快攻？快打？組織戰？
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2020
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
籃球比賽進攻策略一般分為快攻、快打與組織戰三種，但是對於籃球進攻策略的概念，無論在實務及學術研究上，仍缺乏明確且一致的說法。目的：探討不同層級的籃球專家判斷不同比賽中的快攻、快打與組織戰等籃球進攻策略的差異。方法：請高中籃球聯賽甲組及乙組、大專籃球聯賽公開一級及一般組男子球員，與持有C級籃球教練證照以上的教練共75名，觀看以107學年度男子組高中籃球聯賽、大專籃球聯賽四強賽共計8場比賽所組成的160個進攻片段，判斷每次進攻的類別。收集之數據以描述統計檢驗三種進攻策略片段的進攻時間、進攻與防守人數之分布；以二因子變異數分析檢驗各組判斷不同層級比賽的一致性和訊息熵；以單因子變異數分析分別檢驗各組內快攻、快打與組織戰的進攻時間及各進攻策略的進攻時間於三組間的差異。結果：觀察者內一致性和訊息熵僅於不同研究對象間達顯著差異。快攻、快打與組織戰於進攻時間上達顯著差異，但各組間僅有在快打的進攻時間達顯著差異。討論：進攻策略的認知判斷，不因比賽內容不同而有差異，但會受到觀察者籃球經歷的不同而有所不同。三種進攻策略能以進攻時間為別，雖然各組均有快攻時間最短、組織戰最長，快打介於快攻與組織戰之間的相同趨勢，但各組間進攻策略的時間範圍仍有差異。結論：快攻具有時間短、參與攻防人數較少的特性，但是快打與組織戰在不同籃球專業經驗者間仍然未見共識。建議：未來研究可再增加更高層級的職業球員或是基層的國中等，以及不同性別，比較更多面向間的差異。
Basketball offensive strategy is generally divided into fast break, early offense and set offense, but for the concept of basketball offensive strategy, whether in practical or academic research, there still remains a lack of clear definitions and agreement. Purpose: To examine the judgment of the offensive strategy from different levels of games for coaches and the players of different competitive levels. Methods: A total of 75 participants from HBL (Group A, Group B), UBA (Open Group, General Group) and coaches who held the level-C or higher basketball coach license were invited to take part in the study. One hundred and sixty videos of basketball offense from 8 games of the semifinals and finals of the HBL and UBA were edited and presented to; the participants to judge the type of the play. In addition to the descriptive statistics of the offensive time and the number of players involved in the play, two way ANOVA was used to examine the consistency and information entropy of each group at different levels of games, and the one way ANOVA was used to examine the offensive time of each of the three offensive strategies for each group as well as among the three groups. Results: The significant difference was found in consistency and information entropy among groups of participant. There were significant differences in the offensive time among the three offensive strategies for all three groups, but only the offensive time of the early offense showed significant difference among the three groups. Discussion: The judgment of offensive strategy is not influenced by the levels of the game, but is greatly dependent on the observer's basketball experience. The three offensive strategies may be distinguished by offensive time. Although each group showed the similar trend of the shortest to the longest time in the order of fast break, early offense, and set offense, the range of the time for each offensive strategy were still different among the three groups. Conclusion: There seems to be lack of consensus among basketball players of different playing experiences for identifying the early offense from the set offense, however, fast break may be characterized with short time and less involving players from both offensive and defensive teams. Suggestion: The future research may invite players from more diverse background such as professional players, younger players from junior high school, and female players to explore the sources of difference in identifying basketball offensive strategies.
Basketball offensive strategy is generally divided into fast break, early offense and set offense, but for the concept of basketball offensive strategy, whether in practical or academic research, there still remains a lack of clear definitions and agreement. Purpose: To examine the judgment of the offensive strategy from different levels of games for coaches and the players of different competitive levels. Methods: A total of 75 participants from HBL (Group A, Group B), UBA (Open Group, General Group) and coaches who held the level-C or higher basketball coach license were invited to take part in the study. One hundred and sixty videos of basketball offense from 8 games of the semifinals and finals of the HBL and UBA were edited and presented to; the participants to judge the type of the play. In addition to the descriptive statistics of the offensive time and the number of players involved in the play, two way ANOVA was used to examine the consistency and information entropy of each group at different levels of games, and the one way ANOVA was used to examine the offensive time of each of the three offensive strategies for each group as well as among the three groups. Results: The significant difference was found in consistency and information entropy among groups of participant. There were significant differences in the offensive time among the three offensive strategies for all three groups, but only the offensive time of the early offense showed significant difference among the three groups. Discussion: The judgment of offensive strategy is not influenced by the levels of the game, but is greatly dependent on the observer's basketball experience. The three offensive strategies may be distinguished by offensive time. Although each group showed the similar trend of the shortest to the longest time in the order of fast break, early offense, and set offense, the range of the time for each offensive strategy were still different among the three groups. Conclusion: There seems to be lack of consensus among basketball players of different playing experiences for identifying the early offense from the set offense, however, fast break may be characterized with short time and less involving players from both offensive and defensive teams. Suggestion: The future research may invite players from more diverse background such as professional players, younger players from junior high school, and female players to explore the sources of difference in identifying basketball offensive strategies.
Description
Keywords
籃球, 進攻策略, 知覺辨識, 訊息熵, Basketball, Offensive Strategy, Perceptual Identification, Information Entropy