If ESPN ever creates a channel called 1)ESPN Anti-Classic, I hope it launches with a telecast of April 4's stink bomb between Bucks and Celtics. Ever seen opponents basically shave points at the same time?

如果ESPN创办一个“反经典时刻”频道，我希望能用4月4日雄鹿和凯尔特人的那场比赛作为频道启动的重头比赛。有没有人见过作为对手的两支球队同时对得分不思进取吗？

It happened. Already playing without Andrew Bogut and Charlie Villanueva, Milwaukee shelved Mo Williams and Michael Redd for sore knees 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 and Al Jefferson for injuries too. Milwaukee lost by winning; Boston won by losing; every paying customer lost.

这确实发生了。雄鹿阵容中已没了博格特和维拉纽瓦，而莫·威廉姆斯和里德也因“膝盖酸痛”坐在替补席上，为的就是输球，争取在选秀中排上好顺位。本来这招应该管用，但他们大大低估了皮尔斯和杰弗森因伤缺阵的凯尔特人同样拥有强烈的“争败欲望”，密尔沃基赢球，却输了这场“博弈”；凯尔特人输球，却赢了最终胜利，倒是每个掏腰包的球迷成了最大输家。

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 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.

这确实是只有在NBA联盟才能看到的景象。30支球队争抢少数几个十年一遇的潜力巨星，能得到奥登或杜兰特就同中了彩票大奖一样充满诱惑。如果你不竭力占据有利选秀位置那就太傻了，即便这往往意味你得夸大球员伤病，在关键时刻派上几个千年板凳，玷污这项运动的纯洁。

When Charlotte's 2) tanking plans were recently dashed by 12th man Walter Herrmann -- who improbably ignited a few upset wins -- I half expected them to hire 3) Shane Stant to attack Herrmann, followed by Walter rolling around like Nancy Kerrigan, crying "Why? "

其实在黄蜂第十二人沃尔特·赫尔曼用自己的出色表现为球队赢了几场不适时宜的胜利，因此动摇着球队“破罐破摔”计划后，我甚至期待他们去雇佣肖恩·斯坦特去废掉赫尔曼，使他像南希·凯里根一样无助地大喊：“为什么？ ”

Two months ago when I introduced the concept of 4) "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 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.

两个月前我向大家介绍了“虚拟破罐破摔”的概念，并认定正因如此，凯尔特人已经为了奥登放弃本赛季，我发誓当时我的心态还很平和。为了更大利益，在现有规则下，凯尔特人需要继续输下去，而他们也是这么做的。同时，我又没法想像NBA居然会因为球迷鼓励球队输球而感到高兴。

The league created the lottery in 1985 to prevent tanking. After six years of tinkering, it settled on a system of 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, leaving the door open for tanking again.

联盟在1985年创建选秀制度是为了防止球队放弃比赛。六年后，选秀居然开始由乒乓球来决定，而魔术居然幸运地连续两年拿到状元签（第二年概率为66比1）。惊恐中，联盟通过各项规定提高了烂队成为选秀前三名的几率，于是为“破罐破摔”的球队再次打开了方便之门。

In retrospect, though, what's worse: 5) 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.

尽管如此，不妨让我们回顾过去，试着比较一下：2007年的”集体破罐破摔”和当年魔术连续两年赢得状元签，哪个更糟？ 一个突然变得超强的魔术是否对收视率、观众数量或是球迷的兴趣产生了消极影响？ 90年代中期，你会不会因为看到沙克和“便士”同在一支球队效力就关掉电视？ NBA的最大错误在于忘记了强队越多对联盟更有好处，即使这样会产生更多平庸球队。

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. But the merger loaded every roster to the degree that nobody could stand out. From 1977 to 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?

这不是NFL（国家橄榄球联盟），势力均衡不起作用。 还记得上世纪70年代末期NBA和ABA合并后无人问津的窘境么？每个人都认为比赛很烂是由于毒品泛滥和大量高薪低能球员，这确实是部分原因。但合并使各队的球员配备平均到分不出强弱的地步。从1977到1979年，只有6支球队赢得了50场以上，也只有6支球队胜场低于30，没有一支球队胜场超过58，也没有低于22的，这还有什么意思？

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, there were eight plus-.600 teams and six sub-.400 teams in a 23-team league.

在次要方面，当湖人、凯尔特人、76人和活塞四强奋力争夺上世纪80年代统治权的时候，可曾有人关心过快艇、骑士、勇士和国王的悲惨处境吗？ 而NBA在1987至1993年之间出现的黄金时期，与联盟中球队势力的强弱分明，难道这只是一个巧合？ 我们不妨就把这叫做600/400规则：越多球队取得60%以上的胜率（50场或更多），同时越多球队的胜率低于40%（负场数达到50场甚至更多），NBA比赛的观赏性就会大增。 在那个辉煌的1988赛季，23支球队中有8支胜率超过60%，胜率低于40%的队伍则为6支。

During another superb stretch, from 1991 to 1993, there were 24 plus-.600 teams and 24 sub-.400 teams (two-thirds of the league). That's a good thing. We want to watch good teams with star players. The more the merrier. 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, but I blame the lottery for foisting modified parity on us.

在另一段黄金时期，也就是从1991到1993年，共有24支胜率超过60%和24支低于40%的球队（占联盟球队数的三分之二），这的确是好事。我们想看到球星所在球队打出精彩比赛，越精彩越好。再看看这个平淡的2006－2007赛季吧，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，这样很难有大的改进，但我还归罪于这种人为施加平均主义的选秀制度。

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.

从魔术连续两年选到状元后，高顺位新秀每年春天都掉到弱队，形成一种恶性循环，直接导致选秀为烂队所独美，而那些尚未成熟的“蓝筹股”在没有准备好的情况下就承担起支撑球队的重任。过去14年中，只有一名新秀的加盟使球队立刻进入强队之林：蒂姆-邓肯，但他加盟的是一支仅仅因为受伤病折磨而战绩下滑的强队。难道他和大卫·罗宾逊合作是件坏事？ 而NBA的竞争本质也因此变质？当然没有。

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?

这就是选秀制度的弊病所在：不仅将使原本很难出现的邓肯/罗宾逊组合成为泡影，也给像老鹰这样经营不善的球队提供了额外奖赏（自1998-99年以来，他们低于50％胜率的场次已经达到103场），它还鼓励那些“常败将军”在一旦遭遇厄运就放弃赛季，因为他们知道只有这样，他们才能得到与其他强队竞争的最佳机会。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？

Anyway, here's my solution:

不管怎样，这里是我的解决方案：

1. Contract the league to 27 teams and dump Memphis, Charlotte and Atlanta, three cities that can't support NBA. Then we'll have a league-wide lottery to determine positioning for the dispersal draft of players from those three teams. And if a contender like Chicago happens to end up with Pau Gasol ...

把联盟球队数量减至27支，将孟菲斯、夏洛特和亚特兰大这三座无法承载NBA的城市从NBA版图中踢出去。然后我们就能在全联盟范围内就这三支球队中球员的归属问题进行选秀。如果像公牛这样的强队得到了保罗·加索尔……

2. Change the lottery back to that of the late '80s: one envelope per team, same odds for everybody, top three draft spots only. If a half-decent team happens to land a franchise player, like the Wolves getting Oden and pairing him with KG ...

把选秀制度的规则恢复上世纪80年代末的状态：每支球队一个信封，每个队的机会都是均等的，只留下前三位新秀。如果一支不错的球队幸好抽到了一位老大级球员，比如森林狼得到奥登，让他与KG配对……

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 some 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.

常规赛缩减四场比赛，每个联盟排名前6的球队进入季后赛，其余15支经过双淘汰赛决出两个第七和第八名。这样的建议出于以下考虑：第一，这将增加比赛观赏性，事实上，这是我们所说的“极度疯狂”锦标赛；第二，我确信这样的比赛会找到充足的赞助商；第三，前12名球队得到一定嘉奖，锦标赛举行的两周得到充足休息。

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 righ, 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.

正如最近山猫和凯尔特人的一场比赛，我老爸（一个买了34年季票的老球迷）眼睁睁地看着波士顿人浪费了10多分的领先优势，依然把皮尔斯和杰弗森放在板凳上。在他的右边，一位球迷对着道格·里弗斯大喊：“你做得一点没错！”在他的左边，另一位球迷则嘶喊着把这场比赛的崩盘称为“绝对的耻辱！”正如我老爸事后告诉我的那样，最让人感到困惑的问题是，他们两个说的都没错。f