以空間訊息探討籃球的進攻結構型態

The Application of Spatial Information in Basketball Offensive Structure

藍于青(Yu-Ching Lan) ； 劉有德(Yeou-Teh Liu)

《運動教練科學》 47期 (2017/09) Pp. 57-68

https://doi.org/10.6194/SCS.2017.47.06

摘要

目的：籃球比賽中，球員出手位置代表著其場上進攻的空間結構，因此本研究利用主成分分析（PCA），依據投籃區域和得分區域去定義勝、敗隊之進攻空間結構與探討之間的差異。方法：以2012 至2014 年UBA 公開組一級賽事為分析對象，記錄了32場賽事5,296 次出手。依進攻區域將球場劃分為五區 （A1：禁區、A2：高位兩分球區、A3：低位兩分球區、A4：高位三分球區、A5：低位三分球區），兩位觀察者間和觀察者內的Cohen’s Kappa 信度分別為0.78 和0.9，勝、敗隊各出手區域與得分區域統計數據結果，透過主成分分析方法來探討其空間結構進攻型態與得分模式。結果：一、主要出手方面，勝、敗隊在禁區與三分區域組合上有相似的進攻型態，差異點則在於次要進攻型態，中距離區域的應用。二、主要得分方面，勝、敗隊也有相似的得分結構，均以禁區結合高位三分區域為主要得分模式。三、進攻型態與得分模式關聯性方面，勝隊得分區域是由不同獨立進攻型態所形成的結果，其型態間並不存在互補關係。而敗隊得分區域是由同一進攻型態反應結果，進攻型態區域間彼此存在互補關係，因此在得分區域分布上產生侷限性。結論：勝隊與敗隊在主要進攻結構上，顯示相似的出手與得分區域的分布，但在進攻區域間應用的組合勝隊較敗隊具靈活與效率。

關鍵字

出手區域 ； 得分區域 ； 主成分分析

並列摘要

Purpose: In basketball games, the attacking space of the players it meant the position as them shot the ball. The purpose of the study was to use the principal component analysis (PCA) to identify and compare the offensive spatial structure in basketball games based on the shooting and scoring zones between winning and losing teams. Methods: All games (n = 32) from 2012-2014 Taiwanese University Basketball Association (UBA) men's division ɪ were recorded and a total of 5,296 shootings were analyzed. The court was divided into five zones (A1: the lane, A2: 2-point high zone, A3: 2-point low zone, A4: 3-point high zone, A5: 3-point low zone). Two independent observers recorded all the shots and the Cohen's Kappa for intra and inter-rater reliability was 0.9 and 0.78, respectively. PCA was performed on the shooting zones and scoring zones for the winning teams and losing teams. Results: (1) In the main shooting aspect, winning and losing teams had similar offensive structure strategy in composing of the lane and 3-point zones. The difference was the secondary offensive style in the perimeter area attacking. (2) The results from the main scoring aspect also showed that similar spatial structure for the winners and losers where both the lane and the 3-point high zone had the highest contributions. (3) The association between offensive style and scoring model showed that scoring areas in winning teams were the results of different independent offensive styles. There was no complementary relationship between each offensive style. The scoring areas in losing team were the results of the reaction by the offensive styles. It had complementary relationship in attacking areas and showed the limitation on the scoring distribution. Conclusions: Generally speaking, both winning teams and losing teams had similar offensive spatial structure in terms of the shooting and scoring deployment. The application of winning team in composing attacking zones was more flexible and efficient.

並列關鍵字

shooting zones ； scoring zones ； principal component analysis

參考文獻

尤志偉(2004)。世界羽球盃賽男子雙打選手前三拍技術之探討。屏師運動科學學刊。1，97-109。

王鶴森、林偉毅、趙曉涵(2005)。網球發球落點與技術相關表現之研究：以2004 年美國網球公開賽男子單打賽為例。體育學報。38(4)，109-120。

邱靖華(2005)。網球單打比賽之單球攻防模擬。大專體育學刊。7(3)，215-227。

涂凱傑(2006)。世界級男單羽球選手發球與接發球技術之探討。成大體育。39(4)，41-51。

陳佳郁、劉有德(2010)。數據會說話：球類運動技戰術分析方法探討。臺灣運動心理學報。17，49-68。