Specific Absolute Velocity Thresholds during Male Basketball Games Using Local Positional System; Differences between Age Categories

Abstract

The aim of this study was (I) to establish absolute specific velocity thresholds during basketball games using local positional system (LPS) and (II) to compare the speed profiles between various levels of competitions. The variables recorded were total distance (TD); meters per minute (m·min); real time (min); maximum speed (Km h−1), distance (m), percentage distance, and percentage duration invested in four speed zones (standing–walking; jogging; running; and high-speed running). Mean and standard deviation (±SD) were calculated, and a separate one-way analysis of variance was undertaken to identify differences between competitions. TD (3188.84 ± 808.37 m) is covered by standing–walking (43.51%), jogging (36.58%), running (14.68%), and sprinting (5.23%) activities. Overall, 75.22% of the time is invested standing–walking, jogging (18.43%), running (4.77%), and sprinting (1.89%). M·min (large effect size), % duration zone 2 (moderate effect size); distance zone 4 (large effect size), and % distance zone 4 (very large effect size) are significantly higher during junior than senior. However, % distance zone 1 (large effect size) and % duration zone 1 (large effect size) were largely higher during senior competition. The findings of this study reveal that most of the distance and play time is spent during walking and standing activities. In addition, the proportion of time spent at elevated intensities is higher during junior than in senior competition.

Influence of game and quarter results on external peak demands during games in under-18 years, male basketball players

“…PD were calculated for several distance variables including total distance (m) covered (TD) and distance (m) covered in different intensity zones including: standing-walking (S-W) ≤ 7 km · h −1 ; jogging (JOG) = 7–14 km · h −1 ’; running (RUN) = 14.01–18 km · h −1 ; and high-speed running (HSR) > 18 km · h −1 , as previously used in basketball research [ 3 ]. Furthermore, accelerations (ACC) (count) performed > 2 m · s −2 (dwell time: 0.3 seconds), decelerations (DEC) (count) performed > -2 m · s −2 (dwell time: 0.3 s), and PlayerLoad™ (PL) (arbitrary units [AU]) were also measured.…”

“…Recent technological advances such as electronic performance tracking systems (EPTS), including inertial measurement units (e.g. accelerometers and gyroscopes) (IMU) [ 1 , 2 ] and local positioning systems (LPS) [ 3 ] have allowed for basketball players to be monitored during training and games. There are several advantages to using this technology, including the capability to quantify the external loads of several players simultaneously to gather monitoring data efficiently in real time [ 4 ].…”

“…Regarding player age, quantifying external game loads among junior basketball players (< 18 years of age [U18]) is of particular interest given the importance of understanding the ratio of competition-to-training demands in optimizing the overall loading placed on young athletes across their development pathway [ 6 ]. In this way, external load data reported for U18, international, male basketball players (16.9 ± 1.1 years) show that basketball is an acyclic, high-intensity sport where playing time is mostly (93%) spent standing, walking (< 7 km · h −1 ), or jogging (7–14 km · h −1 ) [ 3 ]. These low-intensity movements are interspersed with high-intensity efforts [ 7 , 8 ], during which players attain their peak demands (PD) [ 9 – 11 ].…”

Fluctuations in External Peak Demands Across Quarters During Basketball Games

“…This parameter has been used in several basketball studies ( Reina et al, 2019 ; Fox et al, 2020a ; Alonso et al, 2020 ) and the formula is √ (ay1–ay-1) 2 + √ (ax1–ax-1) 2 + √ (az1–az-1)2/100 ( Brown and Greig 2015 ), where fwd indicates movement in the anterior-posterior direction, side indicates movement in the medial-lateral direction, up indicates vertical movement, and t represents time. The speed zones selected were classified into the following four absolute velocity thresholds ( Sosa et al, 2021 ) ( Table 1 ).…”

“…The main objectives during training sessions are to 1) prescribe the optimal training load ( Aoki et al, 2017 ); 2) stimulate specific adaptations ( Aoki et al, 2017 ; Foster et al, 2001 ); and 3) obtain the desired responses ( Impellizzeri et al, 2018 ). In turn, quantifying the physical and physiological loads is important to understand the dose-response nature of the training process when establishing optimal training procedures ( Sosa et al, 2021 ). One of the most common methods utilized by coaches during training sessions is exposing players to game demands.…”