Study of the defensive performance indicators in peak performance basketball

  1. Álvarez, Alejandro 1
  2. Ortega, Enrique 1
  3. Gómez, Miguel Ángel 2
  4. Salado, Jesús 3
  1. 1 Universidad Católica San Antonio
    info

    Universidad Católica San Antonio

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05b1rsv17

  2. 2 Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03n6nwv02

  3. 3 Unuversidad Católica San Antonio
Mostrar afiliacións +
Revista:
Revista de psicología del deporte

ISSN: 1132-239X,  1988-5636

Ano de publicación: 2009

Título do exemplar: Suplemento 1. Congreso Ibérico de Baloncesto

Volume: 18

Número: 3

Páxinas: 379-384

Tipo: Artigo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Revista de psicología del deporte

Resumo

The purpose of the present study was to analyze the different defensive performance indicators in basketball, analyzing the difference in relation to success (efficacious or non-efficacious defenses) and the game result (win or loss). All half-court offenses (n=1045) from the quarterfinal, semifinal, consolation game, and final of the 2008 Olympics Games were analyzed. In each defense phase, the following variables were analyzed with regard to the team on defense: (1) Type of defense used, (2) Pressure in offense transition, (3) Defensive switches, (4) Helping on defense, (5) Inside passes, (6) Degree of opposition when shooting, (7) Points allowed, (8) Final result of the game, and (9) Defensive efficacy. The most significant results show that: : a) the type of defense that was most used was quarter-court man-on-man at 6.25m (man-on-man at 6.25m), but the one that was most efficacious was the half-court zone defense; b) transition pressure was used in 23.83% of the game phases; c) defensive switches were done in 7.85% of the game phases; d) helping on defense was used in 60% of the game phases; e) inside passes were taken in 30.9% of the game phases; f) 38.9% of the shots were done with high opposition; and g) points were scored in 42.28% of the game phases, such that winning teams allowed the opponent to score in 38.81% of the game phases, and losing teams in 45.77%.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Cárdenas, D., Pĩar, M.I., Sánchez, M., & Pintor, D. (1999). Análisis del juego interior en baloncesto. Motricidad, 5, 87-110.
  • Farinha, V., & Tavares, F. (2007). Análise das acções defensivas em equipas de basquetebol sénior masculino. In F. Tavares (Ed.), 1° Congresso Internacional de Jogos Desportivos. Porto:-Universidade de Porto.
  • García, A., Parejo, I., De la Cruz, E., Domínguez, A. M., & Saavedra, J. M. (2007). Differences in basketball game statistics between winning and losing teams in the Spanish EBA league. Iberian Congress on Basketball Research, 4, 76-78
  • Gómez, M. A., Tsamourtzis, E. y Lorenzo, A,. (2006). Defensive systems in basketball ball possessions. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport., 6(1), 98-107.
  • Ibáñez, S. J., Feu, S., García, J., Cañadas, M., y Parejo, I. (2007). Multifactorial study of shot efficacy in the Spanish professional basketball league. Iberian Congress on Basketball Research, 4, 54-57
  • Ortega, E., & Fernández, R. (2007). Differences in 3-point shots between winning and losing teams in formative years of basketball play. Iberian Congress on Basketball Research, 4, 33-37.
  • Ortega, E., Giménez, J.M., & Olmedilla, A. (2008). Utilización del vídeo para la mejora de la percepción subjetiva de la eficacia competitiva y del rendimiento en jugadores de baloncesto. Revista de Psicología del Deporte 17(2), 279-290.
  • Farinha, V., & Tavares, F. (2007). Análise das acções defensivas em equipas de basquetebol sénior masculino. In F. Tavares (Ed.), 1° Congresso Internacional de Jogos Desportivos. Porto:Universidade de Porto Paper presentado en el I Congresso Internacional de Jogos Desportivos, Porto.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet