Physical and Performance Characteristics of 3×3 Professional Male Basketball Players

Abstract

Despite exponential growth in popularity over the last decade and recently becoming an Olympic sport, the amount of scientific literature focused on depicting a profile of successful 3×3 basketball players is sparse. Thus, the purpose of this study was to present the physical and performance characteristics of professional 3×3 male basketball players and how they differ between elite and non-elite athletes. The anthropometrics, vertical jump, agility, and sprint performance parameters collected from ten players during regular training sessions were (x¯ ± SD): height (193.7 ± 4.5 cm), weight (89.2 ± 4.1 cm), wingspan (196.5 ± 5.2 cm), squat jump (43.5 ± 4.6 cm), countermovement jump with (53.3 ± 4.4 cm) and without an arm swing (46.3 ± 4.0 cm), reactive strength index (2.4 ± 0.3 m/s), t-test (10.3 ± 0.3 s), 505 drill (2.4 ± 0.2 s), 10 m sprint (1.5 ± 0.1 s), 30 m sprint (4.0 ± 0.3 s), shuttle run (27.7 ± 1.7 s), and bench press (98.2 ± 10.0 kg) and back squat (139.5 ± 17.6 kg) one repetition maximum. Additionally, the average and maximal heart rate (HR) responses during simulated games were 160.6 ± 8.0 and 188.5 ± 6.3 bpm, with players spending 6.3 ± 4.2, 11.4 ± 5.2, 13.9 ± 3.5, 26.4 ± 10.4, and 42.1 ± 10.0% of the total time in HR Zones 1–5, respectively. Interestingly, no statistically significant differences in the aforementioned physical and performance parameters were noted between elite and non-elite players. Overall, the findings of the present study provide coaches, sports scientists, and strength and conditioning practitioners with information that can aid in the athlete selection process, detection of areas for further improvement, and development of training regimens that resemble 3×3 basketball on-court competitive demands.

Starters vs. non-starters differences in vertical jump force-time metrics in female professional volleyball players

“…The findings of the present study are in line with some of the previously published scientific literature focused on examining differences in physiological and anthropometric characteristics between starters and non-starters in various team sports such as basketball and soccer ( 23 – 25 ). For example, Yamaguchi et al ( 24 ) compared the physical attributes of starters and non-starters within a cohort of elite-level professional female soccer players with similar morphological characteristics (e.g., height, age, body mass, muscle mass, body fat percentage).…”

Competitive Season-Long Changes in Countermovement Vertical Jump Force-Time Metrics in Female Volleyball Players

“…After the warm-up completion, each athlete was instructed to step on a uniaxial force plate system (ForceDecks Max, VALD Performance, Brisbane) sampling at 1,000 Hz and perform 3 maximal-effort CVJ with no arm swing (i.e., hands on the hips throughout the entire movement). Each jump was separated by a 10-15 second rest interval to minimize the possible influence of fatigue (6,26,30). The athletes were verbally encouraged to give maximal effort and focus on pushing the ground explosively as possible (19).…”

“…Over the years, various performance-monitoring technologies such as force plates, accelerometers, motion capture systems, contact mats, and optical measurement systems have been used for monitoring the impact of neuromuscular fatigue on CVJ performance (4)(5)(6)(7)27). Among them, force plates have often been considered a criterion measure or "gold standard" for neuromuscular performance assessment, primarily because of their high sampling frequency (e.g., 1,000 Hz) and ability to provide practitioners with a plethora of force-time metrics (e.g., eccentric mean force, countermovement depth, and contraction time) (2,6,24,26,27). This allows sports scientists and strength and conditioning practitioners to not only measure outcome metrics (e.g., vertical jump height) but also gain a thorough understanding of biomechanical characteristics and different movement strategies that take place throughout various phases of CVJ (i.e., eccentric and concentric phases) (27).…”

“…Over the years, various performance-monitoring technologies such as force plates, accelerometers, motion capture systems, contact mats, and optical measurement systems have been used for monitoring the impact of neuromuscular fatigue on CVJ performance (4)(5)(6)(7)27). Among them, force plates have often been considered a criterion measure or "gold standard" for neuromuscular performance assessment, primarily because of their high sampling frequency (e.g., 1,000 Hz) and ability to provide practitioners with a plethora of force-time metrics (e.g., eccentric mean force, countermovement depth, and contraction time) (2,6,24,26,27).…”

“…5 1.171, p 5 0.365, L 5 0.749), concentric peak force (F[4,14] 5 0.573, p 5 0.687, L 5 0.859), concentric mean power (F[4,14] 5 1.065, p 5 0.410, L 5 0.767), concentric peak power (F [4, 14] 5 1.183, p 5 0.361, L 5 0.747), concentric peak velocity (F [4, 14] 5 0.993, p 5 0.443, L 5 0.779), concentric impulse (F [4, 14] 5 1.727, p 5 0.200, L 5 0.670), and concentric duration (F [4, 14] 5 1.563, p 5 0.238, L 5 0.691). Additionally, no significant changes were observed in RSI-modified (F [4, 14] 5 1.153, p 5 0.373, L 5 0.752), contraction time (F [4, 14] 5 0.222, p 5 0.922, L 5 0.940), vertical jump height (F [4, 14] 5 1.085, p 5 0.401, L 5 0.763), and countermovement depth (F [4, 14] 5 2.162, p 5 0.443, L 5 0.779).…”