How we ranked them? Top 100 NBA player - NBA

How we ranked them: The process of SI.com's Top 100 NBA players of 2016

運動畫刊如何排百大NBA球員

by Ben Golliver and Rob Mahoney


原文：http://tinyurl.com/q7jvnv8

The impulse of comparison is encouraged by the very nature of sports. One

team beats its opponent. One player dominates a matchup. One teammate

overtakes another on the depth chart. Games and leagues are built on that

engine of relativity, and the NBA is no exception.


互相比較在運動方面是常常見到的，一隊擊敗另一隊、一個球員接管了比賽

在NBA這些事也很常見


It's in that spirit that we offer our list of the Top 100 NBA players of

2016—an endeavor to identify and order the best of the best for the 2015-16

season. The scope of our ranking is relatively simple (no weight is given to

long-term development, and as little emphasis as possible is placed on team

context), but there is nonetheless a daunting complication built into the

exercise itself. Put simply: While we make a considered effort to somehow

compare an incredible assortment of talent, there's little grounds to suggest

that basketball players can be assigned any kind of absolute value.


因此我們列出了2016百大NBA球員，排名很簡單(我們不會對長期發展加權)

單存的對個人能力進行排序



On the one hand, the decision to divorce players from their real-life team

settings is essential in a project of this nature. No player ought be

penalized for landing on the wrong team, just as no lesser contributor

should be promoted merely for filling an ideal role. Players need to be

evaluated individually to whatever extent such a thing is possible, and to

that end the disregard of team factors helps us inch closer to some measure

of objective quality.

沒有球員該因為待錯球隊而受批評，相對有些能力差的球員卻因為待對了球隊

而貢獻十足。因此在排序的時候應該對單一的球員，而盡量不要考慮球隊的因素


At the same time, basketball players are almost unavoidably subject to context.

There are certain luminaries for which being a fit is a non-issue—an elite

class of flexible superstars who would work in most every system and would

mesh with most any roster. They are the extreme minority and run maybe three

deep. The overwhelming majority, meanwhile, need specific factors in place to

maximize their on-court value: a particular number of touches, a certain

magnitude of role, a customized set of responsibilities. Some players are

inevitably more pliable than others when it comes to compromising on those

needs, but that in itself creates problems for defining player value across

the board. How does one accurately measure player worth when every individual's

value is so deeply conditional?



Making that determination inevitably becomes a matter of taste, as we don't

otherwise have the means to make sense of such disparate items. It's hard

enough comparing vastly different players at different positions—say, Andrew

Bogut and Monta Ellis—but another matter entirely given that both players

have unique prerequisites to their effectiveness. If Bogut is the defensive

balance to offense-first lineups, his strengths can be accentuated while his

weaknesses are disguised. If not, he's a lesser player, relatively, because

his lack of offensive skill can so severely cramp his team's scoring

operations.

比較兩個不同位置的球員也是相當困難的，如bogut和monta ellis

然而每個人都有獨特個人能力來為球隊貢獻，像是bogut的防守能力很強，攻擊卻會傷害

球隊，因此待在一個得分很強的球隊足以掩蓋他攻擊上的不足



A different set of concerns are in play with Ellis, who needs helpful

defenders, spot shooters and supporting playmakers to get the most out of his

own game. When all of that is in place, Ellis can be a legitimate weapon.

Without it, he can grind even a quality team into mediocrity with his

inefficient shot selection and unchecked domination of the ball.

相反的ellis則是需要一個好的防守隊友、定點射手、playmaker

Such factors define the range between a player's ceiling and floor, though

without necessarily addressing the probability that either is actually met.

How does one place Tyson Chandler without knowing if he'll have a solid point

guard to make use of his game-changing offensive potential? Or rank Ricky

Rubio without understanding how likely he is to have the supporting scorers he

so desperately needs? And in contrast, where does this line of thinking leave

players like Gordon Hayward, who are not only skilled and productive but

also malleable to a wide variety of roles?

有些因素會影響球員的天花板及地板，但沒有正確的位置球員能力是無法發揮

像是tyson如果沒有一個好的控衛、rubio沒有好的得分手支援


Certain players are indisputably more challenging to build around than others,

and in some way that distinction should be taken into account in a ranking

like this one. There's just no clean, satisfying way to do so, and thus no

perfect fashion to consider each player on his own merits. That doesn't

diminish the value of these results or the process behind them. It's simply

important to note that a player's worth shifts dramatically with his

surroundings, and with that comes distortion to any and every comparative

ranking of this kind.

當然有些球員本來就待在在比較難發展的球隊中，這些也會被納入考慮

但沒有一個好的方法去評斷，所以也會使排名失真




心得：

這篇與其說是告訴我們排名的方法，還不如說是再談排名的困難

翻譯得很差，如果有錯或者覺得應該要翻出來的，可以提醒我謝謝


--