Performance profiles and opposition interaction during game-play in elite basketball: evidences from National Basketball Association

Modelling the Relationship between Match Outcome and Match Performances during the 2019 FIBA Basketball World Cup: A Quantile Regression Analysis

“…It is worth noting that Three-Point Score may not obtain higher chances of winning during FIBA World Cup, so coaches should focus on improving other aspects (i.e., paint points) for ultimate success, especially for 75th and 90th quantile. These KPIs may also typically lead to more physical contact and a reliance on players to combine strength and their athleticism with skill [ 4 ]. For example, speed, agility and repeated sprint ability, or this combination, have previously been reported as fundamental capacities for successful basketball athletes [ 18 ] and highlight the need for athletic and versatile players for success at the highest competition level.…”

“…One of the most important findings of the current study was that the quality of opponent had no impact on match outcome. This was unexpected, as opponent quality has been reported to be influential for match success within the Spanish Basketball Professional League and National Basketball Association [ 4 , 32 ]. Potentially, team quality between teams was similar because all national teams undergo an elimination process to qualify for the FIBA Basketball World Cup [ 33 ].…”

“…The sample comprised 184 performance records from 92 games during the men’s basketball tournament at the 2019 FIBA Basketball World Cup. The variables examined included situational variables, offensive variables and defensive variables ( Table 1 ) and were in accordance with those employed by Sampaio et al [ 4 , 11 ]. In order to control for the situational variable effects, quality of the opponent was determined via a k-means cluster analysis [ 12 ].…”

“…Previously, technical behaviors or performances were demonstrated to have a crucial impact on match outcome [ 1 ]. Specifically, Defensive Rebounds were identified as the most common key performance between indicator/s (KPI/s) that differentiated winning and losing matches [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Additionally, a high success rate of fast breaks or transition play (i.e., rapid switch from defense to offence leading to a score) was identified as a distinguishing factor between winning and losing teams [ 5 ].…”

The Most Demanding Scenarios of Play in Basketball Competition From Elite Under-18 Teams

“…In each time epoch, the peak values of the physical demand measures selected were recorded independently, so that it is very likely that they came from different data points. The rationale behind the selection of the 30, 60, and 180 s time epochs was based on the findings shown by previous studies that report that: a) approximately 90% of the live-time actions in basketball match play have a duration lower than 80 s (of which around 17 and 26% exhibited a duration near 30 and 60 s, respectively) and b) actions with durations longer than 180 s are very unlikely (Conte et al, 2016;Zhang et al, 2019). Time frames shorter than 30 s were considered too short from a task design perspective and consequently were discarded.…”