→ bri         :兩到四個play中而已  但是要打七戰四勝的系列  這顯
→ bri         :然不會是常態
→ bri         :所以我認為這個結論只適用在這場比賽  但是系列還有
→ bri         :的打....大概如此
推 david760615 :真希望Rivers能看到我們這些歪國人衷心的意見@@
→ bri         :樓上  那很難吧XD  漂洋過海的怨念.....
推 gohit       :所以我說是命啊 如果賽隊真的中箭落馬 那真的是命
→ gohit       :大概這樣想會讓自己好過一點 XD
推 chjm52tslt  :真的要開始不期不待了嗎= =
推 k7117836    :為什麼讓Ray變成一個純射手在用 不可思議
推 shepherdy   :推!
推 Poleaxe     :推k7117836  也是本季看超賽感想