Search

While various quantifiable physical attributes have been found to contribute to athletes' performance, there is a lack of scientific literature focused on examining how they relate to success during competition performance. The aim of this study was to investigate different countermovement jump (CMJ)-derived force-time characteristics and their utility in distinguishing high from low performers within a measure of on-court contribution (i.e., minutes per game played). Twenty-nine collegiate athletes (n = 15 males and n = 14 females) volunteered to participate in this investigation and performed CMJs on dual force plates sampling at 1000 Hz, weekly over the course of their basketball season. The athletes' average of their three best test-days across the season was used for further analysis. To identify their on-court contribution, athletes were divided into groups with high and low minutes per game, based on a median-split analysis. The findings suggest that at the overall group level (i.e., both genders), the modified reactive strength index (mRSI) and braking rate of force development (RFD) revealed the greatest between-group magnitudes of difference, with athletes playing more minutes per game showing greater performance. At the team-specific level, the braking RFD, average braking velocity, and mRSI were shown to be the greatest differentiators between groups for the men's team. The women's high-minutes group displayed greater magnitudes of mRSI and jump height. By identifying the neuromuscular qualities seen in top performers within their respective populations, the attributed physical performance underpinning these qualities may be identified, providing practitioners with insights into physical performance qualities and training methodologies that have the potential to influence basketball performance.

Although different strategies have been implemented to manage recovery-fatigue status in athletes, there is still a lack of consensus on which recovery protocols have the greatest impact and effectiveness when implemented with basketball players, including both physiological and psychological recovery methods. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review is to: (a) determine which recovery methods attain the greatest benefit in restoring the process of attenuating fatigue and (b) provide sports practitioners with guidelines on how some of the most effective recovery strategies can be used to optimize athletes' recovery and ultimately enhance their performance. Using the PRISMA guidelines, a total of 3931 research reports were obtained through four database searches (i.e., PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science), from which only 25 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The recovery protocols analyzed in this systematic review were: sleep, nutrition, hydration, ergogenic aids, cold-water immersion, compression garments, massage, acupuncture, tapering, mindfulness, and red-light irradiation. The results revealed that all recovery strategies are capable of attenuating fatigue and enhancing recovery in basketball players to a certain degree. However, an individualized approach should be promoted, where a combination of proactive recovery modalities appears to result in the most rapid rates of recovery and athletes' ability to maintain high-level performance. Recovery should be programmed as an integral component of training regimens. Also, cooperation and communication between coaches, players, and the rest of the team staff members are essential in minimizing the risk of non-functional overreaching or injury and optimizing basketball players' on-court performance.

The purpose of the present study was to assess pre-post practice changes in countermovement vertical jump (CVJ) force-time metrics and to determine the relationship between internal and external load variables within a cohort of professional male volleyball players. Ten elite athletes competing in one of the top professional European leagues participated in the present study. While standing on a uni-axial force plate, each athlete performed three CVJs immediately prior to the regular training session. Each athlete wore an inertial measurement unit (Vert TM ) through an entire practice from which the following external load metrics were obtained: Stress (i.e., an algorithm-derived metric used to quantify the percentage of high-impact movements), Jumps (i.e., the total number of jumps performed during the practice session), and Active Minutes (i.e., the total amount of time performing dynamic movements). Immediately post-practice, each athlete completed another set of three CVJs and reported their subjective measure of internal load using a Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale (Borg CR-10). While no statistically significant differences were observed in any of the force-time metrics examined in the present study pre-post practice (e.g., eccentric and concentric peak and mean force and power, vertical jump height, contraction time, countermovement depth), our findings indicate a strong positive association between RPE and Stress (r = 0.713) and RPE and Jumps (r = 0.671). However, a weak non-statistically significant correlation was observed between RPE and Active Minutes (r = -0.038), indicating that internal load seems to be more dependent on the intensity rather than the duration of the training session for this sport.

With rapid technological development over recent years, the use of wearable athlete monitoring devices has substantially gained popularity. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to examine the impact of the anatomical placement of an accelerometer on biomechanical characteristics of countermovement vertical jump with and without an arm swing when compared to the force plate as a criterion measure. Seventeen recreationally active individuals (ten males and seven females) volunteered to participate in the present study. Four identical accelerometers sampling at 100 Hz were placed at the following anatomical locations: upper-back (UB), chest (CH), abdomen (AB), and hip (HP). While standing on a uni-axial force plate system sampling at 1000 Hz, each participant completed three non-sequential maximal countermovement vertical jumps with and without an arm swing. All devices recorded the data simultaneously. The following variables of interest were obtained from ground reaction force curves: peak concentric force (PCF), peak landing force (PLF), and vertical jump height (VJH). The findings of the present study reveal that the most appropriate anatomical locations to place the accelerometer device when attempting to estimate PCF, PLF, and VJH during a countermovement vertical jump with no arm swing are CH, AB, and UB, and during a countermovement vertical jump with an arm swing are UB, HP, and UB, respectively. Overall, these findings may help strength and conditioning professionals and sports scientists to select appropriate anatomical locations when using innovative accelerometer technology to monitor vertical jump performance characteristics.

Despite exponential growth in popularity over the last decade and recently becoming an Olympic sport, the amount of scientific literature focused on depicting a profile of successful 3×3 basketball players is sparse. Thus, the purpose of this study was to present the physical and performance characteristics of professional 3×3 male basketball players and how they differ between elite and non-elite athletes. The anthropometrics, vertical jump, agility, and sprint performance parameters collected from ten players during regular training sessions were (x¯ ± SD): height (193.7 ± 4.5 cm), weight (89.2 ± 4.1 cm), wingspan (196.5 ± 5.2 cm), squat jump (43.5 ± 4.6 cm), countermovement jump with (53.3 ± 4.4 cm) and without an arm swing (46.3 ± 4.0 cm), reactive strength index (2.4 ± 0.3 m/s), t -test (10.3 ± 0.3 s), 505 drill (2.4 ± 0.2 s), 10 m sprint (1.5 ± 0.1 s), 30 m sprint (4.0 ± 0.3 s), shuttle run (27.7 ± 1.7 s), and bench press (98.2 ± 10.0 kg) and back squat (139.5 ± 17.6 kg) one repetition maximum. Additionally, the average and maximal heart rate (HR) responses during simulated games were 160.6 ± 8.0 and 188.5 ± 6.3 bpm, with players spending 6.3 ± 4.2, 11.4 ± 5.2, 13.9 ± 3.5, 26.4 ± 10.4, and 42.1 ± 10.0% of the total time in HR Zones 1-5, respectively. Interestingly, no statistically significant differences in the aforementioned physical and performance parameters were noted between elite and non-elite players. Overall, the findings of the present study provide coaches, sports scientists, and strength and conditioning practitioners with information that can aid in the athlete selection process, detection of areas for further improvement, and development of training regimens that resemble 3×3 basketball on-court competitive demands.

Strength is one of the key physiological performance attributes related to optimal on-court basketball performance. However, there is a lack of scientific literature studying how strength relates to shooting proficiency, as a key basketball skill capable of discriminating winning from losing game outcomes. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between maximal upper and lower body strength and free-throw, two-point, and three-point shooting accuracy. Ten males and seven females performed bench press and back squat one repetition maximum (1RM) and basketball shooting testing during two laboratory visits. The shooting protocol consisted of five sets of 15 free-throw, two-point, and three-point shots performed in sequential order. Each set was separated by a 30 min rest interval to minimize the influence of fatigue. Each subject attempted 225 shots, combining for a total of 3825 shots. The average free-throw, two-point, and three-point shooting accuracy for men were 74.5 ± 11.9, 68.4 ± 9.9, and 53.3 ± 14.9%, and for women 79.2 ± 11.2, 65.5 ± 8.4, and 51.2 ± 15.3%, respectively. The average bench press and back squat 1RM for men was 88.2 ± 18.6 and 117.0 ± 21.2 kg, and for women, 40.6 ± 7.5 and 66.9 ± 9.9 kg, respectively. The findings of the present study revealed no significant relationships between maximal upper and lower body strength and basketball shooting performance for both male and female participants. Neither bench press nor back squat 1RM was a good predictor of free-throw, two-point, and three-point shooting performance., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

The purpose of this study was to examine kinetic and kinematic characteristics of various types of 2-point and 3-point basketball shooting approaches and determine which variables have the greatest contribution in discriminating proficient (PRO) from non-proficient (N-PRO) shooters. While standing on a force plate, twenty-nine recreationally active males performed a total of 1740 shots by utilizing stationary and step-in shooting approaches. Two high-definition cameras were used to simultaneously capture kinematic parameters of shooting motions. The type of shooting approach showed as a non-influential factor. During the preparatory phase of the shooting motion, PRO 2-point shooters demonstrated higher elbow and basketball height placements, greater flexion in the shoulder and elbow joints while attaining greater release and entry ball angles during the release phase. PRO 3-point shooters demonstrated greater elbow flexion, higher basketball placement, and less hip flexion during the preparatory phase while attaining greater heel, release, and trajectory heights during the release phase. When entered into a full-model discriminant function analysis, elbow angle, elbow height, and release angle variables correctly classified PRO from N-PRO 2-point shooters in 62.1% of cases and hip angle, heel height, and elbow angle variables correctly classified PRO from N-PRO 3-point shooters in 81.6% of cases.