By Eric Koreen | The Athletic, 2025-12-15 11:00:44
美国职业棒球大联盟（MLB）不仅通过大范围的规则改革缩短了比赛时间，更重要的是，他们借此消除了许多体育比赛中的沉闷环节。
不喜欢投手否定了五次捕手的暗号，然后走下投手丘，闲逛20秒来调整状态？我们给你一个投球计时器。不喜欢击球员在每次投球间隙都要花40秒整理他的击球手套？好的，他每次站上打击区只能有一次暂停机会。你怀疑投球教练和捕手上投手丘只是为了给后援投手更多热身时间？我们会限制这种访问的次数。你觉得换投手的次数太多了？现在每位投手除非一局结束，否则必须至少面对三名击球员。你讨厌那些牵制出局尝试比实际投球次数还多的击球回合？我们同样要限制这些行为。
这些改变在一定程度上削减了这项运动中固有的策略博弈，但它们主要剔除了比赛中的一些“死寂”时刻。NBA应该从中学习，并将矛头对准比赛末段的故意犯规。
周六晚上，这一问题严重损害了圣安东尼奥马刺队与俄克拉荷马城雷霆队之间的NBA杯半决赛，将一场当晚大部分时间里堪称年度最佳常规赛的对决，拖入了一场难以忍受的折磨。这验证了那些非铁杆篮球迷的抱怨——比赛的最后两分钟能在现实世界里耗掉25分钟。一场精彩比赛本应最富戏剧性的部分，最终变成了一种观赛的煎熬。
在这种情况下，“领先三分主动犯规”战术是罪魁祸首。当雷霆队试图延长他们扳平或反超的时间窗口时，他们对马刺队犯规，寄望于对方罚球不中；而马刺队则如法炮制，在自己领先三分时对雷霆队犯规，不给雷霆队任何可能追平比分的三分出手机会。如果执行得当，且双方罚球都能命中，这一策略将迫使落后方不得不尝试故意罚丢一球，以期抢下进攻篮板，从而获得再得两分的机会。
（在此快速插入一个相关话题：那些故意罚失的球，可能会演变成NBA版的“推臀”进攻，因为它们很难被正确吹罚。在所有人都知道罚球会不中的情况下，所有球员都会试图抢占优势，无论是通过提前进线违例还是在篮下的角力。裁判几乎无法监控所有细节，这使得他们极易忽略战术中的某个环节，就像周六可能发生的情况一样。）
我的同事约翰·霍林格 (John Hollinger) 在五月份写道，“领先三分主动犯规”战术及其时灵时不灵的应用，实际上是领先球队在常规时间内输掉比赛的最大可能，因此它带来的不确定性反而更多，而不是更少。尽管其中一些复杂的计算让我头疼，但在这些问题上，我信任约翰。
然而，尽管这种策略可能会最大化比赛悬念的持续时间，但这段时间的性质同样重要。大部分时间都耗费在球员们在罚球线之间来回踱步，期间还常常穿插着一些对比赛时钟的回看审查，让节奏变得更加缓慢。这并不能造就激动人心的篮球赛。事实上，这在很大程度上已经不是篮球了。
理想情况下，你希望球员们在比赛的正常流程中努力得分（而他们的对手则努力阻止他们），而不是依赖故意犯规。联盟通过限制球队在最后三分钟内可以保留的暂停次数，已经让比赛收官阶段的场面稍有好转。自2017-18赛季以来，他们最多只能保留两次暂停。
这使得比赛末段的攻防转换更加频繁。教练们也逐渐意识到，相较于面对一支已经落好位、准备充分的防守，他们的球队在对手仓促回防、可能没有形成理想对位的情况下更容易得分。正是这种情况，导致了12月4日勒布朗·詹姆斯 (LeBron James) 连续得分上双的比赛纪录终结——那场比赛的最后2分40秒，在没有任何哨声或暂停的情况下打完。比赛如此迅速地结束，正是那个时刻如此激动人心的部分原因。当然，在那场对决的最后一回合，湖人队和猛龙队以120平进入了决胜球。
问题在于，当出现领先三分而落后方持球，或类似的情况时。最简单的解决方案是采用艾拉姆制胜法 (Elam Ending)，联盟曾在2020-2023年的全明星赛中试验过这一规则——在第三节后设定一个目标得分，从而使双方球队始终都有动力去得分并阻止对手得分，再无其他。
罚球仍然是最高效的得分方式，因此球队不太可能陷入一种“送对手两次罚球远比阻止一次三分出手更好”的境地。（对于喜欢数学的读者：进入周日比赛前，联盟的罚球命中率为78.8%，这意味着两次罚球的平均得分为1.58分。而三分球命中率为36.9%，因此产生一次三分出手的平均回合价值为1.11分。）
可惜的是，联盟甚至没有在全明星赛中坚持使用艾拉姆制胜法，所以更不可能将其引入计入战绩的正式比赛。如此激进的变革，堪比美国职业棒球大联盟在加时赛开始时在二垒放一名跑垒员，以期避免比赛拖到16或17局，从而耗尽投手阵容。采纳艾拉姆制胜法将是一项根本性的改变，会影响得分的方式和原因。我理解这种保守态度，即使它能让比赛结局更有趣，并且肯定能限制故意犯规。
另一个主要选项是在某些或所有情况下惩罚故意犯规。为了专门解决“领先三分主动犯规”的问题，任何在比赛最后30秒由领先球队实施的故意犯规，都将判给对手一罚一掷。这是霍林格对这一理念的一种可能解释的构想：
“如果进攻方已处于加罚状态，领先三分的球队在比赛最后六秒（或八秒、十秒，由委员会决定）内进行战术犯规，应判罚一次罚球并由进攻方发边线球。”
这看起来足够简单，但这将导致落后方可以故意犯规，而领先方却不能，这并不完全公平。如果NBA愿意，它可以规定任何球队在任何时间点犯下的任何故意犯规，都将导致对手获得一罚一掷。（这将带来一个受欢迎但或许意想不到的后果：根除联盟中那些在比赛全程对罚球不佳的球员进行无球故意犯规的现象，即全世界的“砍鲨战术”。）但这是否会赋予裁判过多的权力，让他们不得不去判断何时是合理的对球动作，何时又不是？有可能。
在改变规则时，你必须考虑连锁反应，以及球队将如何以其他方式钻规则的空子。预见其后果并不容易，尽管NBA拥有足够的资源和员工来对任何问题进行彻底研究。
借用体育界的一句老话，NBA必须确保核心不变。当然，如果改变规则，意想不到的后果很可能会出现。但周六的马刺雷霆之战本应是一场无可挑剔的经典之战，是本赛季最精彩的比赛之一。我们本应看到谢伊·吉尔杰斯-亚历山大 (Shai Gilgeous-Alexander)、维克托·文班亚马 (Victor Wembanyama) 和他们的队友们如何努力争胜，最好是在流畅的比赛节奏和对暂停次数的严格限制下。
然而，我们看到的却是两支球队拖着沉重的步伐走向罚球线，最后以一记故意罚失的球和一次有争议的漏判收场。此外，整个过程耗时漫长——比赛的最后9.8秒，在现实中花费了将近12分钟。
这是一个司空见惯现象的特别突出的例子。谁会想看这样的比赛呢？
由生成式人工智能翻译，译文内容可能不准确或不完整，以原文为准。
点击查看原文：Intentional fouls ruined the Spurs-Thunder game. The NBA should abolish them
Intentional fouls ruined the Spurs-Thunder game. The NBA should abolish them
Not only did Major League Baseball shorten games with its wide-ranging rule changes, but it did so by eliminating many of the sport’s boring moments.
Don’t like that a pitcher can shake off five signs from his catcher, step off the mound and walk around for 20 seconds to get his bearings? Here’s a pitch clock. Don’t like that a hitter has a 40-second routine with his batting gloves between every pitch? Well, he can only get one timeout per at-bat. Do you suspect pitching coaches and catchers go out to the mound only to give relievers more time to warm up? We’ll put a limit on those visits. Do you believe there are too many pitching changes? Every pitcher now has to face at least three batters, unless an inning ends. Do you hate at-bats in which pick-off attempts outnumber pitches? We’re going to limit those, too.
The changes cut back on some of the inherent strategizing in the sport, but they mostly cut out some dead spots in the game. The NBA should learn something and take aim at late-game intentional fouling.
On Saturday night, it hurt the NBA Cup semifinal between the San Antonio Spurs and the Oklahoma City Thunder, turning what felt like the best regular-season game of the year for most of the night into an unbearable slog. It validated casual basketball fans who insist that the last two minutes of game time can take 25 minutes in real time. What should have been the most dramatic part of a great game turned into a chore to watch.
In this case, the “foul-up-three” strategy was the main culprit. While the Thunder tried to extend their window to tie or take the lead, fouling the Spurs and hoping for missed free throws, the Spurs responded in kind by fouling the Thunder when they had a three-point lead, not allowing the Thunder a 3-point attempt that could tie the game. If executed correctly, and if free-throw makes are matched, the strategy makes the trailing team have to try to purposely miss a free throw, hoping for an offensive rebound that gives a chance at two more points.
(A quick related tangent: Those purposeful misses can turn into the NBA’s version of the tush push, in that they are difficult to officiate correctly. With everyone knowing that a miss is coming, all of the players are going to try to gain advantages, whether through lane violations or under-the-glass grappling. There is almost too much for the referees to monitor, making it exceptionally easy to overlook one element of a play, as might have happened on Saturday.)
My colleague John Hollinger wrote in May that the foul-up-three strategy and its spotty application actually represent the best chance for the team in the lead to lose the game in regulation, therefore leading to more uncertainty with the result instead of less. While some of the machinations make my head hurt, I trust John with these matters.
Still, while it might maximize the amount of time a game hangs in the balance, the nature of that time matters, too. So much of it is spent with players walking back and forth between free-throw lines, often with some reviews thrown in to check on the game clock, slowing things down even further. It does not make for enthralling basketball. In fact, it’s largely not basketball.
Ideally, you want players trying to score (and their opponents trying to stop them) in the run of play, without relying on intentional fouls. The league has made its end-of-game scenarios a little better by limiting the number of timeouts teams can carry into the final three minutes. Since 2017-18, they can have a maximum of two.
That has led to more back-and-forth play at the end of games. Coaches have also learned that it is easier for their teams to score against a defense that is running back in transition perhaps without its preferred matchups, than it is against a set and prepared defense. That scenario is what recently led to the end of LeBron James’ consecutive games streak of scoring at least 10 points on Dec. 4, with the final 2:40 of that game played without a single whistle or timeout. That it unfolded so quickly is part of what made the moment so exhilarating. Alas, the Lakers and Raptors entered the last possession of that matchup tied at 120 apiece.
The problem is when there is a three-point lead and the trailing team has the ball, or some variation of that. The easiest solution would be using the Elam Ending, which the league experimented with in All-Star Games from 2020-2023 — setting up a target score after the third quarter, making it so that there is always an incentive for the teams to try to score and stop their opponents from scoring, full stop.
The free throw remains the most efficient way to score, so teams would likely not be in a position where giving up two free throws would be way better than trying to prevent a 3-point attempt. (For the mathematically inclined, the league was shooting 78.8 percent from the line going into Sunday’s play, meaning two free throws result in an average of 1.58 points. At 36.9 percent on 3-point attempts, the average possession that produces a 3 is worth 1.11 points.)
Alas, the league didn’t even stick with the Elam Ending in the All-Star Game, so it is not going to insert it into games that count. Such a radical change would be akin to Major League Baseball putting a runner on second base to start extra innings, hoping to avoid games that push 16 or 17 innings and decimate pitching staffs. Adopting the Elam Ending would be a fundamental change that impacts how and why points are scored. I get the conservatism, even if it would make the ending of games more fun, and certainly limit intentional fouling.
The other main option is to penalize intentional fouls in some or all situations. To specifically get rid of the foul-up-three issue, any intentional foul committed by a team that is winning in the final 30 seconds of the game would result in its opposition getting one free throw and retaining possession. This is how Hollinger imagined one possible interpretation of that philosophy:
“If the offense is in the bonus, a take foul by the winning team up by three points in the last six seconds (or eight or 10, whatever the committee thinks is appropriate) is one shot and the ball out of bounds.”
That seems simple enough, but that would leave the trailing team able to intentionally foul while the leading team could not, which is not entirely fair. If it wanted, the NBA could say any intentional foul, committed by any team at any point would result in a free throw and possession for its opponent. (This would have the welcome, if unintended consequence of ridding the league of away-from-the-play intentional fouling of poor free-throw shooters throughout the game, the Hack-a-Shaqs of the world.) Would that put way too much power in the hands of officials who would have to determine when there was a legitimate play on the ball and when there was not? Possibly.
When changing a rule, you must consider the domino effect and how teams will try to game the system in other ways. It’s not easy to anticipate the repercussions, although the NBA has enough resources and employees to study any issue thoroughly.
To borrow a cliché often used in sports, the NBA has to keep the main thing the main thing. Unexpected consequences are likely if there is a rule change, sure. But Saturday’s Spurs-Thunder game should have been an unimpeachable gem, one of the best games of the season. We should have been able to see what Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Victor Wembanyama and their teammates tried to do to prevail, preferably with a solid flow of play and a hard cap on timeouts.
Instead, we saw both teams trudging to the free-throw line, capped by an intentionally missed free throw and an arguably missed call. Also, the whole thing took forever — the last 9.8 seconds of game action took nearly 12 minutes in real time.
It was an especially notable example of something that happens regularly. Who wants that?
By Eric Koreen, via The Athletic