Sunday, March 04, 2012

被嘲笑的大帝,英雄的迷思

i

昨天熱火敗給爵士,9連勝中止。連勝總有中止的一天,也沒什麼大不了的,重要的是熱火以這樣子的方式,不,應該是說LeBron James以這樣子的方式讓球隊輸球,引起熱烈討論。

用熱烈討論來形容可能有點不精準,比較正確的說法是,詹姆斯大帝因為這一球被幹爆了。

他的領導能力,他對勝利的渴望,他對成敗一肩挑的信心,繼上一季對小牛的總冠軍戰之後再度被拿出來質疑。只因為,在足以操縱勝負的最後一擊,他選擇了傳給中距離的Udonis Haslem跳投,而非自己出手。

我覺得,CBS Sportsline的Royce Young這篇文章LeBron has inspiring fourth, but passes late寫得很好,他提到了正反兩面的說法。

Was it the right basketball play? Sure it was. Open man, high percentage shooter from that spot. It's what you ask for there. But still, it feeds the beast. The beast that says LeBron isn't clutch, that LeBron doesn't want the ball late, that LeBron shrinks in the fourth quarter.

Nevermind that Kobe Bryant pulled a similar move with Derek Fisher for a game-winner against the Dallas earlier in the season. Difference is, Fisher made it. Haslem didn't. And now it's LeBron's fault.

他同意,這似乎是正確的傳球。看過比賽畫面的人應該也會同意,無論這個play是不是設計過的,LBJ已經遭受包夾,傳給空檔隊友是不變的真理。差別就在於Haslem沒有投進,否則,籃球場上本來就是結果論,如果Haslem投進,不知道記者又會把LBJ形容得多神。

但是,Young後來也說了,終場前26秒James才投進一記很誇張的三分球,而且整個第四節他的手氣好得不得了,再以明星球員應該具備的殺氣而言,他完全沒有不自己出手的道理。

所以,Young說:

Could the right basketball play actually be wrong? It's all about the crunch-time debate. The statheads all say to run your offense and get a high percentage shot in those moments. The guys like Kobe, Durant and CP3 says forget that and want the weight on their shoulders. Maybe they pass in some circumstances, but it certainly isn't a habit. Can you picture Kevin Durant passing to Serge Ibaka for an 18-footer with the game on the line? I can't. Durant wants that shot.

對美國人來說,決勝時刻就是英雄證明自己的時刻,而美國人喜歡英雄。想當英雄的人,就得成敗一肩扛,不用再廢話,不再管什麼團隊精神之類的鳥事,自己上就是了。

可能性有兩種,一是James可能太完美了,他不去想到自己身價的事情,而只專注在「正確的籃球打法」,一種是他不具備有所謂明星球員的氣質,正如同他去年總冠軍賽第四節被批評「消失」一般。

無論如何,Young說得沒錯,對LBJ這種等級的球員來說,回答為何最後一擊自己出手─甚至硬幹─而不進,總比回答為何不投籃卻傳給Haslem要簡單得多。

儘管LBJ和Haslem的身價實在相差太多,身價高的球員就該對球隊負起更多的責任,但我個人並不是那麼完全苟同美式的想法,或許我屬於比較學院派、守舊派也不一定。但是,如果我們在球賽的前47分鐘都強調籃球是五人分享的運動,沒有理由到最後一分鐘放棄這個概念。我不認為,英雄一定要以這種邏輯去塑造。