The aim of this study was to compare external load, calculated by an accelerometer training load model, the number and intensity of accelerations and decelerations, and the acceleration:deceleration ratio between playing positions during basketball matches. Twelve elite male basketball players (mean±SD, age: 25.5±5.2 years; (range: 19-36 years); body height 201.4±8.6 cm; body mass: 98.4±12.6 kg) were monitored during two official matches. An accelerometer training load model and the number of accelerations and decelerations were used to assess physical demands imposed on basketball players. Magnitude-based inferences and effect sizes (ES) were used to assess possible differences between positions: point guards (PG), shooting guards (SG), small forwards (SF), power forwards (PF) and centers (C). Elite basketball players in all positions presented higher maximal decelerations than accelerations (ES=2.70 to 6.87) whereas the number of moderate accelerations were higher than the number of moderate decelerations (ES=0.54 to 3.12). Furthermore, the acceleration:deceleration ratio (>3 m∙s-2) was significantly lower in players on the perimeter (PG and SG) than in PF and C (ES=1.03 to 2.21). Finally, PF had the lowest total external load (ES=0.67 to 1.18). These data allow us to enlarge knowledge of the external demands in basketball matches and this information could be used in the planning of training programs

The aims of this study were (a) to compare players’ physical demands between different playing positions in elite U18 basketball games and (b) to identify different clusters of performance. Data were collected from 94 male subjects (age: 17.4 ± 0.7 years), competing in a Euroleague Basketball Tournament. Guards covered a greater relative distance than centres and forwards (small to moderate effect). Forwards and guards had more peak accelerations, high accelerations and high decelerations than centres (moderate to large effects). A cluster analysis allowed to classify all cases into three different groups (Lower, Medium and Higher activity demands), containing 37.4%, 52.8% and 9.8% of the cases, respectively. The high accelerations, high decelerations, peak accelerations and total distance covered were the variables that most contributed to classify the players into the new groups. The percentage of cases distributed in the clusters according to playing position, game type (worst vs worst, mixed opposition, best vs best) and team were different. Centres have lower physical demands specially related with the number of accelerations and decelerations at high intensity and the peak acceleration when compared with guards. Each team has a different activity profile, that does not seem to influence the tournament outcome.

The aim of this study was to describe the physical demands during U18 elite basketball games according to the game quarter and to identify a smaller subset of variables and threshold scores that distinguish players’ physical performance in each quarter. Data was collected from ninety-four players who participated in the study (age: 17.4 ± 0.74 years; height: 199.0 ± 0.1 cm; body mass: 87.1 ± 13.1 kg) competing in the Euroleague Basketball Next Generation Tournament. Players’ movements during the games were measured using a portable local positioning system (LPS) (WIMU PRO®, Realtrack Systems SL, Almería, Spain) and included relative distance (total distance / playing duration), relative distance in established speed zones, high-intensity running (18.1–24.0 km·h-1) and sprinting (> 24.1 km·h^-1). player load, peak speed (km·h^-1) and peak acceleration (m·s^-2) number of total accelerations and total decelerations, high intensity accelerations (> 2 m·s^-2) and decelerations (< -2 m·s^-2). There was an overall decrease in distance covered, player load, number of high intensity accelerations and decelerations between the first and last quarter of the games in all playing positions. A classification tree analysis showed that the first quarter had much influence of distance covered (above 69.0 meters), distance covered 2 m·s^-2), whereas the fourth quarter performance had much influence of distance covered (below 69.0) and distance covered 12.1–18.0 km·h^-1. A significant reduction in physical demands occurs during basketball, especially between first and last quarter for players in all playing positions during basketball games of under 18 elite players.

Vazquez-Guerrero, J, Reche, X, Cos, F, Casamichana, D, and Sampaio, J. Changes in external load when modifying rules of 5-on- 5 scrimmage situations in elite basketball. J Strength Cond Res 34(11): 3217–3224, 2020—Constraining tasks are very frequent during the team sports training process; however, most of the effects of these coaching decisions are unknown, which leads to less controlled performing environments, with less chances to promote improvements. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of modifying rules of 5-a-side scrimmage on the physical performance of professional basketball players. Data were collected from 12 elite male players (age, 29.6 ± 4.5 years; height, 1.99 ± 9.6 cm; body mass, 92.1 ± 11.9 kg) from the Spanish first Division of Basketball during thirty-three 5-on-5 scrimmage situations over a 18-week period. Physical demands were assessed using WIMU PRO Local Positioning System (Realtrack Systems, Almeria, Spain) and included total and speed-ranged distance covered, player load, peak speed, number of high-intensity actions, number of total and high-intensity accelerations and decelerations, and peak acceleration. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to test the differences in all variables, considering playing in half-court (HALF), half-court and transition (HTRAN), and full-court (FULL) conditions for the 5-on-5 scrimmage drill. Results showed that during the HALF condition, there was less distance covered (effect size [ES] = 3.55), lower peak speeds (ES = 3.00), less player load (ES = 2.79), lesser number of high-intensity actions (ES = 1.45), and lesser number of high-intensity accelerations (ES = 1.44) and decelerations (ES = 1.31) than in FULL. In HTRAN, players covered more distance (ES = 2.42), presented higher player load (ES = 1.88), higher intensity actions (ES = 1.02), and peak speed (ES = 4.22) than in HALF. In conclusion, physical demands can be modulated changing the rules and court size using 5-on-5 scrimmage situations, and this factor should be taken into account when designing training drills and when fine-tuning periodization.

The main purpose of this study was to describe the most demanding scenarios of match play in basketball through a number of physical demand measures (high-intensity accelerations and decelerations, relative distance covered, and relative distance covered in established speed zones) for four different rolling average time epochs (30, 60, 180, and 300 s) during an official international tournament. A secondary purpose was to identify whether there were significant differences in physical demand measures among playing positions (centers, guards, and forwards) and levels (two best classified teams in the tournament and remaining teams), match scoring (winning, losing, and drawing), and playing periods (match quarter) at the moment of the most demanding scenarios. Data were collected from 94 male under 18 (U18) elite basketball players (age: 17.4 ± 0.7 years; stature: 199.0 ± 11.9 cm; body mass: 87.1 ± 13.1 kg) competing in a Euroleague Basketball Tournament. Measures were compared via a Bayesian inference analysis. The results revealed the presence of position-related differences [Bayesian factor (BF) > 10 (at least strong evidence) and standardized effect size (δ) > 0.6 (at least moderate)] so that centers covered a lower relative distance at speed zone 1 and had lower high-intensity accelerations and decelerations than guards. However, the Bayesian analysis did not demonstrate the existence of significant differences in any physical demand measure in relation to the playing level, match scoring, and playing periods at the moment of the most demanding scenarios. Therefore, this study provides coaches and strength and conditioning specialists with a most demanding scenario reference on physical demands that can be used as an upper limit threshold in the training and rehabilitation monitoring processes.