Strength is one of the key physiological performance attributes related to optimal on-court basketball performance. However, there is a lack of scientific literature studying how strength relates to shooting proficiency, as a key basketball skill capable of discriminating winning from losing game outcomes. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between maximal upper and lower body strength and free-throw, two-point, and three-point shooting accuracy. Ten males and seven females performed bench press and back squat one repetition maximum (1RM) and basketball shooting testing during two laboratory visits. The shooting protocol consisted of five sets of 15 free-throw, two-point, and three-point shots performed in sequential order. Each set was separated by a 30 min rest interval to minimize the influence of fatigue. Each subject attempted 225 shots, combining for a total of 3825 shots. The average free-throw, two-point, and three-point shooting accuracy for men were 74.5 ± 11.9, 68.4 ± 9.9, and 53.3 ± 14.9%, and for women 79.2 ± 11.2, 65.5 ± 8.4, and 51.2 ± 15.3%, respectively. The average bench press and back squat 1RM for men was 88.2 ± 18.6 and 117.0 ± 21.2 kg, and for women, 40.6 ± 7.5 and 66.9 ± 9.9 kg, respectively. The findings of the present study revealed no significant relationships between maximal upper and lower body strength and basketball shooting performance for both male and female participants. Neither bench press nor back squat 1RM was a good predictor of free-throw, two-point, and three-point shooting performance.

Shooting efficiency is one of the key performance parameters related to securing the desired game outcome at various levels of basketball competition, and it is largely influenced by the biomechanical adjustments incorporated during the preparatory and release phase of the shooting motion. Thus, the purpose of the present study was twofold: (a) to examine the differences in the kinematic characteristics between free-throw, two-point, and three-point shots, and (b) to examine the differences between shooters with excellent (≥80%) and good (<80%) levels of shooting proficiency. A total of 10 professional male basketball players performed 5 free-throw (4.57 m), two-point (5.18 m), and three-point (6.75 m) shots, combining for a total of 150 shots. A high-definition camera recording at 120 fps was used to capture the shooting motion from a sagittal point of view, and video analysis software was used to analyze the kinematic variables of interest. The findings of the present study reveal that the kinematic characteristics during the preparatory phase of the shooting motion remain unchanged between free-throw and two-point shots. Three-point shots required lower elbow positioning, influenced by greater knee and hip flexion when compared to free-throw and two-point shots. The release angle was notably lower for shots attempted beyond the three-point line but remained unchanged between the free-throw and two-point shooting motions. Release height and vertical displacement were significantly greater for two- and three-point shots when compared to free-throw shots, while no difference was observed between the two- and three-point shots. In addition, no significant differences in shooting kinematics were observed between those participants with excellent and good levels of shooting proficiency.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the repeatability of five algorithm-derived motion health screening scores (i.e., readiness, explosiveness, functionality, quality, and dysfunction) obtained from an innovative three-dimensional markerless motion capture system, composed of eight high-definition cameras recording at 60 fps. Thirteen females and six males performed two sets of three motion capture screenings, separated one week apart (six in total). The screenings consisted of 20 body movements performed in sequential order. Each screening within a testing session was separated by a 30 min rest interval to avoid the possible influence of fatigue. A trained research team member, facing the participant and standing outside of the camera capture range, was present to demonstrate each individual movement. The order in which motions were performed was identical across all participants. Repeated measures analysis of variance and intraclass correlation coefficients were used to examine statistically significant differences and measurement agreement across six testing sessions. The findings of the present study revealed no significant differences in algorithm-based motion health screening scores across multiple testing sessions. Moreover, excellent measurement reliability was found for readiness scores (ICC, 95% CI; 0.957, 0.914–0.980), good-to-excellent for functionality (0.905, 0.821–0.959) and explosiveness scores (0.906, 0.822–0.959), and moderate-to-excellent for dysfunction (0.829, 0.675–0.925) and quality scores (0.808, 0.635–0.915).

While being an integral part of both the offensive and defensive segments of the game, the biomechanical parameters of setting motions remain understudied in the scientific literature. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to examine differences in kinetic and kinematic characteristics between: (a) three types of setting motions (i.e., front, middle, back); (b) two types of setting approaches (i.e., stationary, step-in); and (c) proficient (PRO) and non-proficient (N-PRO) volleyball players. Twenty recreationally active females performed five stationary and five step-in setting approaches to Zone 4–2 in a randomized order. Uni-dimensional force plate sampling at 1000 Hz and high-definition camera recording at 30 fps were used to obtain kinetic and kinematic variables of interest. The total number of setting attempts performed by each subject was 30, accounting for a grand total of 600 attempts. PRO setters had less knee flexion, shoulder flexion, and ankle dorsiflexion at the initial concentric phase of the volleyball setting motion when compared to the N-PRO setters. Moreover, significantly greater peak concentric and landing forces, impulse, rate of force development, and vertical jump height were observed for PRO setters compared to N-PRO setters, while no significant differences were found between different setting targets and approaches.