The actual venue where a basketball game is played needs to be considered (Volossovitch 2017) when looking at the effectiveness of a team’s performance playing in front of home crowd. Clarke (2005), Gomez and Pollard (2011) and Bray and Widmeyer (2008) explored the home court advantage topic and argued that this exists and is influenced by various factors (such as familiarity with environment, crowd support and loud arena, shooting percentages, absence of travel, etc.). A top division professional basketball team from Lithuania (Žalgiris Kaunas) was selected for this study using a convenience sample method (Veal and Darcy 2014). A case study approach (which incorporated comparisons between and an analysis of certain statistical categories such as: points scored per game; points allowed per game; free throws – made and attempted per game; 3 points shots – made and attempted; assists and turnovers) were used as part of this investigation into Žalgiris Kaunas basketball team and the games they played at home during 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 seasons. From a methodological point of view, a three stage approach was employed. First stage was an exploratory analysis of relevant data available in the public domain for the selected team /club. Second stage comprised of an initial analysis that consisted of statistical calculations (averages per game and per season) and comparisons between Žalgiris Kaunas and their opponents while a discussion and concluding analysis – as a third stage – was drawn by interpretation of data. Similar to findings from literature, playing at home in front of full capacity crowd was beneficial for Žalgiris Kaunas as their performances improved for the statistical categories previously mentioned, alongside with being victorious in 11 out of the 19 home games that were scrutinised for the purpose of the research. Keywords: home court advantage, basketball performance indicators, basketball analytics, attendance, Žalgiris Kaunas

No abstract

Since its inception, the Romanian archaeological school of the Palaeolithic maintained the interpretation of archaeological layers through the lenses of the geomorphological data as an objective. Our study presents one of the situations in which archaeological researches did not benefit from a direct collaboration between the two fields of inquiry, which led to an erroneous understanding of the sedimentary genesis in the Palaeolithic settlement of Malu Dinu Buzea (Covasna Department). Recent observations offered a glimpse of both vertical and horizontal movement of the archaeological material, due to the periodical reactivation of a dejection cone, and to sedimentary peculiarities. The technological analysis of the recently excavated lithic assemblage revealed the existence of a single, heavily disturbed cultural unit, found in secondary position, along with numerous naturally fragmented flint, sandstone, quartzite, and limestone blocks. The largest part of the technological and typological features of the mostly local flint assemblage indicates a possible final Upper Palaeolithic timing for its origin, with no arguments in favour of a putative Aurignacian designation, and only several hints at a Tardenoisian one, both previously stated for what used to be recognized as a twofolded cultural sequence.

No abstract

No abstract