See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233488007

Offensive teamwork intensity as a factor influencing the result in basketball.

Article  in  International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport · November 2005

DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2005.11868323

CITATIONS READS

14 101

3 authors, including:

Boriss Bazanov Priit Võhandu

Tallinn University Arbi konsultatsioonibüroo
16 PUBLICATIONS   94 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Determine relevant KPIs using MCDM View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Boriss Bazanov on 17 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

OFFENSIVE TEAMWORK INTENSITY AS A FACTOR INFLUENCING THE
RESULT IN BASKETBALL.

Keywords: Performance analysis, team activity, structure, intensity

 Boris Bazanov, Tallinn University, Faculty of Physical Education, Laboratory of
Kinesiology, Regati Avenue, 11911 Tallinn, Estonia, E-mail: boris.baz@mail.ee,
Phone:+3725579974;
Rein Haljand, Tallinn University, Faculty of Physical Education, Laboratory of
Kinesiology, Regati Avenue, 11911 Tallinn, Estonia, E-mail: rein@swim.ee, Phone:
+3725010204;
Priit Võhandu, E-mail: Priit@starman.ee

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determin the intensity index of the offensive
teamwork. Under observation for this research was the Tallinn University
basketball team, that takes part in the championships of the 1. Estonian league.
The data was gathered from 600 ball possessions of 8 recorded regular season
games. This research has helped to work out the basics of the analytical system
of the teamwork aspect. The analyzing system of the competition activity of the
game, which we have worked out, enables to determine the structure and
intensity of the technical and tactical development, and to find interesting
models of game activity from the data. On the basis of the received information,
the coach can evaluate the activity of the team, find more convenient time laps
in the game performance, corrigate the strategy for future games. The
analyzing system worked out through that, helps to improve the quality of the
game.
Based on the results of working through the statistical data (T-test, F-test), it
was concluded that the average time of resultive offence ball possession in the
offensive zone (t = 8,75), the number of elements (6,76) and the teamwork
intensity index in the offensive zone (0,86) is statistically significantly different
from non resultive (accordingly t = 10,13; number of elements - 7,52; index -
0,78).

Introduction

According to Read`s and Edwards` (1992) game classification, basketball belongs to invasion
games which are time dependent. Factors that contribute to the success or improved

2
performance in invasive games are passing, field position, shots, time in possession, goals and
others (Hughes and Bartlett R. 2002). Scientific-methodical analysis of literature shows that
so far the technique of the players and the technical preparation of the players has been
studied the most. (Miller, S., Bartlett R., 1996; Hudson, J. 1985). Some studies have
concentrated their attention on the efficiency indicators of the game. The aim of the research
by Mendes and Janeira (2001) was to find the efficiency indicators that have the power to
discriminate between winning and losing teams. Of chosen variables (total made assists,
scored assists, fouls, two-point shots, three-point shots, free-throws, steals, defensive
rebounds, offensive rebounds, total of rebounds, second shots and turnovers) the main impact
factor that defines winning and losing teams is defensive rebounding. Sampaio J. and Janeira
M. (2003) have found in their research, that in close games (with final score differences
between 1 and 8 points) game type influences the result (regular season or play-off) and game
location (home or away). Globally, regular season profile was best discriminated by
successful free-throws, whereas play-offs profile was best discriminated by offensive
rebounding. Tavares and Gomes (2003) described and compared the offensive process in
basketball. The subject population were high performance level junior men teams. They
analyzed the set offense and fast break and recorded their frequency, duration and outcome
actions. The results of this study showed, that the main game method was set offense (74,6%);
3/4 of set offenses have duration between 13 and 18 seconds; the duration of the fast break is
70% between 4 and 6 seconds.
Team ball possession is considered one of the central indicators. Both offence and defence
activity efficiency is determined by dividing the points earned by ball possession
(points/possession) in the game. This kind of a method helps to compare the team`s activity
efficiency in different games.
It is common knowledge that basketball is a complicated team sport. Due to that it is
interesting to know, how the separate technical and tactical elements of the game activity
work as a whole in team activity during ball possession time in the offensive zone? Based on
that, the determination of the team`s intensity index became the aim of this research. The
hypothesis of our research is based on the principal that the intensity index designed makes it
possible to adequately show the level of the team`s technical and tactical activity. The
scientific novelty of the research is that the intensity of the team`s technical and tactical
activity in the offensive zone has not yet been determined, not that we know of.

3
Method

In this research, Tallinn University basketball team, that takes part in the championships of
the Estonian first league, was under observation.
 data was gathered from 600 ball posessions of 8 recorded regular season games;
 further editing of the recorded game was done using the DartTrainer Basic version
2.5.3 program; (Dartfish)
Intensity index was determined using the following formula:
Iindex = (D + P + Scr on + Scr off + S)/t,
where: D - dribbles; P - passes; Scr on - screens on the ball; Scr off - screens off the ball; S -
shot; t - time of ball possession in offensive zone. The time of ball possession in offensive
zone starts from the moment when the player in the offensive zone takes hold of the ball and
ends with the moment the ball leaves the hands of the shooter or with the moment when the
opposite team possesses the ball. Time is stopped in rebound and inbound situations. The time
duration was measured with 0,02 sec. accuracy. When fixing the number of elements,
depending on the need, one segment of ball possession was observed many times using slow
motion, observation frame by frame. The data was statistically edited. The average of the data
gathered (the total sum of elements in the offensive zone, ball possession time in the offensive
zone, intensity index) was determined, standard deviation, median, min., max. The reliability
of the differences in indicators was tested (Ftest, Ttest)
Offences were grouped according to results: resultive (2-4 points) and less resultive (≤1).

Results

To determine whether there are important differences between the duration of resultive and
non-resultive offences, the total number of elements and the central indicators of the intensity
index, T-test and F-test were done.
The indicators of analysed offences are given in the table. From the given table we can see
that the average ball possession time of resultive offences in the offensive zone (t =8,75), the
number of elements (6,76) and the intensity index in the offensive zone (0,86) are statistically
significantly different from the non resultive ones (accordingly t =10,13; number of elements
- 7,52; index - 0,78).
F-test results show, that time and element dispersions have no significant difference, though at
the same time the intensity index does.

4
 Table. Indicators of resultive and less resultive offenses
Less resultive Resultive
Time Elements Index Time Elements Index
Mean 10,12744 7,52 0,783544 8,754842 6,75945 0,858341
SD 5,847952 4,413312 0,233157 6,107903 4,364892 0,273062
Mediaan 9,54 7 0,763359 7,54 6 0,82
Min 0,84 1 0,126904 0,8 1 0,12
N = 600
Max 36,04 26 1,52439 33,52 25 1,818182

Time Elements Indeks

Ftest 0,45178 0,849833 **0,00637

Ttest **0,005084 *0,032609 **0,000348

N = 600
* - p < 0.05
** - p < 0.01

Discussion

When at first studying the division of elements according to the index, (figure 1) we notice the
tendency index stabilizes when the number of elements grows. The maximum indicators of
the index drop, but the minimum of the index gradually grows.

Figure 1. The division of elements according to the index

5
When looking at the activity structure as a whole in the offensive zone, we see it`s conditional
division into three time zones (figure 2).

2,00

1,80

1,60

1,40

1,20

resultive
index

1,00 less resultive

0,80

0,60

0,40

0,20

0,00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time

Figure 2. Offence activity structure in the offensive zone

The first one is mostly equivalent to fast breaks and is bound to 3-4 seconds, after which there
is a sudden decline of the index. The resultive offences of this zone are characterized by high
intensity index, small number of elements and short duration. On figure 3 it can be seen that
the indicators of the indexes of resultive offences with 2, 3 and 4 elements exceed the less
resultive ones. In game situations this means making a fast break in the offensive zone with
the minimal number of elements. Two elements are usually equal to pass or dribble and lay-
up; three- dribble, pass, lay-up. Already by adding a fourth element in fast break situations
brings the decline of the index. In game situations thiskind of activity is equal to early
offence, that often ends with a jump shot.

6
 1,2

0,8
index

less resultive
0,6
resultive
0,4

0,2

0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
elements

Figure 3. The division of the index and the elements

The other starts after 5 seconds and is at it`s max. on 8 - 9 seconds. The top of this zone is
also characterized by resultive offences with a higher index and reflect a combination of
skilfully done set offences (figure 2). On figure 3 we can see that, depending on the game
situation, the team should perform 7-10 elements. A set offence with 9-10 elements holds the
dribbles of 1-2 players, 2-3 passes, 3-4 screens off the ball and a shot. Ending ball possession
in the offensive zone in 6-7 seconds often equals to making a shot too fast that often ends with
less results.
When usually the time duration of resultive offences with up to 10 elements is smaller than
that of less resultive offences, then the further growth in the sum of elements makes the time
duration of the resultive offences longer (figure 4). The given model of the offence belongs to
the third time zone of activity that passes the time span of 10 - 20 seconds (figure 2). On
figure 5 we can see, that if time in possession is 16 to 21 seconds, then the index of resultive
offences drops. Regulated time (24 sec) that limits offence activity, starts to have it`s effect on
the ending of the offence. Activities that don`t conduce to good results: using too many
elements, performing a shot in unfavorable conditions etc. Single offence ball possession
exceeds 20 seconds. It can happen in situations where the players of the opposite team make a
personal foul and it is followed by an inbound or the team wins the offensive rebound.

7
 25

20

15
time

less resultive
resultive
10

0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
elements

Figure 4. The division of elements in time

1,6
1,4
1,2
1
index

0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
time

Figure 5. The division of the resultive offences intensity index in time

On figure 6 we can see the analysed team`s index trend in relation to results. Prior to it must
be stated that the percentage of the team`s offences that ended successfully was 48%.
All possessions (N = 600) are grouped according to the index. On the figure we can see, that
the number of high index offences was 52 and it`s level of efficiency was equal to 67%.

8
The index of most offences (455) was between 0,59 - 1,17 and that group`s level of
effienciency was equal to the average of the team. The offences with the lowest index (0,12 -
0,43) were also least successful (33%).

0,673
1,18 ...
52

1,82

0,473 0,492
0,59 ...
455

1,17
index

0,44 ...
63

0,58
0,333

0,12 ...
30

0,43

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8

30 63 455 52
0,12 ... 0,43 0,44 ... 0,58 0,59 ... 1,17 1,18 ... 1,82
efficiency 0,333 0,492 0,473 0,673

Figure 6. Index trend

Conclusions

The average time of resultive offences (8,75), number of elements (6,76) and index (0,86) is
statistically significantly different from non-resultive ones (accordingly t = 10,13; number of
elements - 7,52; index - 0,78).
The results of this research can be of interest to coaches when modelling the team`s offence
activity, during which the activity intensity is regulated primarily by changing the time
parametres (time in possession 10 seconds, 8 seconds etc.). Hereby, it becomes very important
to implement all three models separately as well as in an integrated form, as close to actual
competition conditions as possible.

References

1. Dartfish. 2001. DartTrainer software. Available from World Wide Web

<http://www.dartfish.com.

9
 2. Hudson, J. 1985. Prediction of basketball skill using biomechanical variables. Research
Quartely for Exercise and Sport, 56, pp. 115-121.
3. Hughes, M., Bartlet, R. 2002. The use of performance indicators in performance analysis. -
Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 739-754.
4. Mendes, L., Janeira, M. 2001. Basketball performance - multivariate study in Portuguese
professional male basketball teams. In Hughes, M.D. and Tavares, F. (eds) Notational
Analysis of sport - 4, Cardiff: UWIC, pp. 103 - 111.
5. Miller, S., Bartlett R. 1996. The relationship between basketball shooting kinematics,
distance and playing position. - Journal of Sports Sciences, 14, pp. 245-253
6. Read, B., Edwards, P. 1992. Teaching Children To Play Games. Leeds: White Line
Publishing.
7. Sampaio J., Janeira M 2003. Statistical analyses of basketball team performance:
understanding teams` wins and losses according to a different index of ball possessions.
International Journal of performance Analysis in Sport, vol 3, no. 1, pp. 40-49.
8. Tavares F., Gomes N. 2003. The offensive process in basketball - a study in high
performance junior teams. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, vol. 3,
no. 1, pp. 34-39

10

View publication stats