🏀 Upside Studies: Dismissing the idea that basketball is a “contactless” sport / AMSs in Elite Men’s Basketball: Challenges, Recommendations, and Future Perspectives
Upside Study: Dismissing the idea that basketball is a “contactless” sport: quantifying contacts during professional gameplay
Authors:
Edited by: Davide Ferioli, University of Messina, Italy
Reviewed by:
Pierpaolo Sansone, University of eCampus, Italy
Julio Calleja-Gonzalez, University of the Basque Country, Spain
*Correspondence Dennis Wellm (wellm@sport.uni-frankfurt.de)
Initially published on 23 July 2024
Reassessing Basketball: The Reality of a Contact-Heavy Sport
Basketball has long been considered a "contactless" sport, originally designed by James Naismith as a non-collision alternative to sports like American football. However, this perception doesn’t align with the reality of modern gameplay. A recent study challenges this notion, revealing that physical contact is not only frequent but also a defining aspect of the sport. By analyzing over 2,000 player interactions across ten professional basketball games, researchers have provided new insights into how these physical demands shape player performance, recovery, and injury risk.
To read the full study click on the link below:
Study summary
Key Findings of the Study: Physical Contact as a Core Element of Basketball
Centers Lead in Contact Frequency
Centers, responsible for controlling the game near the basket, experienced the highest number of physical interactions, accounting for 40.5% of all contacts. This is largely due to their involvement in high-contact actions like boxing out and fighting for position. Power forwards followed with 19.6%, emphasizing the physical demands placed on frontcourt players. Guards, such as point guards, also faced significant contact, particularly during screens and dribbling situations, as they navigated tight defensive coverage.Contact Varies by Game Phase
Physical interactions were most common during set offensive plays (48.9%) and half-court defenses (46.1%), reflecting the structured and strategic nature of these phases. In contrast, fast breaks and transitional play phases involved fewer contacts, underscoring the positional and situational nature of physical engagement in basketball. Key actions contributing to these interactions included screening/picking (25.7%), boxing out (22.9%), and fighting for position (18%), all of which require players to leverage strength and tactical awareness.Upper Body Takes the Impact
Contacts in basketball predominantly affect the torso (48.1%) and upper extremities (38.4%), areas commonly involved in actions like setting screens, post-ups, and boxing out. Lower extremities accounted for a smaller percentage (13.1%), while impacts to the head and neck were minimal (0.3%). These findings suggest that while basketball is less prone to head injuries compared to collision sports, its physical demands still pose significant risks for other parts of the body.Impact on Movement and Gameplay
Nearly 81.4% of all contacts resulted in kinematic displacement, altering a player’s positioning or movement on the court. This highlights how physical interactions influence not only the tactical aspects of the game but also the biomechanical strain on athletes, potentially impacting their performance and increasing recovery times.
Practical Implications: Adapting Training and Recovery
The study emphasizes the importance of integrating contact analysis into player training and load monitoring strategies. By tailoring training regimens to address position-specific demands, coaches can help players build resilience and reduce injury risks. For example:
Centers and Power Forwards require training that focuses on physical battles, emphasizing core strength, body control, and resilience for high-contact scenarios like boxing out.
Guards, who navigate high-contact situations during ball screens and drives, benefit from agility drills, upper-body resistance training, and techniques to absorb impacts effectively.
Recovery protocols must also account for the effects of frequent torso and upper-extremity impacts. Strategies like targeted physiotherapy, eccentric muscle exercises, and advanced recovery tools can mitigate the long-term effects of physical contacts, allowing players to maintain peak performance over the course of a season.
A Comprehensive Picture: Rethinking Player Load Management
Traditional metrics for monitoring basketball performance, such as distance covered or speed, fail to capture the impact of physical contacts. This study calls for a more holistic approach, incorporating both dynamic actions and contact loads. By combining video analysis with wearable technology and biomechanical assessments, coaches can gain deeper insights into the physical toll of gameplay and better manage player workloads.
In addition, understanding the positional variability in contact demands is essential. Centers often engage in static, high-impact actions like rebounding and posting up, while guards experience a mix of dynamic and physical interactions during drives and screens. Recognizing these differences allows coaches to develop individualized training and recovery strategies that reflect each player’s role and responsibilities on the court.
Future Directions: Bridging Research and Practice
This study lays the foundation for further exploration into the role of physical contact in basketball. Key areas for future research include:
Gender-Specific Dynamics: Investigating differences in contact patterns and impacts between men’s and women’s basketball.
Long-Term Health Effects: Studying how repeated physical interactions affect players’ musculoskeletal health and career longevity.
Advanced Monitoring Tools: Using wearable devices and psychological measures to quantify the internal load and fatigue caused by physical contacts.
Expanding this research across different leagues, age groups, and cultural contexts will provide a more comprehensive understanding of how physical demands shape the sport globally.
Conclusion: Basketball as a Physical and Tactical Sport
The findings of this study firmly debunk the notion of basketball as a "contactless" sport. Physical interactions are not only integral to gameplay but also significantly influence player performance, training needs, and recovery strategies. By acknowledging the physical nature of the sport, coaches, trainers, and sports scientists can adopt a more comprehensive approach to athlete management, ensuring that players are prepared to meet the demands of the modern game.
Basketball is more than a game of skill and strategy; it is a test of physical resilience and adaptability. Recognizing and addressing these challenges will pave the way for improved performance, reduced injury risks, and a deeper appreciation of the sport’s complexity.
Upside Study: Athlete Monitoring Systems in Elite Men’s Basketball: Challenges, Recommendations, and Future Perspectives
Authors:
Jakob Burger ,1
Alexander-Stephan Henze ,2
Thomas Voit ,1
Richard Latzel ,3, 1,4
1 Division of Exercise Physiology and Metabolism, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany
2 Sports and Rehabilitation Medicine, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
3 Faculty of Applied Natural Sciences and Industrial Engineering, Deggendorf Institute of Technology, Deggendorf, Germany.
4 Interdisciplinary Metabolic Medicine Research Group, Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Correspondence should be addressed to Jakob Burger; jakob.burger@uni-bayreuth.de Received 1 July 2024; Accepted 20 September 2024
Academic Editor: Christopher Mendias
Overview and Importance of AMSs
Athlete Monitoring Systems (AMSs) are becoming central tools in professional basketball to optimize performance, prevent injuries, and manage recovery for players who face high physical and mental demands. By integrating diverse data points, AMSs provide a comprehensive view of an athlete’s readiness and health, enabling data-driven decision-making for coaching and medical staff.
If you want to read the full study, click on the link below:
Study summary
Challenges in AMS Implementation
Resource Constraints:
Financial and human resources influence the choice and deployment of monitoring technologies. Not all teams can afford sophisticated systems.
Accuracy and Real-Time Data Processing:
Ensuring data collection methods are accurate and useful is critical. This is especially challenging given the need for real-time insights during high-stakes games and training sessions.
Regulatory Barriers:
Wearables are often restricted in official games (e.g., NBA), limiting the availability of consistent data between games and practice sessions.
Data Accessibility:
Many coaches lack advanced statistical training, making it essential for AMS dashboards to present data in simple, actionable formats.
Physical and Technical Demands in Basketball
Basketball involves highly dynamic actions, including:
Frequent, Intense Movements:
Players perform 150+ sprints, ~70 jumps, and cover 8 km per game on average.
Position-Specific Demands:
Guards, forwards, and centers face different workloads, requiring tailored monitoring approaches.
Variability in Training Load:
Training activities are often more physically demanding than actual games, emphasizing the need for individualized monitoring.
Injury Prevention and Health Monitoring
Prevalent Injuries:
Lower limb injuries dominate, particularly ankle (20%) and knee (18%) issues.
Non-contact injuries (20%) are highlighted as preventable through better monitoring and recovery management.
Surveillance and Standardization:
Standardized methods for tracking injuries and health issues are critical for meaningful comparisons across teams and studies.
The International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) guidelines on injury monitoring offer a framework for improving surveillance consistency.
Advances in Monitoring Technologies
AMSs benefit from innovations that enhance their functionality:
Optical Tracking:
A non-wearable technology gaining traction, particularly in environments where wearable use is restricted.
AI and Predictive Analytics:
Emerging systems use machine learning to predict injury risks and optimize training loads.
Integration of External and Internal Load Metrics
External Loads:
Metrics like distance covered, acceleration, and deceleration provide insights into physical demands. However, data variability across devices and systems complicates standardization.
PlayerLoad (PL) is a widely used composite metric for external workload, yet its precision can vary depending on tracking technology.
Internal Loads:
Parameters such as heart rate, biomarkers, and subjective measures like session-RPE (Rate of Perceived Exertion) help assess an athlete’s physiological responses.
Advances in biomarker monitoring, particularly non-invasive methods (e.g., saliva), are promising but require further research for standardization.
Well-Being Assessment:
Multidimensional questionnaires (e.g., fatigue, stress, sleep quality) are gold standards but are often replaced by simpler, less validated tools in practice for ease of use.
Recommendations for AMS Implementation
Holistic Monitoring:
Combine objective data (e.g., load metrics) and subjective insights (e.g., self-reported wellness) to achieve a well-rounded view of player health.
User-Friendly Design:
AMS dashboards should simplify data for coaches, integrating traffic-light indicators and visual summaries for quick decision-making.
Ethical and Privacy Considerations:
Protecting athletes’ sensitive data is paramount, necessitating robust data security protocols and transparent communication about its use.
Standardization Across Systems:
Lack of standard protocols and metrics among AMS technologies hampers comparability. Industry-wide benchmarks, such as those proposed by the IOC, are recommended.
Future Directions
Increased Integration of AI:
Artificial Intelligence is poised to transform AMSs by offering predictive capabilities for injury risk, performance optimization, and recovery planning.
Athlete Compliance and Engagement:
Encouraging athletes to actively participate in monitoring efforts through transparent communication and feedback mechanisms is crucial for success.
Research Priorities:
Future studies should focus on quantifying the effectiveness of AMSs in reducing injuries and enhancing performance, especially in basketball’s unique context.
Focus on Applied Science:
Bridging the gap between academic research and real-world application is vital. AMS tools should prioritize usability for coaches, players, and medical staff.
Conclusion
AMSs hold significant potential to enhance the health and performance of elite basketball players. However, their success depends on addressing challenges like standardization, usability, and ethical concerns. By integrating advanced technologies and fostering collaboration among stakeholders, AMSs can revolutionize the way professional sports teams manage their athletes.
You may also like: