System of the Performance Evaluation Criteria Weighted Per Positions in the Basketball Game

Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234 UDC 572.5:796.323 Original scientific paper

System of the Performance Evaluation Criteria Weighted per Positions in the Basketball Game

S. Trnini}1 and D. Dizdar2

1 Basketball Club »Cibona«, Zagreb, Croatia 2 Faculty of Physical Education, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

ABSTRACT Based upon the expertise performed by ten basketball professionals relative importance coefficients with regard to positions in the game were determined for nineteen performance evaluation criteria. High degree of interobservers agreement was obtained concerning all positions (from 0.91 to 0.98). In concordance with the obtained results the particular play positions were explicitly described, as well as similarities and differences between them were determined from the aspect of the single criteria importance. The following criteria had an above average importance for the: Position 1 – level of defensive pressure, transition defense efficiency, the ball control, passing skills, dribble penetration, outside shots, and transition offence efficiency; Position 2 – level of defensive pressure, transition defense efficiency, outside shots, dribble penetration, offence without the ball, and transition offence efficiency; Position 3 – transition defense efficiency, outside shots, dribble penetration, offense without the ball, free throws, and transition offence efficiency; Position 4 – defensive and offensive rebounding efficiency, inside shots, dribble penetration, efficiency of screening, and free throws; Position 5 – defensive and offensive rebounding efficiency, inside shots, dribble penetration, efficiency of screening, drawing fouls and three-point plays, and free throws. The research results could be usefully applied by the basketball practitioners to selecting and following-up players, the teching-learning process directing and improving, the training process programming and the transformational effects controlling.

Introduction ball, that is efficiency estimation of manifested motor behaviour of individual pla- The set of criteria for the actual qual- yers in a match, should inevitably enable ity or performance evaluation in basket- assessment of the situation-related or

Received for publication December 20, 1999.

217 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234 game efficiency of a single player in rela- the game during the process of creating a tionship to the positions in the game, re- team. gions of the court, and phases of the For the evaluation of the basketball game. That is regarded decisive from the players quality of performance (players standpoint of the high level competitive authentic, actual value estimation and basketball praxis, that is under the im- characterization of his/her play) to be perative to win in a pursuit of significant profound and balanced, authors estab- sport achievements or in a production of lished a set of nineteen criteria that allow sports results1,2. Namely, set of perfor- adequate and maximally close assess- mance evaluation criteria, established ment in regard to their competitive effi- and devised with regard to the above- ciency on defense (seven criteria) and of- mentioned aspects, is the prerequisite for fense (twelve criteria), applicable to all the rational and organized selection of positions in the game5. However, despite players because it provides insight into the fact that the majority of experts in the actual, authentic successfulness of modern basketball do not advocate for each player in the stressful, hence perfor- the traditional classification of positions mance hindering environment of a com- (from 1 to 5), except for the purposes of petition2–5. tactical alignment of players on the court Contemporary trends to establishing within a set, game flow or phases of the comprehensive, integrative performance game and concepts of the game or general critearia for the individual and team as- strategy2,9, the undeniable existence of pects of an individual player's efficiency differences between players who primar- evaluation in sports games are based ily play at a particular position should be upon the growing agreement among sport taken into consideration7,10. These differ- science and sport pedagogy researches ences could be recognized as apparent dif- and practitioners (i.e. teachers and coa- ferences in anthropological characteris- ches) that performance in team sports, tics of players at different positions, hen- beyond the usual fitness components, re- ce different roles, assignments and tasks sults from the interaction of various fac- assigned to an individual player that are ets of strategic and tactical efficiency as eventually manifested as players' beha- well as specific perceptual and motor vour in a match that can be observed and skills 1,3,5–7. That need for the authentic- measured as various performance or situ- ity of the performance assessment in the ation-related efficiency indicators that context of matches, that is in the »natu- contribute variably to a team success. ral« competitive surrounding of sport, is Therefore authors consider determina- equally apparent in education and in tion of a particular criterion relative im- competitive sports in both the teaching- portance coefficient or weight per a par- learning or training process and in the ticular position in the game indispen- sports results »production«, that is win- sable2,5,7,9–12. Namely, weighted criteria ning. Top quality professional or, as they represent an optimal means for evaluat- are usually refered to, »great« basketball ing actual, authentic competitive quali- clubs have at their disposal so called cor- ties of players on both defense and of- porative knowledge 8, and managers have fense. They facilitate assessment of per- information on any high quality, either a formance or situation-related efficiency of mature or prospective basketball player. a player as well as his/her self-evaluation These informations are utilized for the during the training process and under decision making when selecting players the match stressful competitive condi- for the particular positions and roles in tions, which are target oriented to the

218 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234 analysis of the strong and weak points in or assess quality of players, in many pre- the individual and team aspect of play. vious research studies the subjective es- Results of such an anylysis allow deter- timation of the performance quality has mination and planning of goals and sub- been executed by independent basketball stages in the process of improving (teach- experts. On the basis of a suggested set of ing-learning and perfecting) both the criteria they have usually estimated the individual and team play of an individ- effectiveness of a basketball player on a ual. Such an integrative approach to the certain measurement scale (most fre- expert evaluation process or monitoring quently utilizing grades from 1 to 5). provides information on a player's game Elbel and Allen3 attempted, back in stability or consistency of performance in 1941, to better evaluate individual and the long term. team performance on the basis of regis- Assessment of player's quality accord- tering play events (besides those evident ing to his/her actual, situation-related ef- in the official statistics of the game) that ficiency at a given points in time is one of took place during the game (factors of the most fundamental and responsible success or failure) and had positive or aspects of coaching because adequate se- negative influence on the eventual match lection of players is the starting point in score. Each factor/ item was subjectively creating a »winning« team for the sports weighted by grades that commensurated achievements production2. Recognition with its contribution to the winning suc- and understanding of the criteria relative cess. Unfortunately, data concerning the importance (coefficients or weights) for a opposing teams play were not recorded particular position provide a higher level neither was the data acquisition proce- of reliability and predictability of the se- dure consistently applied through all the lection process, that is the system of three observed seasons. Authors conclu- weighted criteria per positions decreases ded that most of these events or factors the possibilities for mistakes. occured frequently in the game, hence there was no doubt that they may actually spell the difference between victory Previous research and defeat. Therefore, the proposed mo- One of the fundamental problems in del might be employed in the individual the domain of the kinesiology of sport (i.e. and team performance evaluation. For te applied kinesiology) is the crucial issue of present research it is important to point the impracticability to measure objecti- out that authors clearly discerned both vely overall performance efficiency of in- the individual and team (a player's con- dividual players (entities) and a team in a tribution to the team-mate's situation- game (the criterion variable1,3–6,11,12. The related efficiency) aspect of one's play, reason is undoubtedly a complex, mul- thus making the basketball game analy- tifactorial nature of the game itself, sis more profound and precise. where reactions of players (decision mak- De`man has devised13–16 an expert ing and execution of skills) are strongly system model that comprises the most influenced by constantly changing config- important factors influencing directly the uration of game (environment), on the situation-related efficiency in a match. one hand, and by his/her own abilities The model is applicable mainly in young and network of knowledge or general and players selection and in the training pro- sport specific skills, on the other hand1,5. cess control. Due to the deficiency of the measurement Swalgin4 founded the national perfor- instruments that could directly measure mance norms for the single game, sea-

219 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234 son-to-date, and throughout the season Knowledge of the assessment results overall situation-related efficiency of a should be immanent to the teaching- player on the results of a three-year in- learning process because it should pro- vestigation on the American collegiate vide each playerwith opportunity to be basketball players. The norms were es- faced with both the strong and weak fea- tablished in relationship to position of tures of his/her game. That will inspire play and time played. Author developed the problem approach to understanding performance evaluation software (Bas- the basketball game; players' reflection ketball Evaluation System, BES) for as- on their trials, success, and errors sessing quality of play under the game »feeds«, improves their tactical thinking. conditions. The described procedure is focused on the Trnini}2 analyzed the basketball game game events and actions that reflect situ- from the structural and functional as- ation-related efficiency of a player. They pect, defined states of the game and de- can be recorded during a match and scribed playing positions and roles with coaches and players can use them the regard to the players' assignments and feed back for the corrections of play, i.e. tasks. It was pointed out that the existing for the team overall performance impro- official performance indicators are not vement. sufficient for the individual and team play description and assessment. The au- Swalgin7 conducted a research in or- thor designated the desirable tendency in der to determine validity of two basket- the player's development in accordance ball performance evaluation models. with the supposed changes of the rules of Within the research framework a group the game and conceptions of basketball in of top quality basketball coaches (n = 18) the future. In his/her vision author pre- estimated the overall playing efficiency of sumes that a player's successful game the 45 NCAA players on the Likerts five performance will be determined by how grades measuring scale, where A equals many tasks he/she is able to execute suc- 4.0, –A = 3.67, +B = 3.33, B = 3.0, –B = cessfully during a game and not which 2.67, +C = 2.33, C = 2.0, –C = 1.67, +D = position one plays (versatility or poly- 1.33, D = 1.0, –D = 0.67, F = 0.0. Author valence within all the phases of the game investigated relationship between un- course). weighted (nonpondered) and weighted Gréhaigne, Bouthier and Godbout6 model of the BES by correlating them proposed an original assessment proce- with a set of criterion scores established dure for the performance of individuals from another group of expert coaches. on attack in different team sports (bas- The results indicated both models corre- ketball, team handball, rugby, football/ lated highly with the coaches' evaluation soccer, volleyball). They have defined two criteria. Additionally, the obtained re- derived indicators: the efficiency index sults made it obvious that particularly and the volume of play. Combination of four indicators of playing performance the two indices gives an insight into the showed high variance between positions authentic playing success based on the and distinguish each of them: rebounds, observation of players' offensive actions both offensive and defensive, as well as during matches. The study suggests the blockshots differentiate mostly centres utilisation of general nomogram in vari- from guards and forwards, assists distin- ous team sports in order to produce a sin- guish guards from forwards and centres, gle performance score by combining both while three-point field goals differentiate indices. both forwards and guards from centres.

220 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234

Trnini}, Dizdar and Jaklinovi}10 con- each position has special requirements on ducted research in order to determine the the actual quality of a player, the ob- differences between the basketball play- tained results should present the funda- ers playing predominantly positions 1 mental pressumption for the process of and 2 – guards, 3 – forwards, and 4 and 5 selecting players to a particular position – centres. The results of the discriminant in the game to be successful. analysis indicated that the anthropome- tric status distinguished players accord- ing to the playing position criteria, hence Methods indirectly determining the roles, the Performance evaluation criteria tasks, and the jobs for each player in a game. These assignments manifest them- In this research a system of criteria selves in turn as the indicators of playing for the actual performance evaluation of performance. basketball players at all positions was employed. Trnini}, Perica and Dizdar5 es- 5 Trnini}, Perica and Dizdar proposed tablished a set of seven criteria for evalu- nineteen criteria for the overall perfor- ating performance in the defensive phase mance evaluation (seven for the situa- of the game: tion-related efficiency on defense and twelve on offense), applicable to all posi- ¿ LEVEL OF DEFENSIVE tions, in order to provide a means for pro- PRESSURE (RPO) found monitoring and evaluating individ- ¿ DEFENSIVE HELP (PO) ual and team aspects of the quality of ¿ BLOCKING SHOTS (BŠ) play of a single player. ¿ THE BALL POSSESSION GAINED The evaluation process based upon in- (OL) tegrative, complex criteria, that is game ¿ DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING oriented evaluation procedure is crucial EFFICIENCY (SUO) for establishing expectations regarding ¿ TRANSITION DEFENSE consistent performance throughout the EFFICIENCY (UTO) entire sports career of a player because it yields information reflecting both motor ¿ PLAYING MULTIPLE POSITIONS and tactical skills. ON DEFENSE (IVPO) and twelve criteria for evaluating perfor- Therefore the research subject is de- mance of players at all positions in the of- termination of the relative importance co- fensive phase of the game efficients (weights) of the performance ¿ THE BALL CONTROL (KL) evaluation criteria per positions in the basketball game. In concordance with the ¿ PASSING SKILLS (VD) issue a special data acquisition procedure ¿ DRIBBLE PENETRATION (PL) was designed, that is survey of the bas- ¿ OUTSIDE SHOTS (ŠVP) ketball experts opinions or estimations ¿ INSIDE SHOTS (ŠUP) was accomplished, based upon requirements of the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy ¿ FREE THROWS (SB) Process) method17. ¿ DRAWING FOULS AND THREE-POINT PLAYS (IOP) Obtained insights and cognitions present a basis for the analysis of necessary ¿ EFFICIENCY OF SCREENING (obligatory, indispensable), basic and spe- (PUB) cial skills needed for the successful per- ¿ OFFENCE WITHOUT THE BALL formance at certain game position. Since (NBL)

221 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234

¿ OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING Since in the basketball game the clas- EFFICIENCY (SUN) sical, common division recognizes five ba- ¿ TRANSITION OFFENCE sic positions and associated roles (1– a EFICIENCY (UTN) point guard, 2 – a shooting guard, 3 – a small forward, 4 – a power forward, 5 – a ¿ PLAYING MULTIPLE POSITIONS centre), it is important to determine the ON OFFENCE (IVPN). significance (weighting factors) of each Positions of players in the basketball criterion in the performance evaluation game regarding the particular position. Name- ly, each playing position (role) in a set de- Positions and roles assigned to players mands specific abilities, traits and skills in the basketball game are nowadays de- (motor knowledge) of players, hence the fined variedly. In general, basketball coa- level of their development and harmoni- ches preferably classify basketball play- ous interrelations indirectly dictate what ers into two groups: inside or post players tasks will be assigned to a particular pla- (positions 4 and 5) and outside or perime- yer2,10,16. From there arises a presump- ter players (positions 1, 2 and 3)9,18. Com- tion that the relative importance of cer- mon or traditional division into guards tain criteria will vary across positions in (positions 1 and 2), forwards (position 3) the game. Therefore the establishment and centers (positions 4 and 5), more pre- and operationalization of the functional cisely into: position 1 – play maker or model of criteria for the individual perfor- point guard; position 2 – off guard or mance or actual quality evaluation re- shooting guard; position 3 – small for- garding the playing positions on defense ward; position 4 – power or big forward; and offense was conncted with the notion and position 5 – center, is mostly often of the expert system evaluation. The rela- used as the basic distribution or position- tionships/ correlations among criteria ing of players on the court (set of posi- were determined and hierarchical struc- tions, both the offensive and defensive) ture and weighting factors for each crite- determined by particular game tactics8,10. rion per positions established on the ba- Term swingman type player represents sis of the subjective expertise and asses- the notion of players who are able to ful- sment of eminent basketball profession- fill the play requirements of two positions als. (positions 1 & 2,2&3,3&4,and4&5). Besides, one could differ among players from the aspect of roles they assume in Basketball experts the game (e.g. a shooter, rebounder, pas- ser, blocker or others). That is mostly be- Persons regarded as basketball ex- cause tactics is easily represented by the perts in this research were expert players role and tasks assignements to a particu- and expert coaches who had to pertain to lar player within the frame of certain con- a team (national or club) that had won: cept of play, as well as by the regulated • a medal at the European or World sequence of organised actions in all the Championships or at the Olympic Ga- phases of the game. Recently, classifica- mes; tions of players into inside and outside • the first place in one of the European players or players specialists and poly- club competitions (Club Championship valent/versatile players are used most of- Cup/ Champions League, Cup Winners ten. From the abovementioned it is obvi- Cup or the Radivoj Kora~ Cup); ous that experts name individual players on a certain position by the assumed roles. • National Championship.

222 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234

Data acquisition and processing ¿ for defense: methods 5positions matrices of the type 7criteria ´ 10judges Coefficients of importance by positions ¿ for offense: in the game for the particular items 5positions matrices of the type within the defined set of criteria for the 12criteria ´ 10judges situation-related efficiency/ performance of basketball players on defense and of- The third step – Vectors of arithmetic fense (it will be refered to only as criteria means and standard deviations of the im- in further text) were determined by portance coefficients for each position in means of the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy the game were then computed from the Process) method for the multicriterial de- obtained matrices (5 vector for defense cision-making by T.L. Saaty17. Applica- and 5 for offense). tion of the AHP method was executed The fourth step – Vectors of the arith- through several steps: metic means of the coefficients of importance were then rescaled in the manner The first step – Every basketball ex- that their sum equaled one. pert evaluated importance of each criterion by comparing it with the other ones Reliability of the established impor- in pairs and registrating the relative im- tance coefficients (weights) of the perfor- portance for a particular position in the mance criteria for each position in the game (thus each criterion was compared game was determined by computing: to all others on the subset of defense or of- • correlation means of judges (RMS – fense – for example, if the criterion »A« is rank means scores) agreement, twice as important as the criterion »B«, • Cronbach's reliability coefficient (a ). then in the matrix of pairwise compari- sons value 2 was assigned at the position AB, while 2 was assigned at the position Results and Discussion BA). Thus each basketball expert (in further text judge) produced a square recip- Tables 1 and 3 present arithmetic means rocal matrix of grades for each position in (A.S.) and standard deviations (S.D.) of the game, that is for each position on de- grades, obtained from 10 basketball ex- fense ten square reciprocal matrices (the pert coaches or players, for the relative number of judges was 10) were generated importance of 7 criteria for defensive and and the same was done for the positions 12 criteria for offensive performance eval- on offense. In total, judges produced 50 uation with regard to the particular posi- square reciprocal matrices (number of po- tions in the game. Cronbach's measure of sitions was 5) for defense and 50 square reliability or objectivity (alpha) ranges reciprocal matrices for offense. from 0.91 to 0.98, indicating a high degree of agreement among judges. The The second step – Vectors of the coeffi- lowest degree of agreement in experts cients of importance were then computed opinions was obtained when the position from each matrix by employing the geo- 3 – forward was regarded. The result is metric mean method (GMM). In that way expected and sensible since players who one vector of the coefficient of importance primarily play at that position assume for each criterion was obtained from ev- multiple roles, meaning that they execute ery one judge and the coefficients of im- both the inside and the outside game portance matrix was formed for each po- tasks and jobs during all the phases of sition in the game: the game. On defense, for example, a

223 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234 player at the position 3 – forward must be different roles in the game should be able to control successfully the opposing prominent feature of their performance both the post and perimeter players and quality. These characteristics played a must be a good rebounder at the same role of hindering factor in expertise deter- time. Since forwards frequently change mination of the criteria relative impor- their playing zones (perimeter or post tance for the forwards' performance eval- space), the high level of adaptability to uation.

TABLE 1 ARITHMETIC MEANS (AS) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) OF THE GRADES GIVEN BY TEN EX- PERT JUDGES FOR THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF 7 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE PERFOR- MANCE ON DEFENSE PER EACH POSITION IN THE GAME, AS WELL AS THE CORRELATION MEANS OF JUDGES (RMS) AND CRONBACH'S ALPHA (a )

AS_1 SD_1 AS_2 SD_2 AS_3 SD_3 AS_4 SD_4 AS_5 SD_5 RPO 0.243 0.030 0.209 0.027 0.174 0.029 0.170 0.049 0.138 0.055 PO 0.156 0.017 0.161 0.014 0.145 0.011 0.159 0.028 0.171 0.037 BŠ 0.062 0.014 0.073 0.027 0.080 0.020 0.105 0.038 0.142 0.033 OL 0.179 0.025 0.163 0.027 0.134 0.028 0.101 0.026 0.099 0.022 SUO 0.094 0.024 0.115 0.029 0.168 0.040 0.242 0.043 0.257 0.034 UTO 0.170 0.034 0.165 0.031 0.167 0.030 0.138 0.031 0.112 0.030 IVPO 0.096 0.019 0.114 0.034 0.132 0.032 0.111 0.032 0.081 0.022 RMS 0.89 0.77 0.57 0.74 0.75 a 0.98 0.96 0.91 0.95 0.96

0.300 P1 P2 P3 0.250 P4 P5

0.200

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000 RPO PO BŠ OL SUO UTO IVPO Fig. 1. Arithmetic means of the seven criteria relative importance coefficients per positions for the performance evaluation of a basketball player on both the transition and set defense.

224 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234

TABLE 2 COMPARABLE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE COEFFICIENTS PER POSITIONS FOR THE DEFENSIVE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA OF PLAY

Criteria Position 1 – Position 2 – Position 3 – Position 4 – Position 5 – point guard shooting small for- power for- center guard ward ward Level of defensive Very high Very high Medium Medium Medium pressure importance importance importance importance importance Defensive help Low to me- Low to me- Low to me- Medium Medium dium im- dium im- dium im- importance importance portance portance portance Blocking shots Very low Very low Low impor- Low to me- Medium importance importance tance dium im- importance portance The ball possession Medium Medium Low to me- Low impor- Low impor- gained importance importance dium im- tance tance portance Defensive rebound- Very low Low impor- Medium Very high Very high ing efficiency importance tance importance importance importance Transition defense Medium to Medium to Medium to Low to me- Low to me- efficiency high impor- high impor- high impor- dium im- dium im- tance tance tance portance portance Playing multiple Low impor- Low impor- Medium Low to me- Low impor- positions on de- tance tance importance dium im- tance fense portance

Defensive performance evaluation These differences should be taken into ac- criteria count, despite the general opinion among experts that in modern basketball all Tables 1 and 2, as well as the Figure 1 players must be able to exert high defen- make it obvious that there exists similar- sive pressure in their primary playing ity of the relative importance of single cri- zones on both the transiton and set de- teria for the situation-related efficiency fense. assessment on both the transition and set The obtained results (Tables 1 and 2) defense between position 1 – play maker allow explicite description of the particu- (point guard) and position 2 – shooting lar playing positions on defense from the guard (guards), as well as between posi- criteria relative importance aspect. The tion 4 – power forward and position 5 – distinctions between them become appar- center (centers). The greatest differences ent as well. Namely, overall comprehen- of the criteria relative importance are ap- sion of the positions and roles signifi- parent between guards and centers in the cance is a foundation for the adequate following criteria: in favour of centers de- concept of play design. fensive rebounding efficiency and blocking shots, while in favour of guards level Position 1 – play maker (point guard) of defensive pressure, the ball possession – the level of defensive pressure has very gained and transition defense efficiency. high importance, transition defense effi-

225 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234 ciency has medium to high importance, the top, which results in steering the di- the ball possession gaining ability has rection and speed of the ball flow, slowing medium importance and defensive help down opponents' offense and prevention somewhat lower, playing multiple posi- of »easy points« by slowing down the ball tions on defens e(versatility) has low im- progress. He/she helps his/her team-ma- portance, and defensive rebounding effi- tes with timely communication in show- ciency and blocking shots have very low ing defensive signs, relaying coach's mes- importance. Therefore, based on the ob- sages to co-plyers stimulating the speed tained results, we can conclude that the of the defensive adjustment. main determinant of success of the players who play position 1 – play maker, is Position 2 – shooting guard – level of the level of defensive pressure that is evi- defensive pressure has very high impor- dent in his/her ability to exert and main- tance, transition defense efficiency has tain pressure on the opposing play maker medium to high importance, the ball pos- (point guard) with the goal to prevent session gaining has medium importance dribble penetration, to influence the di- and defensive help somewhat lower, abil- rection and speed of the dribbler and to ity to play multiple positions (versatility) reduce opponents' preferable attack con- and defensive rebounding efficiency have clusions and potential successful scores. low importance, while blocking shots has This player primarily plays on the top of very low importance. Consequently, main the first defensive line and sets the tone determinant of the shooting guard's de- for his/her teammates with his/her defen- fensive play is level of exertion and main- sive play, primarily defensive pressure. taining of the defensive pressure, as well. Also, he/she creates difficulties for oppo- This player usually guards opponents' nents' ball protection and control, bothers best shooter who as a rule gets screens in timely and precise passes, controls pass- succession to set him free. Therefore his/ ing lanes which results in reduction of of- her primary defensive role is to prevent fensive options for the opponents. Becau- his/her opponent from getting the ball at se they guard fast opposing plyers, the 45' angle to the basket or free throw line. players of such a profile should be the In transition defense, together with point fastest in situation solving. Very often guard, he/she is responsible to close the they are the best in the ball possession initial phase of opponents' fast break in gaining. On transition defense this player horizontal or vertical direction, to main- must prevent opposing point guard to tain defensive pressure and he/she is sec- dribble down the middle or by the side- ond in gaining the ball steals. The results line and, by doing this, prevent develop- show high similarity of players playing ment of opponents' transition game. We position 1 or 2. However, we can see that may say that these players are leaders of importance of defensive pressure crite- set and transition defense. Players play- rion is larger for the point than for the ing this position have to be the source of shooting guard. Defensive rebounding communication on defense and encourage and playing multiple positions on defense and help teammates adjust their position criteria are more important for the shoot- on defense. Therefore we can conclude ing guard since their opponents use more that point guard, due to his/her role in post up maneouvers on the transition or the game, is the key player in establish- set defense. That is understandable since ing organization of team's play and con- the shooting guards are taller than the trol of the intensity of play because he de- point guards. That allows them more chan- termines level of defensive pressure on ces in defensive rebounding and makes

226 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234 them more versatile players than the guards' one since he/she has to box out point guards. his/her assigned small forward who is usually second or third offensive reboun- Position 3 – small forwards – transi- der. Therefore, small forward makes both tion defense efficiency has medium to interior and perimeter plays which ma- high importance, level of defensive pres- kes him team's most versatile player. It is sure, playing multiple positions on de- no coincidence that many most valuable fense and defensive rebounding has me- players statistically are small forwards. dium importance, while the ball posses- For example, NBA's MVPs (most valu- sion gaining and ability to play defensive able players) are: 46.6% forwards, centers help somewhat lower and blocking shots 33.4% and 20% guards. (H. Brown, Nike has low importance. It can be seen from Euro Camp Barcelona, 1999 – personal the results obtained that position 3 play- communication). ers are situated between guards and post players in all criteria (in level of defensive Position 4 – power forward – defesive pressure criterion they are more similar rebounding efficiency has very high im- to the post players and in other criteria to portance, level of defensive pressure and the guards). The previous does not apply defensive help have medium importance, for playing multiple positions criterion playing multiple positions on defense, that is the most important for this posi- transition defense efficiency and blocking tion. So, it is obvious that the smallest shots somewhat lower, while the ball pos- variability of the criteria relative impor- session gaining has low importance. For tance to determine performance on tran- players playing positions 4 and 5 (center) sition and set defense is with small for- high similarity in defined criteria is ap- wards, which is understandable since parent. Nevertheless, importance of the they accomplish tasks both of the perime- transition defense efficiency and playing ter and inside players. Therefore, from multiple positions on defense criteria is the team point of view, it would be opti- higher for the position 4, while the crite- mal if this player can play perimeter and ria of defensive rebounding efficiency and interior defense since he/she can get the blocking shots are more important for the assignement to guard the opponents' best center position. So, power forwards cover shooter, or their most versatile player. larger court area by the range of moving Therefore, small forwards should have (between perimeter and interior) than both the perimeter and interior players' centers do, since they control opponents characteristics. On the set defense, they on the wings, corners and inside posi- prevent guard – forward and wing – post tions, and are also in control of team de- passing lanes, disturb opponent's outside fense. Power forward has to rebound suc- shot which requires good foot speed. On cessfully on defense as team's best or the other hand, they should be able to second best rebounder. play solid post defense which requires ad- Position 5 – center – defensive reboun- equate height, physical aggressiveness ding efficieny has very high importance, and absolute body strength in the contact level of defensive pressure, blocking shots play. On transition defense small forward and defensive help medium importance, and shooting guard have important role transition defense efficiency somewhat lo- in preventing wide development of fast wer, the ball possession gaining and play- break, denying pass along side line and, ing multiple positions (versatility) have by doing that, denying »easy points«. low importance. Centers are the tallest From the rebounding point of view his/ and the strongest players and therefore her role is more important than the most responsible for the team aspect of

227 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234 defense (control of the middle, defensive actions. This reduces offensive rebound- rebounding and shot blocking). With re- ing chances, opponents' ability to draw spect to his/her position on the back of de- fouls, which creates difficulties for the op- fense, center has to be »director« of de- ponent to set up transition defense. Many fense since he directs his/her teammates coaches consider their centers as most defensive play from the back. That is valuable players on transition and set de- manifested as timely communication, fense since they have many individual hedging, closing the passing lanes, timely and team responsibilities that are critical rotations after dribble penetration, deny- of successful team play. ing high percentage shot position to opposing center and denying the pass in »A« Offensive performance evaluation and »B« zones which marks the level of criteria defensive pressure on the post positions. Based on the results obtained (Tables We can conclude that the centers have 3 and 4) it is possible to describe explic- the most significant and demanding role itly particular positions in the game from in team defense since they have to be the the criteria importance aspect as well as toughest interior defenders, players who differences between them. protect their »teammates backs« and best Position 1 – point guard – ball control defensive rebounders. This is seen in es- and passing skills are of very high impor- tablishing help in the lane (stopping the tance, dribble penetration ability and of- opposing team, not just »his/her« defen- fensive transition are very important, sive assignment). So, centers control the free throws and drawing fouls have low to lane and by doing that they try to deny medium importance, posts scoring ability penetration to the basket and opponents' and playing without the ball are of low inside play, actually, high percentage shot importance, and setting solid screens, of-

TABLE 3 ARITHMETIC MEANS (AS) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) OF THE GRADES GIVEN BY TEN EXPERT JUDGES FOR THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF 12 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE PERFORMANCE ON OFFENSE PER EACH POSITION IN THE GAME, AS WELL AS THE CORRELA- TION MEANS OF JUDGES (RMS) AND CRONBACH'S ALPHA (a )

AS_1 SD_1 AS_2 SD_2 AS_3 SD_3 AS_4 SD_4 AS_5 SD_5 KL 0.124 0.019 0.066 0.021 0.056 0.024 0.050 0.020 0.057 0.023 VD 0.130 0.015 0.075 0.013 0.069 0.018 0.063 0.015 0.065 0.015 PL 0.112 0.013 0.113 0.013 0.103 0.012 0.091 0.021 0.105 0.027 ŠVP 0.115 0.017 0.133 0.013 0.122 0.014 0.075 0.030 0.046 0.020 ŠUP 0.063 0.021 0.074 0.027 0.091 0.021 0.119 0.016 0.128 0.021 SB 0.075 0.017 0.092 0.026 0.077 0.015 0.093 0.027 0.102 0.025 IOP 0.075 0.016 0.086 0.028 0.085 0.024 0.087 0.021 0.097 0.022 PUB 0.044 0.009 0.045 0.009 0.056 0.016 0.095 0.029 0.100 0.026 NBL 0.067 0.007 0.101 0.017 0.091 0.020 0.064 0.010 0.068 0.014 SUN 0.037 0.006 0.045 0.014 0.082 0.013 0.124 0.020 0.134 0.024 UTN 0.104 0.018 0.109 0.019 0.096 0.027 0.070 0.019 0.050 0.014 IVP 0.053 0.009 0.062 0.020 0.072 0.023 0.069 0.025 0.048 0.018 RMS 0.85 0.77 0.59 0.76 0.78 a 0.98 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.97

228 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234

0.14 P_1 P_2 P_3 0.12 P_4 P_5

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02 KL VD PL ŠVP ŠUP SB IOP PUB NBL SUN UTN IVP Fig. 2. Arithmetic means of the twelve criteria relative importance coefficients per positions for the performance evaluation of a basketball player on both the transition and set offense. fensive rebounding and playing multiple tion, while we cannot expect him to set positions (versatility) are rated very low. solid screens or play multiple positions on Based on the results we can conclude that offense. Therefore, players playing ball control is a primary determinant of this/her position have to concentrate on the point guard's success in the game, their responsibility to organize the of- which is manifested in his/her ability to fense and control the ball. get the ball from defense to offense rap- Position 2 – shooting guard – outside idly and safely, dribbling or passing the shot is of very high importance, dribble ball to the open man. Since he plays on penetration ability, offensive transition the top of offense, he has to be able to and playing without the ball are very im- penetrate in 1on1 and 1 on 2 situations. portant, free throws and drawing fouls He also has to hit high percentage of have medium importance, ball control, shots from the outside to force the de- passing skills and post scoring ability are fense to «come up high« to pressure the of low to medium importance, playing ball and reduce defense's ability to help multiple positions (versatility) has low on other players. Finding solutions in of- importance and setting solid screens, offensive transition against various press- fensive rebounding are rated very low. ing defenses and to find different ways to This/her player has to be best outside finish the play marks this/her position. shooter and be able to score in 1 on1 and This/her all points out that basic tasks of 1 on 2 dribble penetration. Also, shooting the point guard is to control the ball, pass guard has to run fast break and beat the the ball on time to the man in best posi- opponents down the floor and realize that

229 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234

TABLE 4 COMPARABLE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE COEFFICIENTS PER POSITIONS FOR THE OFFENSIVE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA OF PLAY

Criteria Position 1 – Position 2 – Position 3 – Position 4 – Position 5 – point guard shooting small power center guard forward forward The ball con- Very high Low to me- Low importance Very low im- Very low im- trol importance dium impor- portance portance tance Passing skills Very high Low to me- Low to medium Low impor- Low impor- importance dium impor- importance tance tance tance Dribble pene- High impor- High impor- High importance Medium to High impor- tration tance (facing tance (facing (with both the high importance (back to- the basket) the basket) face and back tance (back towards the bas- towards the bas- wards the basket) ket) ket) Outside shots High impor- Very high im- Very high im- Low to me- Very low im- tance portance portance dium impor- portance tance Inside shots Low impor- Low to me- Medium impor- Very high im- Very high im- tance dium importance portance portance tance Free throws Low to me- Medium im- Medium to high Medium to High impor- dium impor- portance importance high importance tance tance Drawing fouls Low to me- Medium im- Medium impor- Medium im- Medium to and 3-point dium impor- portance tance portance high impor- plays tance tance Efficiency of Very low im- Very low im- Low importance Medium to Visoka va`nost screening portance portance high importance Offense with- Low impor- High impor- Medium to high Low impor- Low impor- out the ball tance tance importance tance tance Offensive re- Very low im- Very low im- Medium impor- Very high im- Very high im- bounding effi- portance portance tance portance portance ciency Transition of- High impor- High impor- Medium to high Low to me- Very low im- fense efficiency tance tance importance dium impor- portance tance Playing multi- Very low im- Low impor- Low to medium Low to me- Very low im- ple positions portance tance importance dium impor- portance on offense tance

Notes ** The paper was produced within the scientific project »Models for identification and control of hindering factors in kinesiological activities (number 34006), granted by the Ministry of Sci- ence and Technology of the Republic of Croatia.

230 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234 advantage to get himself free to receive tween front and back line of offense. We the ball. Shooting guard has to be the cor- can conclude that small forward is in the nerstone of scoring in transition and set same time perimeter and interior player, offense, so he has to develop scoring hab- second and third offensive rebounder, its, confidence and will to score. outside shooter and a creator and the link between front and back line of offense. Position 3 – small forward – outside shot is of very high importance, dribble Position 4 – power forward – offensive penetration ability is very important, of- rebounding and post scoring is of very fensive transition, offense without ball high importance, dribble penetration abi- (playing without the balll on offense) and lity, setting solid screens and free throw free throws have medium to high impor- shooting have medium to high importan- tance, post scoring ability, drawing fouls ce, ability to draw fouls has medium im- and offensive rebounding ability have portance, low to medium importance out- medium importance, passing skills and side shot, offensive transition and play- playing multiple positions (versatility) ing multiple positions (versatility), play- are of low to medium importance, ball ing without ball and passing skills have control and setting solid screens are rated low importance, while ball control is of low. Small forward, along with shooting very low importance. guard is best outside shooter and he It is important for this/her player to be opens up the lane for his/her team's in- successful rebounder (best or second best side play. He has to be able to find the rebounder on the team) and to be able to best option in 1 on 1 and 1 on 2 play in the score inside. Power forward often shoots middle and along the baseline. He also in the crowd drawing large number of helps the guards beat the press. Small fouls, which emphasizes the importance forward must beat the defense down the of making high percentage of free throws. court in primary and secondary break Also, his/her role is to set solid screens for and play in post up situations success- outside shooters and cutting inside after fully, scoring and drawing fouls. This/her defensive maneuvers to offset the screen. player has to be skilled enough to play This/her player has to be able to draw without ball to »punish defensive posi- fouls and score on the drive (primarily tioning« by opening up inside or outside. with his/her back to the basket). Player As opposed to the guards, he must re- who plays this/her position must be able bound on offense, and what separates to hit open shots, not only inside, but also him from all other positions is his/her from outside as well. presence in fighting for short and long re- Position 5 – center – offensive rebounds due to his/her range of motion on bounding and post scoring is of very high the court. That allows small forward best importance, dribble penetration ability, position to get offensive rebound since the setting solid screens and free throw opponents primarily concentrate on clos- shooting have high importance, ability to ing the basket lanes to power forward draw fouls has medium to high impor- and center. Also, as opposed to the tance, low to medium importance playing guards, he must be able to play both in- without ball and passing skills have low side and outside positions, actually, play importance, while outside shot, offensive multiple positions which allows him to be transition and playing multiple positions the team's most valuable player and as (versatility), ball control is of very low im- such greatly influence team's success. portance. Position 5 player has the hard- Small forward has to make timely pass est assignments not only on defense, but into post and be a creator and the link be- on offense as well and those are: offensive

231 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234 rebounding, inside scoring, setting solid fense he dictates level of pressure due to screens, drawing fouls with additional his/her position on the court. free throw (3-point plays) as well as find- Shooting guard is team's best scorer ing right option in 1 on 1 and 1 on 2 situa- (outside shot and ball penetration) and tions with his/her back to the basket in most often second best ballhandler. De- the area 3m from the hoop. Considering fensively, he has to keep the pressure the fact that the center often shoots level up and avoid screens. As opposed to »squeezed« in the lane, and is fouled most the point guard, shooting guard must re- frequently, he should be high percentage bound better because his/her defensive free throw shooter. Like power forwards, assignment shoots more, so he/she has to centers are responsible for setting solid block him/her out. This player has to be screens and punishing opponents hedg- able to play defense on perimeter and in- ing. Center has to make timely and pre- side because shooting guard has more cise outlet pass while opening the fast post up maneuvers in transition and set break, get out of double teams by hitting offense. the open cutter and be able to pass across Small forward is similar to shooting the lane. guard (level of defensive pressure, transition defense), and what separates him Conclusions from the perimeter players is rebounding (second or third rebounder on a team). election of marquee players in modern basketball should be based on the set of Power forward and center are primar- criteria for the situation-related efficien- ily responsible for rebounding on offense cy evaluation, the quality of reaction in and defense, finishing up inside plays on game situations that are determined as offense and control of the lane on defense significantly important for a certain posi- (denying easy points by drive through the tion and role in the game1,2,5,6. Under- lane). Power forward, as opposed to cen- standing the relative importance of each ter position, has to be able to play defense of the mentioned criterion and recogni- on perimeter and inside (for example, tion of both the strong and weak points of switching on a pick and roll). each player's game is a precondition, not Center must be the best inside defen- only for assigning the place and role for a sive player (rebound on defense, help out player on a team, but to allow expert – on drives and be best shot – blocker) and coach as well to steer a player to what he the best inside scorer. can successfully accomplish within his/ It is obvious that for all positions in her authentic competitive abilities. the game level of defensive pressure and Results of this research show that the- ball penetration are of above average im- re is a high degree of agreement among portance. basketball experts about the importance We assume that, from the game situa- of mentioned criteria for the performance tion-related efficiency aspect, all basket- evaluation on both the defense and of- ball players will have to be apt in playing fense for each position on a team. Also, it together (co-operation), driving to the is possible to describe explicitly certain hoop facing and/or with the back to the position from the aspect of the criteria hoop, hitting free throws, rebounding on relative importance. defense, exerting defensive pressure in Differences and similarities can be ob- their playing area, transition defense and served for all positions. Point guard orga- offense, defending the screens and other nizes and controls offense, while on de- aspects of help defense2,5,10.

232 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234

To sum it up at the end, development within the concept of play and phases of of basketball game will presumably lead the game. to players who can play all positions on The above mentioned (Tables 1–4) un- the court, assuming various roles depend- derlines the importance of the structure ing on the phase of the game and their of the above average important criteria or place on the court. That is why the inside requirements a player must optimally players will be able to play outside and meet to be acceptably successful at a par- vice versa. We find it most valuable how ticular position. That means it is possible many critera a player can satisfy during to reduce the number of performance eva- particular phases of the game, and not luation criteria with no significant reduc- just which position he/she plays. There- tion in amount of information on the ac- fore, evaluation of players based on the tual quality of a player. Results suggest criteria of the situation-related efficiency various combinations of different com- in the context of the game is a foundation plex or multifacets authentic performan- for rational and organized selection of a ce quality features exist and they allow team, selection of adequate concept of for the most predictable prognosis of play and for the programming integrated whether a player is going to be successful training technology, primarily directed at or not. That, certainly, does not exhaust production of the marquee, top quality the vast domain of relevant researchable players. issues in the performance assessment of Based on the results of our research it an individual player. could be stated that a player who primar- It is important to point out in the con- ily plays certain position must, by all clusion that dynamics, complexity and means, satisfy the criteria that are of everchanging nature of the basketball ga- above average relative importance for the me are based on changes of the game position in question. This implies each rules, hence on innovations in skills and player should satisfy basic conditions and tactics. That further implies the relative possess primary and secondary skills and importance of the performance evalua- specials that allow him/her acceptable le- tion criteria per positions will be sub- vel of the situation-related efficiency at jected to changes as well. Since the cause- certain positions on the court. At present, and-effect sequence of the relationship only the most talented players are taught among the game rules, skills (techniques) to and trained for the versatile play. Nev- and tactics directly influences the selec- ertheless, it is important to stress that tion of players and game concepts, as well versatile players must have their original as teaching-learning process or training, or primary position on the court (despite permanent insight into it becomes con- polyvalent skills and tactics) that allows ditio sine qua non of the continuos prog- them to actualize and exploit optimally ress of players and teams in the elite bas- their abilities and strong sides entirely ketball.

REFERENCES

1. GREHAIGNE, J.-F., P. GODBOUT, Quest, 47 proach to player evaluation. In: KRAUSSE J. (Ed.): (1995) 490. — 2. TRNINI], S.: Analysis and teach- Coaching basketball. (Master Press, Indianapolis, ing-learning the basketball game. In Croat. (Vikta, 1994). — 5. TRNINI], S., A. PERICA, D. DIZDAR, Pula, 1996). — 3. ELBELL, E. R., F. ALLEN, Re- Coll. Antropol., 23 (1999) 707. — 6. GRÉHAIGNE, search Quaterly, 12 (1941) 538. — 4. SWALGIN, K., J.-F., D. BOUTHIER, P. GODBOUT, Journal of The basketball evaluation system: A scientific ap- Teaching in Physical Education, 16 (1997) 500. — 7.

233 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234

SWALGIN, K., Kinesiology, 30 (1998) 31. — 8. TR- njevanja nadarjenosti otrok za igranje košarke. In: NINI], S.: Structural analysis of knowledge in the Zbornik referatov na drugemu mednarodnem simpo- basketball game. Ph. D. Thesis. In Croat. (Faculty of ziju »Šport mladih«. (Ljubljana-Bled, 1993). — 15. Physical Education, Zagreb, 1995). — 9. WOOTEN, DE@MAN, B., F. ER^ULJ, Die Anwendbarkeit des M.: Coaching basketball successfully. (Leisure Press, Ekspertensystem-Modell zur Erfolgprognose junger Champaign, IL, 1992). — 10. TRNINI], S., D. DIZ- Basketballspieler. In: Zbornik referatov Mednarodne DAR, @. JAKLINOVI]-FRESSL, Kinesiology, 31 konference »Znanost v športnih igrah«. (Biala Podlas- (1999) 16. — 11. TRNINI], S., N. VISKI]-ŠTALEC, ka, Poland, 1995). — 16. DE@MAN, B., Kineziologija, J. ŠTALEC, D. DIZDAR, Z. BIRKI], Kineziologija, 27 28 (1996) 37. — 17. SAATY, T. L.: The Analytic Hier- (1995) 27. — 12. TRNINI], S., D. MILANOVI], D. archy Process. (Pittsburg, 1996). — 18. THOMPSON, DIZDAR, Leistungsport, 29 (1997) 29. — 13. DE@- J.: Inside players. In: KRAUSE J. (Ed.): Coaching MAN, B.: Ekspertensystem – Model zur Erfolgprog- basketball. (Masters Press, Indianapolis, 1994). nose der Spieler im Basketball. In: Proceedings of the 6th ICHPER – Europe Congress. (Praga, 1992). — 14.

DE@MAN, B., B. LESKOŠEK, Ekspertni sistem oce- S. Trnini}

Basketball Club »Cibona«, Zagreb, Croatia

PONDERIRANI SUSTAV KRITERIJA ZA PROCJENU SITUACIJSKE USPJEŠNOSTI IGRA^A PO POZICIJAMA U KOŠARKAŠKOJ IGRI

SA@ETAK

Na temelju ekspertne procjene deset eminentnih košarkaških stru~njaka, utvr|eni su koeficijenti va`nosti devetnaest kriterija za procjenu situacijske uspješnosti igra~a u obrani i napadu po pozicijama u košarkaškoj igri. Eksperti su pokazali visok stupanj slaganja (od 0,91 do 0,98) u procjeni va`nosti kriterija za sve pozicije u košarkaškoj igri. U skladu s dobivenim rezultatima eksplicitno su opisane pojedine pozicije u igri kao i usporedne sli~nosti i razlike izme|u njih. Kriteriji koji imaju natprosje~nu va`- nost za pojedinu poziciju u igri: Pozicija 1 – razina pritiska u obrani, uspješnost u tranzicijskoj obrani, kontrola lopte, vještina dodavanja, prodor s loptom i šut s vanjskih pozicija i uspješnost u tranzicijskom napadu. Pozicija 2 – razina pritiska u obrani, uspješnost u tranzicijskoj obrani, šut s vanjskih pozicija, prodor s loptom, napad bez lopte i uspješnost u tranzicijskom napadu. Pozicija 3- uspješnost u tranzicijskoj obrani, šut s vanjskih pozicija, prodor s loptom, napad bez lopte, slobodna bacanja i uspješnost u tranzicijskom napadu. Pozicija 4 – skaka~ka uspješnost u obrani i napadu, šut s unutarnjih pozicija, prodor s loptom, pravljenje uspješnih blokova i slobodna bacanja. Pozicija 5 – skaka~ka uspješnost u obrani i napadu, šut s unutarnjih pozicija, prodor s loptom, pravljenje uspješnih blokova, iznu|ivanje osobnih pogrešaka i realizacija te slobodna bacanja. Dobiveni rezultati mogu zna~ajno pomo}i košarkaškim stru~njacima u selekciji igra- ~a, planiranju i programiranju treninga te u vrednovanju transformacijskih efekata.

234 S. Trnini} and D. Dizdar: Performance Evaluation Criteria, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 1: 217–234

235