The purpose of the present study was to assess pre-post practice changes in countermovement vertical jump (CVJ) force-time metrics and to determine the relationship between internal and external load variables within a cohort of professional male volleyball players. Ten elite athletes competing in one of the top professional European leagues participated in the present study. While standing on a uni-axial force plate, each athlete performed three CVJs immediately prior to the regular training session. Each athlete wore an inertial measurement unit (Vert^TM) through an entire practice from which the following external load metrics were obtained: Stress (i.e., an algorithm-derived metric used to quantify the percentage of high-impact movements), Jumps (i.e., the total number of jumps performed during the practice session), and Active Minutes (i.e., the total amount of time performing dynamic movements). Immediately post-practice, each athlete completed another set of three CVJs and reported their subjective measure of internal load using a Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale (Borg CR-10). While no statistically significant differences were observed in any of the force-time metrics examined in the present study pre-post practice (e.g., eccentric and concentric peak and mean force and power, vertical jump height, contraction time, countermovement depth), our findings indicate a strong positive association between RPE and Stress (r = 0.713) and RPE and Jumps (r = 0.671). However, a weak non-statistically significant correlation was observed between RPE and Active Minutes (r = −0.038), indicating that internal load seems to be more dependent on the intensity rather than the duration of the training session for this sport.

Although different strategies have been implemented to manage recovery-fatigue status in athletes, there is still a lack of consensus on which recovery protocols have the greatest impact and effectiveness when implemented with basketball players, including both physiological and psychological recovery methods. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review is to: (a) determine which recovery methods attain the greatest benefit in restoring the process of attenuating fatigue and (b) provide sports practitioners with guidelines on how some of the most effective recovery strategies can be used to optimize athletes’ recovery and ultimately enhance their performance. Using the PRISMA guidelines, a total of 3931 research reports were obtained through four database searches (i.e., PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science), from which only 25 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The recovery protocols analyzed in this systematic review were: sleep, nutrition, hydration, ergogenic aids, cold-water immersion, compression garments, massage, acupuncture, tapering, mindfulness, and red-light irradiation. The results revealed that all recovery strategies are capable of attenuating fatigue and enhancing recovery in basketball players to a certain degree. However, an individualized approach should be promoted, where a combination of proactive recovery modalities appears to result in the most rapid rates of recovery and athletes’ ability to maintain high-level performance. Recovery should be programmed as an integral component of training regimens. Also, cooperation and communication between coaches, players, and the rest of the team staff members are essential in minimizing the risk of non-functional overreaching or injury and optimizing basketball players’ on-court performance.

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.

Cabarkapa, DV, Cabarkapa, D, Philipp, NM, and Fry, AC. Competitive season-long changes in countermovement vertical jump force-time metrics in female volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res 38(2): e72–e77, 2024—Although force plates remain one of the most widely used tools for neuromuscular performance assessment in applied sports-specific settings, there is still a lack of scientific literature focused on studying changes in countermovement vertical jump (CVJ) performance in team sports such as volleyball, especially within the female athlete population. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to examine season-long neuromuscular performance changes in volleyball players. Eighteen National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics Division-I collegiate female athletes performed 3 maximal-effort CVJs while standing on a uniaxial force plate system sampling at 1,000 Hz at 5 different testing timepoints throughout a competitive season span (∼11 weeks). The testing sessions were separated 2–3 weeks apart and performed at the approximately same time of the day (12:00 hours). Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed that both concentric and eccentric force-time metrics remain relatively unchanged throughout a regular season span (e.g., concentric peak force and power, eccentric impulse and duration). However, the eccentric metrics such as peak and mean power and peak velocity displayed a slight improvement after a brief tapering period purposely implemented before the post-season competition to optimize the athlete's recovery (∼15, 18, and 14% increase, respectively). In addition, the outcome metrics such as vertical jump height and reactive strength index-modified did not display notable fluctuations across the competitive season span. These findings can help coaches, sports scientists, and strength and conditioning practitioners to obtain a deeper insight into collegiate female athletes' force-time characteristics that may aid with developing adequate training regimens targeted toward optimizing on-court performance.

The purpose of this study was to examine kinetic and kinematic characteristics of various types of 2-point and 3-point basketball shooting approaches and determine which variables have the greatest contribution in discriminating proficient (PRO) from non-proficient (N-PRO) shooters. While standing on a force plate, twenty-nine recreationally active males performed a total of 1740 shots by utilizing stationary and step-in shooting approaches. Two high-definition cameras were used to simultaneously capture kinematic parameters of shooting motions. The type of shooting approach showed as a non-influential factor. During the preparatory phase of the shooting motion, PRO 2-point shooters demonstrated higher elbow and basketball height placements, greater flexion in the shoulder and elbow joints while attaining greater release and entry ball angles during the release phase. PRO 3-point shooters demonstrated greater elbow flexion, higher basketball placement, and less hip flexion during the preparatory phase while attaining greater heel, release, and trajectory heights during the release phase. When entered into a full-model discriminant function analysis, elbow angle, elbow height, and release angle variables correctly classified PRO from N-PRO 2-point shooters in 62.1% of cases and hip angle, heel height, and elbow angle variables correctly classified PRO from N-PRO 3-point shooters in 81.6% of cases.

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.