ESPN/请不要继续摆烂
[size=3][color=black]链接：[/color][/size][url=http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070411&sportCat=nba][size=1][color=darkred][b]http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070411&sportCat=nba[/b][/color][/size][/url][size=3][color=black][img]http://assets.espn.go.com/i/columnists/simmons_bill_48.jpg[/img][/color][/size]
[size=3][color=black][img]http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2007/0411/pg2_pierce_195.jpg[/img][/color][/size]
[size=3][color=black] 如果ESPN曾经创建过一个＂ESPN最糟糕时刻频道＂，我倒是希望他们能播放四月四号雄鹿对阵凯尔特人的恶心比赛。你见过两支队伍同时摆烂么？恩，这事确实发生了。[color=red]已经缺少了博古特和查理-维拉纽瓦的雄鹿又把莫-威廉姆斯(膝盖酸痛)和里德（膝盖酸痛）放在了板凳上，以求输掉比赛而在选秀大会取得好的名次。按理说雄鹿应该可以“如愿”输球的，可他们还是过低的估计了凯尔特人的“争败欲望”，皮尔斯的缺阵理由是肘部酸痛，而阿尔-杰佛逊的是。。。。。 雄鹿赢了球，却仿佛输了未来。而输球的凯尔特人却兴高采烈。花钱看球的球迷如坐针毡。。
[/color]这情景你只能在NBA才会经历到。30支球队和十年一遇的潜力巨星，于是能得到奥登或杜伦特成了中六合彩一样令人向往的美事。但如果你不这么做，那就太傻了，哪怕你得夸大球员的伤病，在关键时刻安排几个万年板凳上场，甚至去毁掉本应精彩的篮球比赛。其实在黄蜂的第十二人Walter Herrmann用几场不适时宜的胜利毁掉球队的摆烂计划后，[color=darkred][b]我甚至有些期待球队去雇佣Shane Stant（臭名昭著的罪犯，曾被雇佣去杀害运动员）在训练后去废掉Walter,然后看着他像Nancy Kerrigan（曾经的滑冰选手，被Stant暗算而受伤）一样无辜地大喊：“为什么？ 为什么？？”[/b][/color][/color][/size]
[size=3][color=black]在我两个月前的专栏中，当我向大家介绍“快乐摆烂”的概念，并认定凯尔特人已经为了奥登放弃本赛季时，我发誓我还是很赞成他们摆烂的决定的。因为那对他们更有利，在目前的规则下，凯尔特人需要继续输下去。而他们也确实是这么做的。而同时，我又没法想像NBA居然会因为球迷鼓励自己球队输球而感到高兴。还记得吗？联盟在1985年创建选秀制度是为了防止球队放弃比赛的。而在经历了六年的转变后，选秀居然开始由乒乓球来决定了，而魔术居然幸运地连续两年拿到状元签（第二年可是66比1的概率啊）。[b][color=darkred]可怕的事情发生了，联盟的决定很大程度地增加了糟烂球队成为选秀前三名的几率，于是摆烂的大门肆无忌惮地再次敞开。[/color][/b][/color][/size]
[size=3][color=black][/color][/size]
[size=3][color=black] 让我们回顾过去，试着比较一下：2007年的集体摆烂和当年魔术连续两年赢得状元签，哪个更糟糕些？ 一个突然间变得超强的魔术队是否对收视率，观众数量或是球迷的态度产生了消极影响？ 在90年代中期，你会不会因为看到了大鲨鱼和便士就把电视关掉？ NBA犯的最大错误在于：他们忽略了提高整个联盟各支球队综合实力的重要性，哪怕这需要一些牺牲。NBA不是冰球联盟，这里不需要平衡。 还记得70年代末期NBA和ABA合并时候的窘境么？[color=red]每个人都认为糟糕的比赛是猖獗的吸食毒品和大量的高薪低能球员导致的，这些确实是部分原因。但更根本的问题呢？两个联盟的合并使得每个球队的球员配备平均到根本分不出强弱的地步。从1977到979年，只有6支球队赢得了50场以上的比赛，也只有6支球队胜场低于30，没有一支球队胜场超过58，更没有低于22的。。。这还有什么意思？
[/color] 在另一方面，当湖人，凯尔特，76人和活塞四强奋力争夺80年代统领权的时候，真的有人关心快艇，骑士，勇士和国王的可怜境遇么？ 而NBA在1987至1993年的黄金时期与联盟中一边倒的不平衡实力真的是一种巧合吗？ 我把他叫做600/400规则：越多球队取得60%以上的胜率（50场或更多），并且低于40%（50场或更多），联盟的观赏性就会大增。 在我心目中最经典的1988赛季，共23支球队中有8支胜率超过60%，和6支胜率低于40%的队伍。
[/color][/size]
[size=3][color=black] 再看看另一段黄金时期，从1991到1993年，有24支胜率超过60%和24支低于40%的球队（占联盟的三分之二）。而球迷对比赛更加趋之若鹜。球迷们想看到球星打出的精彩比赛，越精彩越好，不是么？那再看看2007的惨淡赛季吧，我们只有6支胜率过6成，5支低于4成和19支中游球队。是的，由于工资帽和奢侈税的限制，他们很难有大的改进，而且如今的球队经理也是越来越难骗（连傻X的刺客托马斯都变聪明了），但我还是是要将这困境归罪于选秀制度。自从魔术连续两年选到状元后，之后的高顺位球员都掉到了弱队，这恶性循环直接导致那些尚未成熟的新人直接承担起了辅佐球队的重任。在过去的14年中，只有一名新秀立即使得球队列入强队之林：蒂姆-邓肯，但他加盟的是一支受伤病折磨而获得高顺位选秀的球队。回忆一下吧，难道他和大卫-罗宾逊合作不是件令球迷兴奋的事么？ 而NBA的竞争本质也因此变质了？ 当然没有。[/color][/size]
[size=3][color=black] 这就是选秀的缺点所在：它几乎使得邓肯加大卫的组合成为泡影，它变向鼓励差劲如鹰队的俱乐部继续输球（自1998-99年以来，他们在103场比赛中的胜率都低于5成），它还鼓励那些没可能获得总冠军的强队在一旦遭遇厄运的情况下就放弃赛季，因为这才是使他们最终获得与其他强队竞争资本的最佳途径。 那么，我们是否可以说选秀大会体制彻底失败了呢？ 难道运气成分不应该起到更大的作用么？[/color][/size]
[size=3][color=black][/color][/size]
[size=3][color=black][b]无论怎么样，大家来看看我给出的解决方案吧：[/b]
1：把球队数量精简到27支，放弃灰熊，黄蜂和鹰，这三个城市现在没有，也永远没能力支助一支NBA球队。然后我们可以在全联盟范围进行这三支球队分散出来球员的选秀。如果芝加哥碰巧选到了加索尔。。。。其实也没什么问题。
2：把选秀模式改到80年代末的样子：每支球队一个信封，人人机会平等。哈哈，问题解决了。如果一支中游球队碰巧得到了个超级新人，比如森林狼在拥有KG的同时又弄到奥登。。。。也没什么大问题。
3：把常规赛缩短到78场，保住每个赛区前6名的同时在剩下的15支球队之间进行双淘汰赛来决出7，8名。我提出这个建议的五条理由是：[color=darkorange]1，绝对非常的热闹，事实上，这就是我们所说的“爽到死”的系列赛。[/color] [color=blue]2，我确信有成堆的赞助商会来投资的。[/color][color=purple]3，前12支球队会得到嘉奖：系列赛举行期间他们会有2周的休息期。
[/color][color=red]4，一支黑马球队会在为强队带来麻烦的同时获得第8的位置，并赢得更多的球迷。[/color][color=navy]5，这样的赛制使得每支球队都有了晋级机会，不会再有球队为了选秀而去伤害买套票球迷的热情了。[/color] 这也是摆烂最可恨的地方：不仅会减弱球迷的激情，还会导致球迷们花大价钱去看那些根本没有取胜欲望球员的无聊比赛。[/color][/size]
[size=3][color=black][b][color=red]在最近一场山猫对凯尔特人的比赛中，我父亲（一个买了34年季票的老球迷）见证了波士顿在把PP和Jefferson放到板凳上的情况下居然搞砸了10多分的领先优势。他右边一个球迷对rivers教练大喊[color=black]：”你做得对“，[/color]而他左边的球迷却大叫[color=black]“这是对篮球比赛的亵渎。”[/color]
我爸随后是这样对我说的：[/color][color=black]最可怕的事情是，这两个球迷说得都对。。。。[/color][/b][/color][/size]
原文
If ESPN ever creates a channel called ESPN Anti-Classic, I hope it launches with a telecast of April 4's stink bomb between Milwaukee and Boston. Ever seen opponents basically shave points at the same time? Well, it happened. Already playing without Andrew Bogut and Charlie Villanueva, Milwaukee shelved Mo Williams ("sore knee") and Michael Redd ("sore knee") in a desperate bid to blow the game for lottery position. And it would have worked, but they sorely underestimated an always-say-die Celtics team missing Paul Pierce ("sore elbow") and Al Jefferson ("hog-tied to a radiator"). Milwaukee lost by winning; Boston won by losing; every paying customer lost, period.When the goin' gets tough ... Pierce gets to the bench.
It's a phenomenon unique to the NBA. With 30 teams and only a handful of superstar prospects per decade, landing Greg Oden or Kevin Durant really is like winning the lottery. You'd be foolish if you didn't try to swing the odds in your favor, even if that means exaggerating injuries, giving crunch-time minutes to scrubs and disgracing the integrity of the game. When Charlotte's tanking plans were recently dashed by 12th man Walter Herrmann -- who improbably ignited a few upset wins -- I half expected them to hire Shane Stant to attack Herrmann after a practice, followed by Walter rolling around like Nancy Kerrigan, screaming, "Why? Why???"
Two months ago in this space, when I introduced the concept of "fantanking" and rooted for an Oden-inspired Celtics collapse, I swear, my heart was in the right place. For the greater good, and under the current rules, the Celtics needed to lose and keep losing. And that's what happened. At the same time, I can't imagine the NBA feels good about a system that encourages fans to turn on their own teams. Remember, the league created the lottery in 1985 to prevent tanking. After six years of tinkering, it settled on a system of weighted Ping-Pong balls, until Orlando landed back-to-back No. 1 picks (defying 66-1 odds the second year). Panicking, the league significantly increased the odds that bad teams would finish in the top three, inadvertently leaving the door open for tanking again.
In retrospect, though, what's worse: Tankapalooza 2007 or a young team winning two straight lotteries? Did it negatively impact TV ratings, attendance or general fan interest to have a suddenly stacked Magic team? Were you turning off your TV in the mid-'90s because Shaq and Penny were on? The NBA's crucial mistake was forgetting that it's better to have more quality teams, even at the expense of a few extra doormats. This isn't the NFL; parity can't work. Remember the late '70s and the deadly stretch of seasons after the NBA/ABA merger? Everyone thinks play suffered because of rampant coke use and the first wave of overpaid/underachieving superstars, which was partially true. The bigger problem? The merger loaded every team's roster to the degree that nobody could stand out. From 1977 through 1979, only six teams won more than 50 games, only six won fewer than 30, and nobody won more than 58 or fewer than 22. What's fun about that?
On the flip side, when the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers and Pistons were battling for control of the 1980s, did anyone care that the Clips, Cavaliers, Warriors and Kings were dreadful? Was it a coincidence that the NBA peaked from 1987 to 1993, with a lopsided league of quality teams and crummy teams? Call it the 600/400 Rule: More teams finishing above .600 (50 wins or more) and under .400 (50 losses or more) makes for a more entertaining league. During the glorious '88 season, my choice for the greatest ever, there were eight plus-.600 teams and six sub-.400 teams in a 23-team league.
During another superb stretch, from 1991 to 1993, there were 24 plus-.600 teams and 24 sub-.400 teams (two-thirds of the league). Again, that's a good thing. We want to watch good teams with star players. The more the merrier, right? Just look at this lackluster 2007 season, when we're saddled with six plus-.600 teams, five sub-.400 teams and 19 in-the-middle teams. Sure, it's more difficult to improve because of the salary cap and luxury tax, and it's nearly impossible to snooker other GMs (even Isiah has wised up). But I blame the lottery for foisting modified parity on us. Ever since Orlando went back-to-back, top picks have gone to lousy teams every spring, creating a vicious circle in which the lottery replenishes weak teams with blue-chippers who aren't ready to carry weak teams. In the past 14 years, only one No. 1 pick made his team instantly competitive: Tim Duncan, who joined a contender that had slipped only because of injuries. Looking back, was it bad that Duncan and David Robinson played together? Was the NBA's competitive spirit compromised? Of course not.
And that's why the lottery sucks: Not only does it render the occasional Duncan/ Robinson pairing nearly impossible, not only does it reward poorly run clubs like the Hawks (103 games under .500 since the 1998-99 season), it encourages also-rans to bottom out once they suffer some bad luck because they know it's their best chance to eventually contend. So can't we admit that the lottery system has failed? Shouldn't the element of luck play a bigger role than it does?
Anyway, here's my solution:
1. Contract the league to 27 teams and dump Memphis, Charlotte and Atlanta, three cities that can't support NBA basketball and never could. Then we'll have a league-wide lottery to determine positioning for the dispersal draft of players from those three teams. (Note: We've already sedated Chad Ford just in case this happens.) And if a contender like Chicago happens to end up with Pau Gasol ... I think we'll manage.
2. Change the lottery back to that of the late '80s: one envelope per team, same odds for everybody, top three draft spots only. Boom! We've solved the tanking problem. If a half-decent team happens to land a franchise player, like the Wolves getting Oden and pairing him with KG ... I think we'll manage.
3. Shorten the regular season by four games, guarantee the top six seeds in each conference, then have a double-elimination tourney for the seventh and eighth seeds between the remaining 15 teams. I suggest this for five reasons. First, it would be entertaining as hell. In fact, that's what we'll call it: the Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament. Second, I'm pretty sure we could get it sponsored. Third, the top 12 teams get a reward: two weeks of rest while the tournament plays out.
Fourth, a Cinderella squad could pull off some upsets, grab an eighth seed and win fans along the way. And fifth, with the Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament giving everyone a chance, no team could tank down the stretch without insulting paying customers beyond repair. That's the lamest thing about tanking: not that it's morally unsound, but that fans pay full price to see a depleted group of losers with dubious intentions. At a recent Bobcats-Celtics game, my father (a 34-year season ticket-holder) watched Boston toss away a double-digit lead while Pierce and Jefferson watched from the bench. To his right, a fan screamed at Doc Rivers, "You're doing the right thing!" To his left, another fan screamed that the collapse was "an absolute disgrace!" And as my father told me later, the disturbing thing was that both guys were right. 到了最后不的不放弃
放弃才有好的选秀 今年新秀不错呐~ 搞笑 2个摆烂的球队遇到一起肯定有点意思
雄鹿赢了球，却仿佛输了未来。而输球的凯尔特人却兴高采烈。花钱看球的球迷如坐针毡。。
这个经典. 输赢对他们的影响很大 。。。
像他说的那样来绝出7 8名估计球员差不多要累死了
页:
[1]