Ortega, E., Cárdenas, D., Sainz de Baranda, P. & Palao, J. M. (2006). Analysis of the final actions used in basketball during formative years according to player's position. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 50(4), 421­437. [Doc]

Title: Analysis of the final actions used in basketball during formative years according to player's position

Ortega, E. 1 ; Cárdenas, D. 2 ;Sainz de Baranda, P. 1 ; Palao, J.M. 1

1 Faculty of Health, Physical Activity and Sport Sciences ­ UCAM Murcia, Spain

2 Faculty of Health, Physical Activity and Sport Sciences – University of Granada, Spain

Address for correspondence:

Enrique Ortega Toro

Catholic University of St. Anthony

Faculty of Health, Physical Activity and Sport Sciences

Campus de Los Jerónimos

30107 Guadalupe (Murcia, Spain) e­mail: [email protected]

1 ANALYSIS OF THE FINAL ACTIONS USED IN BASKETBALL DURING FORMATIVE YEARS ACCORDING

TO PLAYER'S POSITION

Summary

The purpose of this study was to analyse and compare the way that players end their ball possessions during competition in formative years according to player position. One hundred eighty­four under­16 basketball players

(37 point­guards, 32 off­guards, 61 small­forwards, 21 power­forwards, and 36 centers) were analysed during 24 games. The analysed variables were: shots, passes, interceptions or steals, interruptions, violations, personal fouls received, personal fouls committed, jump balls, and other actions. The results show differences in the shot actions, as the point­guards and power­forwards shoot the most often and have the best percentage in two­point shots and free­throws. In three­points shots, the point­guards shoot the most often and have the best percentage. Also, differences between the point­guards and the rest of the player in the number of passes, steals and violations are found. The data show differences between point­guards and power­forwards with the rest of the players in the personal fouls received and the points made. These results show the use of play styles of senior teams in formation years, in which each player is specialised in specific actions. These results show the necessity of adapting game style and rules to the characteristics of the youth players and not vice­versa.

Key Words:

Match analysis

Basketball

Children

Player's position

Final actions

2 Introduction

Match analysis in basketball through observation has been a determinant step in gaining knowledge of the game.

This gives information to the coaches, players, etc. and removes subjective opinion (Hughes, 1996; Karipidis,

Fotinakis, Taxildaris & Fatouros, 2001). The rigours and scientific analysis permit two fundamental objectives: 1) improve knowledge of the game (Sampaio, 2002; Sampaio and Janeira, 2003); and 2) provide useful information to organise and design a teaching or training process (Hughes, 1996; Tsitskaris, Theoharopoulos, Galanis &

Nikopoulou, 2002). Match analysis helps to create adequate training methods and competition systems adapted to the players in their different formative phases.

Many studies have analyzed the average values of teams and described what happens in competition. These data allow planning and designing of tasks and sessions adapted to the competitive experiences. With respect to the analyzed population, most of these studies are done on professional and semi­professional teams (Brandão,

Janeira & Sampaio, 2002; Carlin, 1996; Chatterjee & Lehmann, 1997; Chatterjee & Yilmaz, 1999; Christoforidis,

Papadimitrou, Taxildaris, Aggelousis & Gourgoulis, 2000; Dizdar, Trninic & Milanovic, 1997; Fotinakis, Karipidis

& Taxildaris, 2002; Ibáñez, Sampaio, Sáenz­López, Giménez & Janeira, 2003; Ittenbach, 1995; Karipidis et al., 2001;

Lorenzo, Gómez and Sampaio, 2003; Papadimitriou, Taxildaris, Derri & Mantis, 1999; Perkins, 1999; Sampaio &

Janeira, 2003; Schmidt & Braun, 2004; Schwertman, Schenk & Holbrook, 1996; Taxildaris, et al. 2001; Tsamourtzis

& Athanasiou, 2004; Tsamourtzis, Salonikidis, Taxildaris & Mawromatis, 2002; Tsamourtzis & Taxildaris, 2001;

Tsitskaris et al., 2002; Turcoliver, 1997; Wardrop, 1998) while fewer number of studies on team in formative years are found (Almeida, 1999; Brandao, 1999; Cruz & Tavares, 1998; Ferreira, 2001; Kozar, Vaughn, Whitfield & Lord,

1994; Ortega, Sainz de Baranda & Palao, 2004; Swalgin, 1987; Tavares & Gomes, 2003).

Most of the indicated studies analysed the final actions from a collective perspective. A reduced number of studies differentiated actions of some of the specific player's positions (Papadimitriou et al., 1999; Taxildaris, et al., 2001) or analysed the differences between the specific player's positions (Brandão, Silva & Janeira, 2003;

Hajnal, 1990; Swalgin, 1987; Tsitskaris, et al., 2002). However, there are few studies in which the different variables are studied in formative years according to player's position.

Because of this, the objective of the present research was to analyse and compare the way that players end ball possessions during competition in formative years according to player's position. The purpose was to give reference values for planning practice and designing game style and competition systems adequate for the

3 characteristics of players in formative years.

Method

Sample

The sample was 184 male basketball players (37 point­guards, 32 off­guards, 59 forwards, 21 power­forwards and

35 centers) of 16 teams. The players had an average age of 15.6±0.2 years. The actions of the players were analysed in 3897 attack phases, corresponding to the 24 games of the men’s under­16 finals of the Championship of Andalusia (Spain).

Measures

The registered and analysed variables were: player position (point­guard, off­guard, forward, power­forward, and center) and final actions. The final actions were divided into the following categories: a) shots; b) passes; c) interceptions or steals; d) interruptions; e) violations (rules 17.3.1, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30); f) personal fouls received by the player with the ball; g) personal fouls committed by the player with the ball; h) jump balls; and i) other actions (rule 46.6, actions against the team with the ball but not against on the player with the ball, as such personal foul, technical or disqualifying, three seconds rule, 24 seconds rule, and beneficial action for the team that controls the ball not done by the player with the ball).

Observer training took place before data collection following the methodology described by Behar (1993). Four observers participated and had a minimum inter­observer reliability index of 0.95 (intraclass correlation coefficient and Kappa index).

Statistical Analysis

A descriptive analysis of the different variables was carried out. Then, to determine the differences between player positions, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), an univariate F­Test, and a multiple comparison

Hoc Scheffé (when assuming equal variance) and Dunnett´s T3 (when assuming in­equal variance) were done.

To compare the differences between averages of simple pairings the Repeated Measures Test was used.

Statistical significance was set at p<.05.

Results

Table 1 shows the differences in final action realised by position during the championship. In all cases, the pass

4 was the action most used to end the ball possession [F8,177=44.239, p<.001], followed by the shot, personal foul received, and steals. In the rest of the actions, differences in the final action related to player's position can be seen.

Table 1

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) showed that player's position had a significant effect on the final action. Pillais was statistically significant differences among players of different positions on the final action

[F32,700=2.565, p<.001]. The univariate F­Test showed statistically significant differences between the different positions in:

● Number of shot attempts [F4,179=2.356, p<.05]. Dunnett´s T3 multiple comparison tests showed

significant differences (p.<05) between two groups: the group formed by small forwards, power­forwards,

and off­guards; and the group formed by point­guards and centers. This last group made a higher number of

shots in competition.

● Number of passes made [F4,179=8.772, p<.001]. Dunnett´s T3 multiple comparison tests showed

significant differences between the point­guards and the rest of the players (p<.01).

● Number of steals made [F4,179=10.437, p<.001]. Dunnett´s T3 multiple comparison tests showed

significant differences between the point­guards and the rest of the players (p<.01).

● Number of violations made [F4,179=3.987, p<.01]. Dunnett´s T3 multiple comparison tests showed

significant differences between the point­guards and the small­forwards (p<.01).

● Number of personal fouls received [F4,179=3.833, p<.01]. Dunnett´s T3 multiple comparison tests

showed significant differences between both point­guards and centers with the rest of players (p<.050).

Table 2

With respect to the shot type (free­throw, two­point, or three­point), table 2 shows the frequency and efficacy percentages of shot types taken. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) showed that the player's position had a significant effect on the shot action. Pillais was statistically significant differences among players of

5 different position on shot type [F9,171=77.033, p<.001].

In the two­point shot, the centers were the players that had both the highest number of attempts and successful shots. The univariate F­Test showed statistically significant differences between the different players in shot

attempts [F4,179=2.503, p<.05] and scored shots [F4,179=3.014, p<.01]. Scheffé´s multiple comparison tests showed significant differences in the number of shot attempts (p<.05) and scored shots (p<.05) between two groups of players: off­guards, small­forwards and power­forwards; and point­guards and centers.

In relation to the three­point shot, table 2 shows that point guards were the players that had the highest number of attempted and scored shots. The univariate F­Test showed statistically significant differences between the

different player positions in attempts shots [F4,179=7.109, p<.001], scored shot [F4,179=5.927, p<.001] and the

efficacy percentage [F4,179=3.724, p<.01]. The Dunnett´s T3 multiple comparison tests showed significant differences en:

● Number of shot attempts between the point guards and the power forwards (p<.05), between the

centers and the point guards (p<.001) and between the off guards and the small forwards (p<.001).

● Number of scored shots between the point guards and the centers (p<.01), and between the small

forwards and the centers (p<.001).

● Efficacy percentage between the point guards and centers (p<.001) and between small forwards and

centers (p<.01).

Concerning free­throws, the centers were the players that had the most attempts and scored shots, but point guards obtained better efficacy percentage. However, these values do not present statistical differences between

the different players [F4,179=1.892, 1.835, 1.291, p>.05].

With respect to points scored (table 2), the point guards and the centers were the players that scored the most points by match. The univariate F­Test did not show statistically significant differences between the different

players [F4,179=2.257, p=.065], although approaching significance are observed.

DISCUSSION

In general, the differences observed between the final actions by player position show similar values to those of senior category basketball in which each player's position has a specific and delimited function in relation to their anthropometric characteristics (Papadimitrou et al., 1999; Salwin, 1987; Taxaldiris et al., 2001). The differences by

6 player position stand out in shots, interceptions, passes, violations, personal faults received and scored points.

With respect to shots, the data show that centers were the players who both took and scored the most two­point shots. These results are similar to the studies by Swalgin (1987) with Division I college players and Tsitskaris et al. (2002) with professional players. However, the results differ with the studies of Brandão et al. (2003) with under­16 players which found that small­forwards took more shots than centers although without significant differences.

The data of three­point shots show point­guards and off­guards are the players who both took and scored the most three­point shots. Also, significant differences between power forwards and centers were found. These results are similar to the findings of Brandão et al. (2003).

In the free throw, the centers were the players with the most shot attempts and shots made, probably because these players received more fouls while shooting. However the point guards are the players with the best efficacy percentage. The values found are very inferior to the values founds by Swalgin (1987) with Division I college players. In their study, the off guards were the players with the best percentage in free throws (71.4%), followed by the point guards (68.3%). On the other hand, Tsitskaris et al. (2002) observed in professional players that point guards were the players that shot the most free throws and had the best shooting percentage (75.2%).

They found significant differences in this action between point guards and centers (p<.007). Also, Brandão et al.

(2003) found that the players that scored the most free throws were the small forwards, while the point guards presented better efficacy percentage in male under­16 players. However, lower efficacy values in free throws were found in the present study; therefore, coaches must increase the number of specific free throw exercises. To correct this low percentage, an adequate number of repetitions looking to reach certain efficacy goals under game­like conditions should be carried out. An increase in efficacy percentage of free throws will be directly reflected in the final score (Kozar, Vaughn, Whitfield, Lord y Die, 1994; Oletzke, 2004; Sampaio and Janeira, 2003).

Therefore, with the exception of the free­throw, shots are perfectly delimited by player position as the centers took the shots closest to the basket and the point guards took shots farthest from the basket. This is similar to findings in studies done with the senior category (Papadimitrou et al., 1999; Tsitkaris et al., 2002; Swalgin, 1987).

This shows an early specialisation of the player probably because the coaches copy the game styles used by senior teams. These styles use one or two specialist players in shots farthest from the basket to end the attack.

This early specialisation limits the formative process in the youth player because they practice a limited variety of shot types which also reduces the number of variety of experiences.

7 With respect to the action of passing (83.38% of the total of final actions), with a team average of 256.06±43.48 passes in each game, there are statistical differences between point­guards and the rest of the player positions.

These results show the tendency in the game that the point­guard, after passing, receives the ball again and repeating the action. The centralisation of the game in one player, from a performance perspective, provokes a reduction of the game speed and predictable dynamic of the defensive team. In turn, this provokes less imbalance and therefore higher difficulty of the offence. From a formation perspective, this centralisation of the game provokes important limitations on the rest of the players who have a reduced number of competitive experiences of the important technical­tactical skills of the pass and reception (American Sport Education Program, 2001;

Buschner, 2003; Chamness, 2000; Faucher, 2001; Gallahue, 2003; Graham, 2001; Grawer & Rains, 2003; Gutman &

Finnegan, 2003; Hanlon, 2005; Martínez & Feu, 2003; McCarthy, 1996; Paye & Paye, 2001; Phelps, 1999).

In relation to the interceptions and violations, statistical significant differences between the point­guard and the rest of the players were observed. This could be because the point­guard is the player that has more possession of the ball and they transport it from defence to offence (Taxildaris et al., 2001), so they have more opportunity to lose it. The majority of the authors (American Sport Education Program, 2001; Buschner, 2003; Chamness, 2000;

Faucher, 2001; Gallahue, 2003; Graham, 2001; Grawer & Rains, 2003; Gutman & Finnegan, 2003; Hanlon, 2005) propose "dynamic game styles" as the ideal game styles for formation years. These styles are centred in trying to create continuous imbalance with continuous movement of the different players and a high number of passes between them.

The personal fouls received are another of the aspects usually analysed in the studies of basketball match analysis, and in some studies it is considered one of the determinant criteria correlated to winning (Brandão et al.,

2002; Fotinakis et al., 2002; Sampaio & Janeira, 2003; Tavares & Gomes, 2003; Tsamourtzis et al., 2003). Along these lines, the average number of personal fouls received by each team was 17.77±2.92 per game. These values are lower than those found by Fierro (2002), Karipidis et al. (2001), Lorenzo et al. (2003), and Ibáñez et al. (2003) in professional teams. This lesser number of personal fouls may be possible because the defence is less aggressive and the team in attack has less control of the game. Also, it could be due at least in part to referee standards in this level of competition.

Further, it is possible that since the efficacy percentage of the free­throw is not excessively high, players on offence do not consider it effective to get a personal foul because they don't know if they are going to make the

8 free­throw. Coaches must transmit to their players that drawing personal fouls, in addition to allowing them free throw shots, also limits the opponent's opportunities via player elimination, reducing the possibility for their use of aggressive defence, etc. Therefore, the equality of the teams in professional competitions, for example,

(European and World Championships, Olympic Games, NBA, etc.) triggers the use of personal fouls in the last minutes by the team that is behind.

From an individual perspective, receiving a personal foul is a consequence of the inability of the defender to control the offensive player, so the higher number of personal fouls received the higher number of problems created by this player. Specifically, statistically significant differences between the point­guard and the center with the rest of the player positions are observed.

The point­guard receives a lot of personal fouls because they have more possession of the ball, and the centers receive a lot of personal fouls because they have possession close to the basket and have more opportunities to score. Both aspects are common in specialisation of the game style in senior categories.

On a theoretical level, many authors say that it is obvious that the teams in formative years should have fast, dynamic and semi­free game styles without specific positions established. All players should be receiving the ball close to the basket, as well as have ball possession a minimum amount of time to be able to provoke imbalance for the opponents. This denies the defensive team the ability to focus their action on one player; instead, they have to split their attention between all players, which facilitates the play of the offence increasing the points scored and the personal fouls received.

Finally, there are the scored points. The average of 67.65 points scored per game is similar to the 64.59±14.94 points found in the study with male under­16 players done by Ferreira (2001). Both studies have found inferior values to that registered by higher categories (Fierro, 2002; Ibáñez et al. 2003; Tavares & Gomez, 2003; Sampaio &

Janeira, 2003). To this low number of scored points were add the indices of statistically significant differences between point­guards and centers and the rest of the players, so there is a reduction in the number of players that scored points.

There are a lot of authors that indicate the necessity to make modifications in the rules to facilitate the achievement, in this case the scored shot (Cárdenas, Piñar & Baquero, 2001; Esper, 1998; Giménez &

Sáenz­López, 1999; Husak, Poto & Stein, 1986; Ortega, Sainz de Baranda & Palao, 2004; Silva, Joseph & Kalley,

1988), as the scored shot is the game action that produces the most satisfaction to the young player. Some of these proposals are to bring the free­throw and three­point lines closer and to eliminate the possibility of

9 defending in zone or with covering.

The differences in the final actions between positions show a tendency toward early specialisation against the polyvalent and multi­modal development in formative years, where players specialise only in certain aspects of the game. This early specialisation does not allow the player the possibility to acquire a global knowledge of the game, nor does it allow a great amount of competitive experiences that allow them to resolve the infinite problems in different ways. In addition to this high specialisation, the high centralisation of the end actions in two players also should be added: the point guard (skilful player) and the power forward (strong player). This centralisation contributes to the formation process of the point guards, but in detriment to the formation process of the rest of the players. Besides, the point guard does not fulfil his/her role to create opportunities for other players which reduces their opportunities to have competitive experiences of terminal actions.

These results show that in formative years, instead of the game being adapted to the players, the players are adapted to the game. This mis­adaptation can be observed in two ways. First of all, the data show that coaches propose game styles suitable to senior categories, and second, the rules of the competition are not adapted to the characteristics of youth players, so the same rules of senior category are used.

In this sense, we believe that it is necessary to use adapted game styles and rules so that the youth players can have a polyvalent and multi­modal development and enough amount of practice, as well as the possibility to acquire competitive experiences through a variety of actions in different player positions.

TABLES

Table 1. Average of final actions realised by position and by game. Average of final actions Position Sh P St IR V FPR PFTD JB Other actions Point­guards (n=37) 8.19 35.83 2.40 1.09 0.88 2.19 0.11 0.20 0.47 Off­guards (n=32) 5.53 24.27 1.22 0.59 0.58 1.27 0.06 0.05 0.23 Small­forwards (n=59) 5.05 16.06 0.95 0.40 0.33 1.07 0.06 0.05 0.19 Power­forwards 5.28 18.56 1.18 0.39 0.48 1.42 0.04 0.06 0.10 (n=21) Centers (n=35) 6.82 17.37 0.75 0.69 0.45 1.88 0.13 0.17 0.17 TOTAL (n=184) 6.13 22.00 1.28 0.63 0.52 1.52 0.08 0.10 0.24 Legend: Sh=Shot, P=Pass, St=Steal, IR=Interruption, V=Violation, PFR=Personal Foul 10 Received, PFTD= Personal, Technical or Disqualifying Foul committed, JB=Jump ball.

Table 2. Average frequency and efficacy percentages of shot types taken by position. Shot type Two­poi Three­poi Free­thro nt shot nt shot ws Position Att. Sc % Sc Att. Sc % Sc Att. Sc % Sc Pts Sc Point­guards (n=37) 6.19 2.14 30.61 2.00 0.49 18.56 2.31 1.30 43.10 7.04 Off­guards (n=32) 4.13 1.65 32.05 1.41 0.32 13.12 1.70 0.66 32.78 4.91 Small­forwards (n=59) 4.28 1.68 34.02 0.78 0.16 12.18 1.57 0.85 35.46 4.75 Power­forwards 4.84 1.67 28.82 0.44 0.13 8.61 2.20 0.99 24.91 4.71 (n=21) Centers (n=35) 6.65 3.04 40.93 0.17 0.01 0.69 2.67 1.37 39.36 7.51 TOTAL (n=184) 5.15 2.02 33.71 0.98 0.22 11.03 2.02 1.02 36.07 5.76 Legend: Att= Attempted, Sc= Scored; % Sc = Percentage of shots scored; Pts Sc = Total points scored.

REFERENCES

Almeida, S. D. (1999). Análise quantitativa em Basquetebol no escalao de Cadetes Masculinos: um estudo centrado na identificaçao dos indicadores que decidem o desecho final dos jogos. UTAD, Oporto. American Sport Education Program. (2001). Coaching youth basketball­3rd Edition.

Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL. Behar, J. (1993). Sesgos del observador. In Metodología observacional en la investigación Psicológica.Vol 2: Fundamentación 2. PPU, (Edited by M.T. Anguera), Barcelona, pp.27­76. Brandao, E. (1999). A performance em basquetebol. Um estudo multivariado no escalao de cadetes masculinos. In Estudos 2. FCDEF­UP (Edited by F. Tavares), Oporto, pp. 103­117. Brandão, E., Janeira, M. and Sampaio, A.J. (2002). 6º Campeonato do Mundo de Júniores Masculinos de Basquetebol: a análise do sucesso realizada a

11 partir das estadística do jogo. Lecturas: Educación Física y Deportes, 45: 1­19.

Brandão, E., Silva, J.T. and Janeira, M. (2003). O lançamento no basquetebol portugues: Estudo comparativo do tipo e eficacia do lançamento em função do nível conpetitivo e da posição dos jugadores no jogo. In Propuestas para la mejora en el proceso de formación y en el rendimiento en baloncesto. COPEGRAF, S.L., (Edited By S.J. Ibáñez and M.M. Macias), Cáceres, pp.25­38. Buschner, C.A. (2003). Teaching children movement concepts and skills. Becoming a master teacher. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL. Cárdenas, D., Piñar, M. I. and Baquero, C. (2001). Minibasket: ¿un deporte adaptado a los niños?. Clinic.Revista Técnica de Baloncesto, 55: 4­11.

Carlin, B. (1996). Improved NCAA basketball tournaments modeling via point spread and team strength information. The American Statistician, 50: 39­43.

Chamness, D. (2000). A youth basketball coaching guide. San Jose CL, Writers Club Press. Chatterjee, S. and Lehmann, R.. (1997). Evolution of team sports: a case study for National Basketball Association. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20: 412­424.

Chatterjee, S. and Yilmaz, M. (1999). The NBA as an evolving multivariate system. The Amarican Statistician, 53: 257­262.

Christoforidis, C., Papadimitrou, K., Taxildaris, K, Aggelousis, N. and Gourgoulis, V. (2000). Evaluation of free shot contribution in winning a basketball game during European Championships. Exercise and Society Journal of Sports Science, 24: 68­72.

Cruz, J. and Tavares, F. (1998). Notational Analysis of the offensive patterns in cadet basketball teams. In Notational Analysis of Sport IV. Proceedings of the IV World Congress FCDEF­UP., (Edited by M. Hughes), Oporto, pp. 112­119. Dizdar, D., Trninic, S. and Milanovic, D. (1997). Determining basketball player types according to standard indicators of situation­related efficiency. Kinesiology, 29: 49­55.

Esper, P. (1998). Baloncesto formativo. PEDC Publicaciones, Buenos Aires.

12 Faucher, D. G. (2001). The baffled parent's guide to coaching youth basketball. Ragged Mountain Press/McGraw­Hill, Camden, Me. Ferreira, A.P. (2001). Observação multidimensional do lançamento. Uma análise comparativa entre os escalões de iniciados e cadetes. In Baloncesto Cuadernos Técnicos Monografia nº2. Wanceulen (Edited by S.J. Ibáñez), Sevilla, pp.17­24. Fierro, C. (2002). Variables relacionadas con el éxito deportivo en las ligas NBA y ACB de Baloncesto. Revista de Psicología del Deporte, 11: 247­255.

Fotinakis, P., Karipidis, A. and Taxildaris, K. (2002). Factors characterizing the transition game in European basketball. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 42: 305­316. Gallahue, D.L. (2003). Developmental physical education for all children. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL. Giménez, F.J. and Sáenz­López, P. (1999). Aspectos teóricos y prácticos de la iniciación al baloncesto. Diputación de Huelva, Huelva. Graham, G. (2001). Teaching children physical education: Becoming a master teacher. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL. Grawer, R. and Rains, S.P. (2003). Youth basketball skills and drills (2nd edition). Coaches Choice Books, Champaign, IL Gutman, B. and Finnegan, T. (2003). The complete idiot's guide to coaching youth basketball. Alpha, Indianapolis. Hajnal, L. (1990). Procena efikasnost trenaznog programa rada u kosarci. Casopic Za Fizicku Kultutu. Novi Sad, 2: 29­31. Hanlon, T. (2005). Absolute beginner's guide to coaching youth basketball. Alpha Books Que, Indianapolis, IN. Hughes, M.D. (1996). Notational analysis. In Science and Soccer

13 E. & F.N. Spon (Edited by T. Reilly), London, pp. 343­361. Husak, W.S., Poto, C. and Stein, G. (1986). The women’s smaller basketball. It’s influence on performance and attitude. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 57: 18­26.

Ibáñez, S. J., Sampaio, J., Sáenz­López, P., Jiménez, J. and Janeira, M. A. (2003). Game statistics discriminating the final outcome of junior world basketball championship matches (Portugal 1999). Journal of Human Movement Studies, 74: 1­19.

Ittenbach, I. (1995). Utility of team indices for predicting end of season ranking in two national pools. Journal of Sport Behavior, 18: 216­224.

Karipidis, A., Fotinakis, P., Taxildaris, K. and Fatouros, J. (2001). Factors characterizing a successful performance in basketball. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 41: 385­397.

Kozar, B., Vaughn, E., Whitfield, E. and Lord, H. (1994). Importance of free­throws at various stages of basketball games. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78: 243­248.

Martínez, B. and Feu, S. (2003). Tendencias de pase en el baloncesto actual: el pase seguro vs. el pase de riesgo. In Propuestas para la mejora en el proceso de formación y en el rendimiento en baloncesto. COPEGRAF, S.L.,, (Edited by S.J. Ibáñez and M.M. Macias), Cáceres, pp. 22­38. McCarthy, J. P. (1996). Coaching youth basketball: the guide for coaches and parents. Betterway Books, Cincinnati, Ohio. Ortega, E., Sainz de Baranda, P. and Palao, J.M. (2004). Differences between winning and losing teams in basketball games in formation years (14­16 years old). In Performance Analysis of Sport VI. University of Wales (Edited by P. O´Donoghue and M. Hughes), Cardiff, pp.156­167. Oletzke, C. J. (2004). Free throw affects on winning percentage in the 2003­2004 Northern Sun intercollegiate conference women` basketball season. Southwest Minnesota State University: Minnesota. Papadimitriou, K., Taxildaris, K., Derri, V. and Mantis, K. (1999). Profile of different level basketball centers. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 37: 87­105.

Paye, B. and Paye, P. (2001). Youth basketball drills. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.

14 Perkins, L. (1999). Evaluation of player performance. The basketball highway, 15:1­14. Phelps, R. (1999). Basketball for dummies. IDG Books Worldwide, Foster City, CA. Sampaio, J. (2002). Análise do jogo de basquetebol. Contributos para a intervençao do treinador nas sessoes de treino e na competiçao. In Novos Horizontes para o treino do básquetbol. FMH Ediciones (Edited by S. J. Ibáñez, y Macías, M). Cruz Quebrada, pp. 189­205. Sampaio, J. and Janeira, M. (2003). Statistical analyses of basketball team performance: understanding team's wins and losses according to a different index of ball possessions. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport., 3: 40­49.

Schmidt, G. J. and Braun, C. (2004). Entwiclung der Angriffs­ und Verteidigungstaktik im eurpäischen Spitzenbasketball. Leistungssport, 2: 32­35.

Schwertman, N., Schenk, K. and Holbrook, B. (1996). More probability models for the NCAA regional basketball tournaments. The American Statistician, 50: 34­38.

Silva, D., Joseph, S. and Kalley, R. (1988). Impact of three­point field goal areas rule on shooting in basketball. Scientific Journal, 11: 25­32.

Swalgin, K.L. (1987). A computer assisted quantitative analysis and evaluation system of individual basketball performance by position of play for Men’s Division I college basketball. Ohio State University, Ohio. Tavares, F. and Gomes, N. (2003). The offensive process in basketball ­ A study in high performance junior teams. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 1: 34­40.

Taxildaris, K., Papadimitrou, K., Alexopoulos, P., Fatouros, I.G., Kambas, A., Karipidis, A., Aggelousis, N. and Barbas, I. (2001). Factors characterizing the offensive game of the playmaker position in basketball. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 40: 405­421.

Tsamourtzis, E. and Athanasiou, N. (2004). Registration of rebound possession zones in basketball. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 4: 34­39.

15 Tsamourtzis, E., Filaktakidou, A. and Taxildaris, K. (2001). The role that the time of the offensive duration plays to the efficacy of a basketball team. Exercise & Society Journal of Sports Science., 27: 32­43.

Tsamourtzis, E., Salonikidis, K., Taxildaris, K. and Mawromatis, G. (2002). Technisch­taktische Merkmale von Siegern und Verlierern bei Herren basketball mannschaften. Leistungssport, 1: 54­58.

Tsitskaris, G., Theoharopoulos, D., Galanis, D. and Nikopoulou, M. (2002). Types of shots used at the Greek National Basketball Championship according to the division and position of players. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 42: 43­52.

Turcoliver, D. (1997). They say defense wins championships. Journal of Basketball Studies, 8:2­15.

Wardrop, R.L. (1998). Basketball. In Statistics in Sport Arnold (Edited by J. Bennett), London, pp.65­82.

16