Search

Sprint performance is commonly assessed via discrete sprint tests and analyzed through kinematic estimates modeled using a mono-exponential equation, including estimated maximal sprinting speed ( M S S ), relative acceleration ( T A U ), maximum acceleration ( M A C ), and relative propulsive maximal power ( P M A X ). The acceleration–velocity profile (AVP) provides a simple summary of short sprint performance using two parameters: MSS and MAC, which are useful for simplifying descriptions of sprint performance, comparison between athletes and groups of athletes, and estimating changes in performance over time or due to training intervention. However, discrete testing poses logistical challenges and defines an athlete's AVP exclusively from the performance achieved in an isolated testing environment. Recently, an in situ AVP (velocity–acceleration method) was proposed to estimate kinematic parameters from velocity and acceleration data obtained via global or local positioning systems (GPS/LPS) over multiple training sessions, plausibly improving the time efficiency of sprint monitoring and increasing the sample size that defines the athlete's AVP. However, the validity and sensitivity of estimates derived from the velocity–acceleration method in relation to changes in criterion scores remain elusive. To assess the concurrent validity and sensitivity of kinematic measures from the velocity–acceleration method, 31 elite youth basketball athletes (23 males and 8 females) completed two maximal effort 30 m sprint trials. Performance was simultaneously measured by a laser gun and an LPS (Kinexon), with kinematic parameters estimated using the time–velocity and velocity–acceleration methods. Agreement ( % B i a s ) between laser gun and LPS-derived estimates was within the practically significant magnitude ( ± 5%), while confidence intervals for the percentage mean absolute difference ( % M A D ) overlapped practical significance for T A U , M A C , and P M A X using the velocity–acceleration method. Only the M S S parameter showed a sensitivity ( % M D C 95 ) within practical significance (<5%), with all other parameters showing unsatisfactory sensitivity (>10%) for both the time–velocity and velocity–acceleration methods. Thus, sports practitioners may be confident in the concurrent validity and sensitivity of M S S estimates derived in situ using the velocity–acceleration method, while caution should be applied when using this method to infer an athlete's maximal acceleration capabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considering the importance of body composition and lower-body strength and power for basketball players' on-court performance, as well as a lack of sports science research focused on female athletes, the purpose of the present investigation was to record the anthropometric and countermovement vertical jump (CMJ) characteristics of top-tier U16 and U18 female basketball players and examine between-group differences in the aforementioned tests. Thirty-two athletes who were a part of the national basketball academy volunteered to participate in the present investigation. Following the body composition assessment conducted via a segmental multifrequency bioimpedance analyzer, athletes performed three CMJs while standing on a force plate system sampling at 1000 Hz. Independent t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to examine between-group differences. The findings reveal significant differences in body composition and lower-body neuromuscular performance characteristics between female basketball players ages 16 and 18. Although no differences were observed in muscle and body fat percentages, the U18 group had significantly greater height, overall body mass (both muscle and fat mass), as well as greater segmental fat-free mass (trunk, both legs and arms), intracellular and extracellular water, and body mass index when compared to their U16 counterparts. On the other hand, the U18 group demonstrated longer eccentric, concentric, and braking phase duration, as well as overall contraction time when compared to the U16 players. In addition, the U18 athletes exhibited higher eccentric mean force and power, concentric impulse, peak power, and mean and peak force. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As technology within elite basketball advances and is more available to sporting organizations, novel approaches for assessing and addressing athletic performance during practice or competition are being continuously explored. The aim of this investigation was to examine changes in neuromuscular performance during live basketball play. Eight professional male basketball players volunteered to participate in this study. The testing procedures were conducted during a pre-tournament camp over a span of 2 days. During the first day, the athletes were familiarized with the testing procedures, and baseline measurements were obtained. Using a uniaxial force plate system sampling at 1,000 Hz, each athlete performed 3 countermovement vertical jumps (CVJ) without an arm swing before proceeding with their regular training activities. During the second day of the pre-tournament camp, the athletes repeated identical CVJ testing procedures before the start of the first quarter and post-first, second, third, and fourth quarter of a simulated 5- on-5 basketball game. Repeated-measures testing design was used to examine statistically significant differences in various forcetime metrics of interest in comparison to the baseline levels (p, 0.05). Besides a trivial decrease in eccentric mean force, the findings of this study revealed no statistically significant changes in any force-time metrics of interest within both eccentric and concentric phases of the CVJ (i.e., mean and peak force and power, jump height, impulse, velocity, and contraction time). Thus, we can conclude that these variables were not sensitive to acute fatigue, suggesting that the neuromuscular performances of professional male basketball players tend to remain unchanged throughout a 5-on-5 simulated game. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the present study was to examine differences in game-related statistics between winning and losing game outcomes and determine which performance parameters have the greatest impact in classifying winning from losing game outcomes at the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division-I men's basketball level of competition. The data scraping technique was used to obtain publicly available data over a 2018-2019 season span. The total number of games examined was 5,147. Independent t-tests were used to examine statistically significant differences between winning and losing game outcomes, while a full model discriminant function analysis was used to determine the relative contribution of each game-related statistic and its ability to classify winning from losing game outcomes (p < 0.05). Alongside scoring a greater number of points at the end of the game, the findings of the present study indicate that winning teams: (a) attempted and made more field goals, three-point, and free-throw shots, (b) accumulated more defensive and total rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks, (c) had fewer turnovers and personal fouls, and (d) secured greater field goal, three-point, and free-throw shooting percentage. Moreover, the top three performance parameters discriminating winning from losing game outcomes were field goal percentage, defensive rebounds, and assists, accounting for 16.8%, 12.2%, and 12.0% of the total percentage of explained variance, respectively (i.e., 41.0% combined). Overall, these findings support the expected roles of offensive and defensive gamerelated statistics and provide further insight into how they work together to optimize the chances of securing the desired game outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Short sprints are predominantly assessed using timing gates and analyzed through parameters of the mono-exponential equation, including estimated maximal sprinting speed ( M S S ) and relative acceleration ( T A U ), derived maximum acceleration (MAC), and relative propulsive maximal power ( P M A X ), further referred to as the No Correction model. However, the frequently recommended flying start technique introduces a bias during parameter estimation. To correct this, two additional models (Estimated TC and Estimated FD) were proposed. To estimate model precision and sensitivity to detect the change, 31 basketball players executed multiple 30 m sprints. Athlete performance was simultaneously measured by a laser gun and timing gates positioned at 5, 10, 20, and 30 m. Short sprint parameters were estimated using a laser gun, representing the criterion measure, and five different timing gate models, representing the practical measures. Only the MSS parameter demonstrated a high agreement between the laser gun and timing gate models, using the percent mean absolute difference ( % M A D ) estimator ( % M A D < 10%). The MSS parameter also showed the highest sensitivity, using the minimum detectable change estimator ( % M D C 95 ), with an estimated % M D C 95 < 17%. Interestingly, sensitivity was the highest for the No Correction model ( % M D C 95 < 7%). All other parameters and models demonstrated an unsatisfying level of sensitivity. Thus, sports practitioners should be cautious when using timing gates to estimate maximum acceleration indices and changes in their respective levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Problem Statement: In the United States, collegiate diving coaches look at two main types of competitions to recruit divers: state high school leagues and club leagues such as USA Diving or the Amateur Athletic Union. It is generally perceived that the judging between these two types of competition is not consistent, but few studies have been conducted to quantify these potential inconsistencies and analyze whether these are individual or systemic biases. Purpose: By comparing equivalent dives from the same diver in both a high school and club diving meet, this study sought to identify judging differences and develop a method for correcting scores between high school and club competitions. Approach: Using all applicable scores across a five-year timespan (2016-2021), including factors such as gender and type of dive, investigators analyzed one-meter springboard diving scores to ascertain if scoring discrepancies exist between club and high school diving competitions. Results: The results revealed statistically significant differences between club and high school net scores for each dive type (all p<0.001), and medium-to-large effect sizes were found for all sub-groups, ranging from 0.577-0.753, except for female reverse dives, which displayed large ES of 0.808. Subsequently, researchers identified correction values to more accurately compare scores between high school and club competitions. Conclusions: Statistical analysis demonstrates significant differences in scoring between club and high school diving scores for all dives and sub-groupings of dives and divers, thus warranting a method for remediating these differences. The corrections developed may provide an initial step towards objectifying scoring within a subjectively scored sport, as well as improving collegiate diving recruitment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While being an integral part of both the offensive and defensive segments of the game, the biomechanical parameters of setting motions remain understudied in the scientific literature. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to examine differences in kinetic and kinematic characteristics between: (a) three types of setting motions (i.e., front, middle, back); (b) two types of setting approaches (i.e., stationary, step-in); and (c) proficient (PRO) and non-proficient (N-PRO) volleyball players. Twenty recreationally active females performed five stationary and five step-in setting approaches to Zone 4–2 in a randomized order. Uni-dimensional force plate sampling at 1000 Hz and high-definition camera recording at 30 fps were used to obtain kinetic and kinematic variables of interest. The total number of setting attempts performed by each subject was 30, accounting for a grand total of 600 attempts. PRO setters had less knee flexion, shoulder flexion, and ankle dorsiflexion at the initial concentric phase of the volleyball setting motion when compared to the N-PRO setters. Moreover, significantly greater peak concentric and landing forces, impulse, rate of force development, and vertical jump height were observed for PRO setters compared to N-PRO setters, while no significant differences were found between different setting targets and approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shooting efficiency is one of the key performance parameters related to securing the desired game outcome at various levels of basketball competition, and it is largely influenced by the biomechanical adjustments incorporated during the preparatory and release phase of the shooting motion. Thus, the purpose of the present study was twofold: (a) to examine the differences in the kinematic characteristics between free-throw, two-point, and three-point shots, and (b) to examine the differences between shooters with excellent (≥80%) and good (<80%) levels of shooting proficiency. A total of 10 professional male basketball players performed 5 free-throw (4.57 m), two-point (5.18 m), and three-point (6.75 m) shots, combining for a total of 150 shots. A high-definition camera recording at 120 fps was used to capture the shooting motion from a sagittal point of view, and video analysis software was used to analyze the kinematic variables of interest. The findings of the present study reveal that the kinematic characteristics during the preparatory phase of the shooting motion remain unchanged between free-throw and two-point shots. Three-point shots required lower elbow positioning, influenced by greater knee and hip flexion when compared to free-throw and two-point shots. The release angle was notably lower for shots attempted beyond the three-point line but remained unchanged between the free-throw and two-point shooting motions. Release height and vertical displacement were significantly greater for two- and three-point shots when compared to free-throw shots, while no difference was observed between the two- and three-point shots. In addition, no significant differences in shooting kinematics were observed between those participants with excellent and good levels of shooting proficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the importance of optimal two-point and three-point jump-shooting performance for securing the desired game outcome on various levels of basketball competition has been well documented, there is a limited amount of scientific literature on what biomechanical adjustments in shooting technique comprise the success of each shooting attempt. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine the difference in kinetic and kinematic characteristics during the preparatory and release phases of the shooting motion between made and missed jump shots. While standing on a force plate, twenty-nine recreationally active males with prior basketball playing experience attempted 10 two-point and 10 three-point jump shots, combining for a total of 580 attempts. Simultaneously, two high-definition cameras were used to capture kinematic characteristics of interest. Higher elbow positioning during the preparatory phase of the shooting motion, relative to the shooter's stature, was shown to be a critical kinematic adjustment that differentiated made from missed two-point jump shots. Alongside identical observations regarding the importance of the elbow placement, keeping the torso in a more erect position during the preparatory phase of the shooting motion, having a greater release angle and vertical jump height at the timepoint of the ball release, and attaining higher maximal trajectory height were critical kinematic adjustments that differentiated made from missed three-point jump shots. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was compare the effect of internal and external focus of attention instructions on force-time characteristics of the countermovement jump (CMJ) in collegiate student-athletes. Forty-three resistance-trained men (... ± SD; age = 20 ± 1.5 years) on an NCAA Division I baseball team volunteered to participate in this study. Each participant performed a total of 16 CMJs on a force platform while holding a wooden dowel on their shoulders to eliminate arm swing. Force and power parameters such as jump height (JH), peak velocity (PV), and mean concentric velocity (MCV) were calculated from force-time and position data. Paired-sample t-tests and Cohen's d effect sizes were used to examine differences between conditions. When subjects were instructed using an external focus, they demonstrated significantly (p < 0.05) greater JH, PV, and MCV compared with jumps performed with the internal focus (external JH = 48.0 ± 5.6 cm, internal JH = 46.4 ± 5.4 cm; external PV = 3.6 ± 0.3 m⋅s-1, internal PV = 3.5 ± 0.3 m⋅s-1; and external MCV = 2.31 ± 0.22 m⋅s-1, internal MCV = 2.25 ± 0.23 m⋅s-1). It is interesting to note that there was superior recall of the internal instructions during the manipulation checks that may suggest that the subjects consciously processed these instructions to a greater extent and reduced internal condition performance. These results indicate that instructions can alter the efficiency and performance of a skill. According to the literature and this study, if an optimum performance metric is desired, external focus of attention instructions should be used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]