Anthropometric Characteristics of Spanish Professional Basketball Players

Abstract

The study of elite basketball players’ anthropometric characteristics alongside those of body composition contributes significantly to their profiling as professional athletes and plays an important role in the selection process, as these characteristics can have a significant impact on performance. In the current study, 110 professional basketball players from a series of Spanish professional Leagues (ACB, LEB and EBA) and youth level National Teams (U20 and U18) had their anthropometric profiles measured and compared to determine differences between them. Furthermore, all 110 players were divided into three different categories according to their playing position: guards, forwards and centres. The results obtained show no significant differences between players in different competitions in weight, height and the sum of skinfolds. Nonetheless, there were several differences related to body fat content (13.03% in ACB players and 10.52% in the lower categories and National Teams). There were also several differences found between the different playing positions amongst all playing levels in body mass (79.56 ± 2.41, 91.04 ± 1.51 and 104.56 ± 1.73 kg), height (182.28 ± 0.96, 195.65 ± 1.00 and 204.08 ± 0.67 cm), skinfold distribution and perimeters. However, there were no significant differences in body fat content between the different playing positions. The conclusions obtained from this study provide a better understanding to basketball specialists regarding the selection process of players at the elite level, especially on the transition from youth elite programs to men’s elite leagues.

Technical-tactical performance in basketball: evaluation of gaming actions according to specific positions

“…Particularly, basketball is a sport characterized by the complexity and dynamism of actions and movements, since during the game there are innumerable situations presented to the players in order to keep the ball possession and control the defensive actions. The evolution of the rules of the modality and the demands around the technical-tactical actions has resulted in greater physiological and anthropometric differentiation 11 and imposed demands that differ according to the position of each athlete's game 12 .…”

Anthropometric Variables and Somatotype of Young and Professional Male Basketball Players

“…Anthropometric measurements, determination of somatic build models, and somatic profiles have recently become fundamental research areas for sports training specialists [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Somatic profiles of basketball players have been widely recognized as a crucial factor in the selection process and as a performance predictor [ 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 ].…”

“…Somatic profiles of basketball players have been widely recognized as a crucial factor in the selection process and as a performance predictor [ 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Anthropometric characteristics, such as body fat, skinfold thickness, body height, arm span, and body circumferences, were determined to be principal components in elite basketball players; therefore, they are often regarded as indicators of the level of play [ 8 ].…”

Total and Regional Body Composition of NCAA Division I Collegiate Basketball Athletes

“…These studies reported male centers' total mass and LM to be significantly higher than guards and forwards -similar to the current study's observations in which male centers demonstrated higher total mass, FM, and LM compared to all other positions except power forwards. While previous studies employing skinfolds [2,5,7] reported no significant differences in BF % across male basketball player positions, Gerodimos et al [6] using BIA reported guards (10.5 ± 2.6 %) to have significantly lower BF % than centers (13.1 ± 11.7 %; p < 0.05). The current study's male basketball players' BF % values are lower than those reported by Gerodimos et al [6], with no significant BF % differences observed across male positions.…”

“…To date, most studies examining male and female basketball athletes' total body composition have used skinfolds, bioelectrical impedance (BIA), air displacement plethysmography (ADP), or hydrostatic weighing [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Importantly, the two-component body composition methods used by these previous studies are less accurate (up to 5 % error) than dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) [10].…”