[外電] Dave Cameron談守備佈陣

[Brothre23 (哈姆妍)]

The Problem With Rob Manfred's Problem With Sifts

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

Yesterday was Rob Manfred’s first official day on the job, and he didn’t
waste any take making headlines. In addition to penning an open letter to the
fans, he also sat down with Karl Ravech for an ESPN Sunday Conversation,
offering some thoughts on what he saw as priorities to tackle early in his
tenure. Some of the points of emphasis are things people have been talking
about for a long time — there can be entirely too much time between pitches,
and when certain teams get together, the length of the game is a real problem
as well — but it was his comments about potentially restricting defensive
shifts that got the most attention.

    昨天(註:原文發表日期為1/26)是Rob Manfred的正式上任第一天, 他並沒有浪費任何
登上頭條的機會. 除了向球迷們發出公開信之外, 他也和Karl Revech一起參加ESPN Sund
ay Conversation, 就一些有關這次任期內他認為應優先解決的事務發表了看法. 有些他
所強調的論點已經被人們討論非常多遍了—投手在每次投球之間的間隔時間真的太長, 而
且當特定對戰組合碰頭時, 比賽的長度真的是個很大的問題—不過獲得最多關注的是他表
示有可能限制守備佈陣的言論.

In the context of the conversation about how the game can be improved,
Manfred mentioned that the league was looking at ways to “inject additional
offense into the game.” And it’s fairly natural that people would draw a
connection between the rise in shifting and the decrease in offense around
the game. After all, the trend towards non-traditional defensive alignment
has picked up a lot of steam in the last five years, the same time period in
which offensive output has returned to levels not seen since the early-1990s.
Shifts are also highly visible changes to the game, as we have all seen line
drives end up as easy outs when a frustrated slugger shakes his head and
walks back to the dugout.

    在有關於比賽內容應如何改進的談話中, Manfred提到聯盟正嘗試「在比賽中注入額外
攻勢」. 人們會將球賽中防守佈陣的增加和攻勢的減少聯想在一起是很自然的. 別忘了,
非傳統防守陣勢的這股趨勢在過去五年內快速發酵, 同時攻擊火力的輸出已倒退回自1990
年帶起便不曾見到的水準. 守備佈陣在球賽中相當明顯, 就像我們都曾看過強勁的平飛球
輕易的飛進手套, 沮喪的強棒們搖著頭走回休息室的畫面.

But while I appreciate Manfred’s willingness to think about tweaking the
game to improve the overall experience, this probably isn’t the best path to
pursue.

    但即便我欣賞Manfred願意考慮透過調整比賽來提升整體球賽品質, 這可能不是我們應
追尋的最佳選擇.

The primary issue with going after shifts is that there just isn’t a lot of
data to suggest that restricting them would actually have a real noticeable
impact on the level of offense in the game to begin with. Back in August,
Jonathan Judge did an excellent breakdown of the relationship between the
rise of the shift and the decline in league offense. From that piece, this
table is pretty telling:

    首先, 追隨守備佈陣的主要問題是我們沒有足夠的資料來加以推論限制它能夠對球賽
的進攻品質帶來顯著的影響. 時間回到八月, Jonathan Judge完美的破除了守備佈陣的增
加和聯盟攻擊水平的衰退之間的關係. 表格會說話

┌──┬────────┬──────┐
│賽季│聯盟平均wOBAcon │單隊場均得分│
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│1999│      0.374     │    5.08    │
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│2000│      0.374     │    5.14    │
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│2001│      0.367     │    4.78    │
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│2002│      0.362     │    4.62    │
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│2003│      0.363     │    4.73    │
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│2004│      0.367     │    4.81    │
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│2005│      0.362     │    4.59    │
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│2006│      0.370     │    4.86    │
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│2007│      0.370     │    4.80    │
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│2008│      0.368     │    4.65    │
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│2009│      0.370     │    4.61    │
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│2010│      0.364     │    4.38    │
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│2011│      0.361     │    4.28    │
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│2012│      0.366     │    4.32    │
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│2013│      0.364     │    4.17    │
├──┼────────┼──────┤
│2014│      0.365     │    4.11    │
└──┴────────┴──────┘

(表格可參照原文)

wOBAcon is wOBA-on-contacted-balls, so this essentially measures the
difference in production when a batter puts the ball in play (or hits a home
run). As you can see, wOBA-on-contact hasn’t really changed much over the
last decade, and the last few years, the run value of balls in play was
slightly higher than it was in 2002-2003, when teams were averaging about 4.8
runs per game. We’ve shaved over half a run off that total in the last seven
years even as the results of contacted plays haven’t really changed much at
all.

    wOBAcon意指wOBA-on-contacted-balls (以有效打擊出去的球來計算wOBA) , 因此基
本上它可以衡量打者將球打進場內(或是全壘打)時的進攻產能差異. 就如同你所看到的,
wOBAcon在過去十年間並沒有過大幅變動, 而且過去幾年內打進場內的球所帶來的run
value (wOBA可轉換成得分) 還比02~03年時高, 當時每場比賽單隊平均可得4.8分. 打進
場內的球不曾改變的結果是過去七年內球賽平均得分下降了半分.

Because, as has been well covered, strikeouts are out of control. MLB is
setting strikeout records every single season, and now walks trending
downwards at the same time strikeouts are heading upwards. Pitchers are
dominating the strike zone like they have never before, which is leading to
fewer balls in play than MLB has ever seen. The dramatic reduction in offense
is primarily the result of fewer contacted balls, not the outcomes of those
contacted balls.

    因為—就像眾人已討論到不想討論了一樣—三振的數量已經多到難以控制. MLB每年
都在刷新單季三振紀錄, 且隨著保送數逐漸下滑的同時三振數正不斷攀升. 投手們正以他
們以前未曾有過的方式支配著好球帶, 這造成了balls in play的數量創下MLB史上新低.
球賽中攻勢戲劇性的降低主要是因為被打出去球比起以往更少, 而不是和那些打進場內的
球有關.

It’s not that the shift has zero impact. Clearly, guys like Ryan Howard and
Mark Teixeira have been hurt by the shift, and the fact that teams are
increasing their usage suggests that there is a benefit, even if league BABIP
isn’t changing much at all. After all, batters may simply be hitting the
ball harder now, so perhaps league BABIP would be over .300 now if it weren’
t for the shift; we can’t simply point to the fact that BABIP hasn’t risen
much as evidence that the shift doesn’t work.

    但這並不代表守備佈陣沒有帶來任何影響, 諸如Ryan Howard和Mark Teixeira等球員
都已受此所苦, 且球隊增加他們的上場時間說明了這是有好處的, 即便聯盟BABIP值絲毫
沒有變動. 別忘了, 現在打者們可能只是比較「用力」打球, 因此要是不受佈陣影響的話
聯盟BABIP值將有可能突破三成.; 我們不能草率的以BABIP值的上升幅度不大做為證據證
明守備佈陣沒有作用.

But there simply aren’t enough shift plays throughout the year to have a
massive impact on league wide run scoring. By the best estimates we have,
teams have managed to save something like a couple hundred runs per year with
their new defensive alignments. Not per team. Total. Adding back 200 runs to
the 2014 total would move the league average of 4.08 R/G all the way up to
4.12 R/G. And that’s if the restrictions on shifting banned every type of
shift, and teams responded by never doing it again. Realistically, any
proposed restriction would probably be more moderate, so we’re likely
looking at an even more marginal change.

    但整個球季下來守備佈陣的使用量就是沒有多到足以對聯盟的得分效益造成巨大影響
. 根據我們所擁有的最佳估計, 球界想辦法靠著防守陣勢的變換每年守下大約200分. 非
單一隊伍而是全部加總. 將這200分加回2014年的得分的話會使聯盟場均得分從4.08分一
路上升到4.12分. 且這是在限制佈陣的政策嚴格厲行, 限制所有種類的守備佈陣且球界也
乖乖配合的情況下成立. 實際上來說其他建議方案可能都更適合, 所以我們下來我們要來
探討一項更細微的改變.

If the goal is to add offense back to the game — and I do think that’s
probably a worthy goal — then restricting shifts is the wrong solution. Or,
at least, not a very meaningful part of the right solution. One could make an
aesthetic argument against the shift, but suggesting that it’s going to do
much to increase interest in the sport by creating more exciting,
higher-scoring games is probably wishcasting.

    如果目標是要重新讓球賽變得更具攻勢的話—且我覺得這個目標是有價值的—
那麼限制守備佈陣便是個錯誤的選擇. 或是, 至少, 對於正確的方案來說沒什麼意義. 我
們對於守備佈陣可以有著很美好的想像, 但是說到靠刺激, 高得分的比賽可以為整個環境
帶來更多收益的話, 這會更令人期待.

And beyond the simple fact that it probably wouldn’t even work, I’d suggest
that we should think twice before mandating sub-optimal strategies simply to
achieve a desired end goal. Even if restricting defensive shifts would help
restore offense to the game, I’d still hesitate to create a rule that didn’
t allow teams to choose where to place their own fielders. Any time you
create a restriction to a benefit, people will attempt to find a way around
the restriction, or to get as close to the line as possible, because you’ve
simply added an obstacle rather than eliminating the incentive.

    還有除了這方法根本行不通之外, 我覺得我們對於僅為了達成一個理想目標就批准這
些不慎令人滿意的策略這件事應三思而後行. 就算限制守備佈陣可以讓球賽進攻更為活絡
, 我也會很猶豫是否該創一條規則來限制各球隊該怎麼安排他們的野手在場上的位置. 只
要你訂下任何違背利益的限制條款, 人們便會開始找漏洞鑽或是踩得離那條紅線越近越好
, 因為你只是施加一項障礙而不是讓他們打消這念頭.

If we say that teams can only have two fielders on each side of the second
base at the start of the play, do we also limit whether they can be moving at
the time of the pitch? Or could a team have the player they want to have
shifted start 10 feet to the left of the second base bag, get a running
start, and be in the position where he would have started if not for the
shift restriction by the time the batter’s contacted ball reaches the shift
position? As long as there are extreme pull ground ball hitters, teams will
do whatever they can to put their fielders in position where the ball is most
likely to go, and creating an arbitrary line for them to stand will just give
them another problem to solve on their way to reaching that goal.

    如果我們說在每個play開始時二壘兩側各只能有兩名野手, 我們有限制他們在投手投
球能否移動嗎? 或是他們能讓想排入佈陣的野手先站在離二壘壘包10英尺處, 接著那名球
員開始衝刺, 在打者將球打入佈陣區之前衝到要是沒有佈陣限制的話他原本會站的地方嗎
? 只要強力拉回型的打者存在, 各球隊便會無所不用其極的將守備球員安插到那顆球最有
可能的去處, 而霸道的要求他們站在指定的路徑上只是在他們達成目標的道路上又增加一
項課題罷了.

Instead, it’s likely better to just let teams put their defenses wherever
they want, and let offenses get rid of the shift for you. Whether it’s
through improved bunting, players developing better opposite field hitting
skills, or simply through the league placing a lower value on bat-only
pull-power guys, the market will find an equilibrium if given enough time to
sort out this new shifting normal. Just as teams have an incentive to put
their defenders in the best spots possible, they also have the same incentive
for their own hitters to beat the shift. The shift isn’t an impenetrable
fortress that can’t be overcome, and the same people who have found ways to
align defenses more optimally will also find ways to help hitters exploit the
shift’s flaws.

    取而代之的, 讓各球隊隨意安排他們理想中的守備陣型才是最好的, 並且將球打穿這
些佈陣就好. 無論是透過更加精熟的短打, 球員們提升他們反向攻擊的技巧, 或者僅僅是
讓只會打擊的強拉型打者在聯盟中的價值下降, 在給予充足時間適應這些已成為常規的佈
陣的情況下市場自然會取得新的平衡. 就如同各球隊想將他們的防守者擺在最適當的位置
一樣, 他們也會有同樣的念頭想讓自家打者突破這些佈陣. 這些佈陣不是不能攻克的堅不
可摧的堡壘, 且對於那些已經知道該如何以最佳的方式安排防守員的人也同樣會幫佈打者
發掘佈陣的弱點.

If MLB wants to add offense back to the game, then their first priority
should be forcing the strike zone back to prior dimensions. Train the umpires
to stop giving pitchers expanded strike zones, and give hitters a chance to
make more contact than they do now. We don’t need better outcomes on
contact; we just need more contact in general. And that starts at home plate.

如果MLB官方希望將攻擊這項元素重新注入球賽中的話, 他們的當務之急應是強制好球帶
恢復原本的尺寸. 訓練裁判們別再給予投手額外的好球空間, 讓打者有比現在更多的機會
能碰觸到球. 對於打出去的球我們不需要更好的結果; 總體來說我們只需要球棒與球之間
的更多接觸. 而這一切都從本壘板開始.

The shift isn’t a serious problem for Major League Baseball, but the strike
zone is. Let’s tackle that issue, and then in a few years, if no one has
figured out how to beat the shift, maybe we can revisit this far more minor
issue.

守備佈陣對MLB來說不是什麼很嚴重的問題, 但好球帶卻是. 讓咱們解決這問題, 而過幾
年後要是沒有人想得出方法突破佈陣, 屆時我們再來重新審視這輕微得多的問題.

翻譯很爛請鞭小力一點@@ 反正重點就是Cameron認為得分變少 比賽變難看佈陣要負責沒錯
但是重點是變形蟲好球帶過於氾濫導致三振爆增 所以禁止佈陣沒啥鳥用 治標不治本

http://goo.gl/kWpCph

--
我是很安全的待在KARA裡 知英和妮可的話 是全新的開始 該有多害怕和驚慌呢
初期的時候還是會有遺憾的心情的 現在就釋懷了
覺得她們很帥氣 迅速的抓住了自己的方向 想朝著那個方向走 才選了那條路的不是嗎
換個角度思考 我應該在背後應援才是對的 這也是我現在守護著KARA的一個理由

                                            具荷拉 14.12.29 @ HARA ON & OFF

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 211.74.244.142
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/MLB/M.1423398046.A.102.html
推 sam9595: 佈陣不一定會被突破 但可以想像一些強力拉打左打者會被
→ sam9595: 一些全方位的打者取代
推 Yginger1: 推 好文 不過好球帶過去有變大過嗎？
推 yrt3168: 好球帶不知道 但變形蟲感覺有變多......
推 redzero: 佈陣專題FOX之前有做過 強力左打會因為佈陣沒收很多安打
→ redzero: 但強力右打不會 因為佈陣游擊深一點傳一壘來不急但左打佈
→ redzero: 陣二壘深一點傳一壘都可以 對強力拉回左打太不公平
推 feather7589: 推
推 sylviehsiang: 破佈陣很簡單啊 只要總教練說一句遇到佈陣就短打
→ sylviehsiang: 看對面還要不要SHIFT 教練有說話球員也才拉的下臉啊
→ jr00725016: 你以為短打很簡單嗎
→ Lasvegas: 推
推 rahim: 左打者跑1壘永遠比右打者快2步，怎麼沒人出來為所有右打者
→ rahim: 抱不平？
推 rahim: 今天的狀況是因為棒球的跑壘是逆時針所致，如果今天棒球改
→ rahim: 成順時針跑壘，那是不是對強力拉回右打又不公平了？
推 rahim: 我看棒球到現在很少看到右打左投的球員，絕大部分都是左打
→ rahim: 右投，還不是打者貪圖左打有優勢所以才ㄧ堆右撇子練左打？
推 taiwangayu: 會考慮左打的第一因素是右投多吧，壘包近不近應該還好
推 taiwangayu: 另外1b有人的狀況讓防守要hold壘包應該也可以算一種
→ taiwangayu: 左打優勢
推 kaku216: 感謝翻譯 同意不用限制防守布陣 改變好球帶大小應很有效
推 anckyX: 印象中放大好球帶不是為了加快比賽節奏嗎？
推 Atropos0723: 要提高比賽精彩性，當然就是打擊戰最精采，但同時也
→ Atropos0723: 會拖長比賽時間，有一好沒兩好。
→ Atropos0723: 我記得MLB的好球帶的確有比較大一點，以前看過有記錄
→ Atropos0723: 在KZONE外被判成好球的機會比KZONE內被判成壞球的機
→ Atropos0723: 會多，應該就是代表MLB的好球帶偏大
推 Sechslee: 何不降低投手丘?
推 MentalOut: 之前版上不就有篇針對左右打跑壘迷思的好文嗎= =
→ MentalOut: 事實上就是除了朗神等少樣本 左右打跑壘根本影響超小
推 taiwangayu: M大指的應該是這篇 #1Jl2xbxQ
推 ultratimes: 有時候會覺得佈陣根本是莫名其妙的東西
→ ultratimes: 這麼愛佈陣，以後不要分一壘手二壘手左外野中外野啦
→ ultratimes: 反正除了投捕以外，另外再派7個人防守就好啦
→ ultratimes: 也不用再分什麼手了，誰站哪邊隨教練高興就好
推 stja: push
→ ssccg: as has been well covered應該是已經被很多文章討論過/很多
→ ssccg: 人說過，不是隱藏
多謝指正~
推 onime0704: 好球帶不是反而因為Pitch F/X而比較固定嗎...?
推 maxspeed150: 棒球規則上本來就沒規定除了投捕手以外的人的站位
※ 編輯: Brothre23 (211.74.244.142), 02/10/2015 21:33:49
推 ultratimes: 那A-Rod守三壘轟的全壘打也可以算守游擊轟的啦
→ ultratimes: 以後只要把A-Rod填在游擊手，然後守三壘是因為"布陣"
→ ultratimes: 以後應該很容易就出現游擊手500轟吧
→ ultratimes: 以後也可以SS寫米糕，只是因為布陣才去站一壘的
→ ultratimes: 米糕瞬間升級為游擊砲 500轟候選人的游擊手，多棒
推 Guerrieri: 但是有沒有人信是另一回事惹
推 BlitzX: ultratimes這樣搞只是讓那些紀錄完全沒意義而已 有趣嗎
推 RickyRubio9: 怕佈陣 怎麼不讓自己打擊更全面?
推 RickyRubio9: 佈陣如果在廣泛運用 以後MLB都是無死角打者?