Can the intensity of game load affect the shooting performance in basketball?

Vencúrik, Tomáš

doi:10.14198/jhse.2016.11.proc1.10

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is important to mention that 88% in the U19 category and up to 90% in the senior category of all shooting attempts were performed at an heart rate level higher than 85% of HR max as well as that the efficiency of the shooting performance progressively decreased with the increase of the heart rate level in both categories. Our finding can be compared to the results of previously published research reports (Vencúrik, 2016;Ardigò et al, 2018;Padulo et al, 2018) that found the negative influence of heart rate level on shooting Frontiers in Physiology frontiersin.org efficiency. More precisely, the study by Vencúrik (2016) found that female basketball players had 60%, 37.5%, and 45.2% successfulness in shooting with HR at the level <85% HR max , 85-95% HR max , and >95% HR max , respectively.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

“…Our finding can be compared to the results of previously published research reports (Vencúrik, 2016;Ardigò et al, 2018;Padulo et al, 2018) that found the negative influence of heart rate level on shooting Frontiers in Physiology frontiersin.org efficiency. More precisely, the study by Vencúrik (2016) found that female basketball players had 60%, 37.5%, and 45.2% successfulness in shooting with HR at the level <85% HR max , 85-95% HR max , and >95% HR max , respectively. In a similar vein, Padulo et al (2018) suggested that the efficiency of 2 PT shooting of male players at an heart rate level above 80% of HR max (30%) was significantly lower compared to the efficiency of shooting at the heart rate level of 50% of HR max (38.2%) and rest (42.3%).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance factors that negatively influence shooting efficiency in women’s basketball

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the present study was to examine the influence of selected factors (possession duration, game quarter, defensive pressure, shooting distance from the basket, and heart rate level) on shooting efficiency on Under-19 (U19) and senior level of women’s basketball competition (second division). The analysis procedures included five U19 and six senior-level games, containing 224 and 252 shooting attempts, respectively. Binary logistic regression identified the opponent’s defensive pressure and shooting distance from the basket as significant predictors of shooting efficiency in both categories. When defensive pressure was high, the chance for the missed shot was 3.5 (95% CI; 1.43–8.52) and 3.19 (95% CI; 1.4–7.26) times more likely than it was under the minimum defensive pressure for U19 and senior category, respectively. Shooting efficiency significantly decreased when the horizontal distance from the basket increased. In U19, a chance for a missed shot was 4.63 (95% CI; 2–10.712) and 5.15 (95% CI; 1.91–13.86) times higher for medium and long-distance (respectively), compared to short-range shooting. In the senior category, the chance for the missed shot was 3.9 (95% CI; 1.83–8.31) and 3.27 (95% CI; 1.43–7.52) times higher for medium and long-distance (respectively) when compared to a short distance. The possession duration, game quarter, and heart rate level were identified as insignificant predictors. Therefore, the aforementioned findings suggest that basketball players and coaches may benefit from designing training sessions where the defender puts pressure on the shooting player as in a real game situation and balanced the frequency of shooting from different distances from the basket.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Performance factors that negatively influence shooting efficiency in women’s basketball

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the traditional definition of minutes played). This review identified a wide range of methods used to determine training duration in basketball, and a significant number of studies (n = 24) that failed to report how duration was defined and calculated [32,49,52,66,69,71,72,75,84,[92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106]. A commonly used description of duration methodology in basketball was defined in 1995 by McInnes et al [47], where total time was calculated as "all of the time that the subject was on the court, including all stoppages in play such as time-outs, free-throws and out-of-bounds, but excluding breaks between quarters, or time that the subject was substituted out of the game" [47].…”

Section: Methodology For Quantifying Durationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Physical Demands in Basketball: An Explorative Systematic Review of Practices

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Measuring the physical work and resultant acute psychobiological responses of basketball can help to better understand and inform physical preparation models and improve overall athlete health and performance. Recent advancements in training load monitoring solutions have coincided with increases in the literature describing the physical demands of basketball, but there are currently no reviews that summarize all the available basketball research. Additionally, a thorough appraisal of the load monitoring methodologies and measures used in basketball is lacking in the current literature. This type of critical analysis would allow for consistent comparison between studies to better understand physical demands across the sport. Objectives The objective of this systematic review was to assess and critically evaluate the methods and technologies used for monitoring physical demands in competitive basketball athletes. We used the term 'training load' to encompass the physical demands of both training and game activities, with the latter assumed to provide a training stimulus as well. This review aimed to critique methodological inconsistencies, establish operational definitions specific to the sport, and make recommendations for basketball training load monitoring practice and reporting within the literature. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using EBSCO, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science to identify studies through March 2020. Electronic databases were searched using terms related to basketball and training load. Records were included if they used a competitive basketball population and incorporated a measure of training load. This systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO Registration # CRD42019123603), and approved under the National Basketball Association (NBA) Health Related Research Policy. Results Electronic and manual searches identified 122 papers that met the inclusion criteria. These studies reported the physical demands of basketball during training (n = 56), competition (n = 36), and both training and competition (n = 30). Physical demands were quantified with a measure of internal training load (n = 52), external training load (n = 29), or both internal and external measures (n = 41). These studies examined males (n = 76), females (n = 34), both male and female (n = 9), and a combination of youth (i.e. under 18 years, n = 37), adults (i.e. 18 years or older, n = 77), and both adults and youth (n = 4). Inconsistencies related to the reporting of competition level, methodology for recording duration, participant inclusion criteria, and validity of measurement systems were identified as key factors relating to the reporting of physical demands in basketball and summarized for each study. Conclusions This review comprehensively evaluated the current body of literature related to training load monitoring in basketball. Within this literature, there is a clear lack of alignment in applied practices and metho...

show abstract

“…The difference in successfulness can probably be caused by different categorization of internal load. Vencúrik [36] reports a shooting success rate of 60%, 37.5%, and 45.16% for internal load <85% of HR max , 85-95% of HR max , and >95% of HR max , respectively. In the study mentioned above, the author did not find effect between the successfulness of the shooting and the internal load, which corresponds with our results.…”

Section: Internal Loadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Dribbling and Passing Skills in Competitive Games of Women’s Basketball

Vencúrik

Nykodým

Bokůvka

et al. 2021

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work aimed to identify the influence of selected endogenous (internal load) and exogenous (possession duration, game quarter, and defensive pressure) factors in natural game conditions on the efficiency of dribbling and passing skills. Dribbling and passing skills were assessed during four games of U19 female basketball players and five games of senior (2nd division) female basketball players. In total, 551 dribbling and 914 passing executions were evaluated. Binary logistic regression identified defensive pressure of the opponent as a predictor of dribbling and passing skills effectivity. When the defensive pressure of the opponent was medium, the chances for the ineffective pass were 1.997 times more likely (95% CI; 1.179–3.383), as it is at the minimum defensive pressure. When the defensive pressure of the opponent was high, the chances for ineffective dribbling were 7.45 times more likely (95% CI; 3.672–15.113) and for ineffective pass were 8.419 times more likely (95% CI; 4.6–15.409), as it is at minimum defensive pressure. The game quarter and the internal load were not identified as the predictors influencing the dribbling and passing effectivity. Possession duration was also an insignificant predictor of dribbling and passing skills effectivity. However, the passing skill effectivity decreases when the shot clock is winding down. These findings confirm the importance of transferring game situations into the training process. Coaches should take into account these factors when they want to stimulate determinants of player performance in a balanced and systematic way.

show abstract

Can the intensity of game load affect the shooting performance in basketball?

Cited by 3 publications

References 8 publications

Performance factors that negatively influence shooting efficiency in women’s basketball

Performance factors that negatively influence shooting efficiency in women’s basketball

Measuring Physical Demands in Basketball: An Explorative Systematic Review of Practices

Determinants of Dribbling and Passing Skills in Competitive Games of Women’s Basketball

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About