ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CONDITIONING CAPACITIES
AND SHOOTING PERFORMANCE IN PROFESSIONAL
BASKETBALL PLAYERS: AN ANALYSIS OF STATIONARY
AND DYNAMIC SHOOTING SKILLS
HARIS POJSKIC,1,2 NEDIM SISIC,3 VLATKO SEPAROVIC,4
1
Department for Health Sciences, Faculty of Human Sciences, Mid Sweden University, O¨stersund, Sweden; 2Mid Sweden
University, Swedish Winter Sports Research Centre, O¨stersund, Sweden; 3Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Split, Split,
Croatia; and 4Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, University of Tuzla, Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
ABSTRACT
Pojskic, H, Sisic, N, Separovic, V, and Sekulic, D. Association
between conditioning capacities and shooting performance in
professional basketball players: an analysis of stationary and
dynamic shooting skills. J Strength Cond Res 32(7): 1981–
1992, 2018—Little is known about the influence of conditioning
capacities on shooting performance in basketball. The aim of
this study was to examine the relationship between different
conditioning capacities and shooting performance in profes-
sional basketball players. In this investigation, we examined
38 males (all perimeter players; height: 185.5 6 6.73 cm;
mass: 78.66 6 10.35 kg). Conditioning capacities were eval-
uated by tests of muscular strength, aerobic endurance, jump-
ing and throwing capacities, sprinting speed, preplanned
agility, anaerobic endurance, and fatigue resistance. Shooting
performance was evaluated using game statistics, as well as 6
tests of shooting performance performed in controlled settings:
(a) 3 tests of static (i.e., nonfatigued) shooting performance
(standardized execution of 1- [S1], 2- [S2] and 3-point shots
[S3] in stationary conditions), and (b) 3 tests of dynamic (i.e.,
fatigued) shooting performance (standardized execution of 1-
[D1], 2- (D2), and 3-point shots [D3] in dynamic conditions).
All 3 dynamic shooting tests and the S1 test were significantly
(p # 0.05) correlated with corresponding game statistics. Mul-
tiple regression indicated that conditioning capacities were
significantly related to D1 (R2 = 0.36; p = 0.03), D2 (R2 =
0.44; p = 0.03), S3 (R2 = 0.41; p = 0.02), and D3 (R2 = 0.39;
p = 0.03) tests. Players with a higher fatigue resistance
achieved better results on the D1 test (b = 20.37, p =
0.03). Preplanned agility (b = 20.33, p = 0.04), countermove-
ment jump (b = 0.42, p = 0.03), and fatigue resistance (b =
Address correspondence to Damir Sekulic, dado@pmfst.hr.
32(7)/1981–1992
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND DAMIR SEKULIC3
20.37, p = 0.02) were significant predictors of D2 perfor-
mance. The countermovement jump (b = 0.39, p = 0.04), med-
icine ball toss (b = 0.34, p = 0.04), and anaerobic endurance
(b = 0.46, p = 0.04) predicted the results of D3 performance.
Jumping, throwing, and anaerobic endurance capacities were
good determinants of the skill of dynamic shooting over a long
distance. These findings emphasize the importance of explo-
sive power and anaerobic capacity as determinants of shooting
performance in high-level basketball players.
KEY WORDS accuracy, fatigue, speed, agility, anaerobic
capacity
INTRODUCTION
B
asketball is an intermittent physically demanding
sport with many defensive and offensive actions
that require players to repeatedly engage in se-
quences of intense activities (sprinting, shuffling,
jumping, etc.) on the basketball court (28,32). Therefore,
basketball players must be physically prepared, which in-
cludes having optimal levels of explosive power (jumping
and throwing capacities), agility, and both anaerobic and
aerobic endurance (1,4,24,30). It is widely accepted that
shooting performance is one of the most important skills
in basketball (6,19). To achieve a high shooting percentage
and a subsequent winning percentage, every team should
have players who can accurately shoot in all periods of the
game and under differing conditions of physiological or psy-
chological strain. Consequently, previous studies have exam-
ined the importance of different types of shooting (free
throws, field goals, and the 3-point shot) on the overall
success of basketball teams, with the jump shot as the most
used and most efficient shooting technique (17,26).
Because players have to shoot under different physiolog-
ical and psychological conditions that frequently involve
being fatigued, it is reasonable to presume that well-
developed conditioning capacities can affect shooting skills
in basketball. Studies have already examined interventions
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2018 | 1981
 Predictors of Shooting Performance in Basketball
and optimization related to shooting (21), biomechanical
and proprioception parameters of shooting performance
(18), and even nutritional interventions and their influence
on shooting achievements (11). However, associations
between conditioning capacities and shooting skills in bas-
ketball are rarely reported. Specifically, previous investiga-
tions examined long-distance accuracy and reported that
body explosive power and elbow extensor isokinetic
strength are significant determinants of shooting perfor-
mance (14,34); however, there is an evident lack of studies
that have systematically examined different conditioning
capacities as determinants of shooting performance in bas-
ketball. Finally, to the best of our knowledge, no study has
investigated the relationships that may exist between condi-
tioning capacities and shooting under fatigued conditions
(i.e., dynamic shooting skills) in basketball players. This is
particularly important knowing that a key factor for success-
ful basketball performance is accurate shooting after high-
intensity movements (i.e., under fatigued conditions) (7,27).
From this brief overview of the previous literature, it is
evident that information regarding the determinants of
basketball shooting skills is lacking. Therefore, this study
aimed to define relationships that may exist between
conditioning capacities that are known to be important in
basketball and performance in shooting skill tests. In
addition, we examined possible relationships between
observed shooting skill tests and real-game shooting perfor-
mance (i.e., game statistics). The knowledge regarding this
relationship may have crucial practical value for both
basketball and conditioning experts for creating basketball
strength and conditioning programs. Based on the factors of
success in basketball that were identified in previous studies
(1,4,24), we hypothesized that there would be a positive
correlation between speed, agility, explosive power tests,
aerobic power, anaerobic capacities, and performance on
basketball shooting skill tests.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
As previously mentioned, strength, power, agility, running
speed, and aerobic and anaerobic endurance (i.e., condition-
ing capacities) are believed to be important for successful
basketball performance (4,20,22,29). Furthermore, there is
no doubt that a player’s shooting performance is a direct
determinant of final achievement in this sport (8). The main
rationale of this study arose from the evident lack of knowl-
edge regarding the relationships that may exist between con-
ditioning capacities and shooting performance in high-level
basketball players. This study aimed to evaluate associations
between different conditioning capacities (independent var-
iables) and different types of shooting performance (depen-
dent variables) in a sample of professional basketball players.
To avoid possible confounding effects of playing positions
and known differences in shooting performance among play-
ers who are oriented toward different playing duties in bas-
the TM
1982 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ketball, we have studied only those players known to be
highly proficient in different shooting skills (i.e., perimeter
players) (31).
The study was performed in combined laboratory and
field conditions and consisted of several phases. In the first
phase, the actual shooting efficacy during one competitive
season was recorded and analyzed for all participating
players. Next, participants were tested on anthropometrics,
conditioning capacities, and shooting skill tests. In the final
phase, the reliability of the applied tests and relationships
between variables were identified. Before this investigation,
we determined an appropriate number of subjects using G-
Power software (version 3.1.9.2; Heinrich Heine University
Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany). For linear bivariate
regression (p value of 0.05, power of 0.80), the program
recommended 34 participants (i.e., df = 32) as an appropriate
sample size.
Subjects
This study included 38 healthy perimeter basketball players
(mean 6 SD 18.97 6 2.86 years) who were members of 4
teams with the highest national ranking that competed in
Bosnia and Herzegovina (i.e., first division). Because basket-
ball players are differentially oriented toward game duties,
which depend on their primary playing positions, we
included only perimeter players (i.e., positions 1, 2, and 3)
in this study because of their well-known proficiency in dif-
ferent types of shooting (i.e., short-, middle-, and long-
distance shooting performances) (31). All players had com-
peted at the national level, and they were required to have
played in at least 16 games for at least 10 minutes per game
during the last season to be included in the study. All the
players were healthy without any history of neuromuscular
diseases or reported injuries in the previous 6 months. At the
time of the study, they had a mean of 7.5 6 2.6 years of
competitive experience. They trained 10 hours a week (5
sessions of 2 hours each) on the court to improve technical
and tactical skills and 4.5 hours a week (3 sessions of 1.5
hours each) off the court in the gym to improve their
strength and power. When tested on conditioning capacities
and shooting skills, players were in a phase of maintaining
conditioning capacities. They combined the strength training
with medium-intensity upper- and lower-body plyometric and
power training. Aerobic and anaerobic capacities were trained
using basketball-specific interval-based drills. They also played
a basketball game every Saturday or Sunday. Participants were
asked to refrain from heavy training and tobacco, alcohol and
caffeine use, and to avoid sleep deprivation for at least 2 days
before the testing sessions. To stay properly hydrated, players
were asked not to drink a large amount at once but to drink
water frequently in small amounts during the testing sessions.
The ethics board of University of Split provided approval for
the research experiment (Ethical Board Approval No:
2181-205-02-05-14-001). All participants were informed of
the purpose, benefits, and risks of the investigation, and

all participants voluntarily participated in the testing. Written
informed consent for the participation in the study was
received from all participants older than 18 years of age.
Parents or guardians signed informed consent for those par-
ticipants under the age of 18 years. Participants under the
age of 18 also provided written informed consent.
Procedures
The variables in this study included anthropometrics (body
height, body mass, body fat percentage, and fat-free mass),
conditioning capacities, variables of shooting performance,
and game statistics observed over a competitive season.
Body height was measured to the nearest 0.01 m with
a portable stadiometer (Astra 27310; Gima, Italy). Body
mass, body fat percentage, and fat-free mass were measured
with a bioelectric body composition analyzer (Tanita TBF-
300, increments 0.1%; Tanita, Tokyo, Japan).
Conditioning capacities were evaluated using the follow-
ing: tests of vertical jump performance (countermovement
jump [CMJ], and squat jump), seated medicine ball toss
(MEDBALL), tests of dynamic muscular endurance (sit-ups
and push-ups), straight line sprinting, test of preplanned
agility, one test of aerobic endurance, and a test of anaerobic
capacity.
Each player performed 3 maximal CMJs, with 3 minutes
of recovery in between. The highest score was used for
analysis. The squat jump begins with the subject at a knee
flexion of 908 with the feet hip-width apart. Hands remain on
the hips throughout the jump. From this static position (with
no prestretching), the subject performs a quick upward ver-
tical jump as high as possible. The jumps were assessed using
a portable device called the OptoJump System (Microgate,
Bolzano, Italy).
The MEDBALL was used to assess upper-body power.
The players were seated with their back and buttocks against
a chair, with the ball held at chest level with the arms
extended horizontally so that the ball was located above the
starting line. The distance to the chair was adjusted for each
player according to their arm length. During the toss, the
player’s feet were resting on the floor. The players were asked
to move the ball toward their chest and then throw the 1 kg
medicine ball in a horizontal direction as far as possible using
a 2-handed chest pass. During the throw, they were not al-
lowed to move the back of their chair. The test performance
was measured with a measuring tape as the distance from the
initial line to the point where the ball fell. An assessor fol-
lowed the ball’s flight to observe the correct position where
the ball made contact with the floor. Participants performed 3
trials, with the longest result used for analysis.
To assess muscular strength and endurance of the
abdominal wall, players were tested on sit-ups. The players
performed the test according to Diener et al. (5). When the
examiner signaled “go,” a timer started, and the players per-
formed as many repetitions as possible in 1 minute. The
examiner counted the number of correctly performed repe-
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
titions. The score was expressed as the number of repetitions
in 60 seconds. Participants performed 3 trials on 3 different
days, with the highest score used for analysis.
A test of the maximal number of push-ups was used to
assess upper-body muscular strength and endurance. The
players performed the test as previously described (9). The
maximum number of correct repetitions accomplished in 60
seconds was recorded. The players performed 3 trials on 3
different days, with the highest score used for analysis.
For the test of straight-line sprinting, players performed
three 20-m sprints on an indoor parquet floor with 3 minutes
of recovery between each sprint. The fastest time was used
for analysis. The players started from starting blocks, which
were individually set to the participants’ characteristics. The
20 m dashes were timed with an automated timer (Speed-
trap II; Brower Timing Systems, Draper, UT, USA). This
timer used a pressure pad placed under the fingers of the
participant’s right hand in the starting position. The timing
device started when the participants lifted their fingers off of
the pressure pad and stopped when they broke a single-laser
light beam projected across the track 20 m from the starting
line. To avoid error, the laser beam was positioned so that
the height above the ground was approximately at the
height of the players’ waist. Once the athletes were prepared,
they started when they were ready.
Agility (preplanned agility) was measured using a standard
T-test (T-TEST). The players performed 3 testing trials on
an indoor parquet floor with 3 minutes of recovery between
each trial. The fastest time was used for analysis. The test
time was also recorded with the automated timer (Speed
trap II; Brower Timing Systems).
Maximal aerobic power (V_ O2max) was estimated using the
20-m shuttle run test (15). Anaerobic capacity was assessed
with the Running-based Anaerobic Sprint Test (RAST). The
test was performed according to the protocol described pre-
viously (36). After completion of the test, the following var-
iables were calculated: Maximal Power (MaxPOW), Average
Power (AvePOW), Minimal Power (MinPOW), Fatigue
Index (FI), and Relative Maximal Power (R-MaxPOW).
The variables were calculated with the following equations:
Power = body mass (kg) 3 Distance (m2) O Time (s).
MaxPOW = the fastest time of 6 sprints, MinPOW = the
slowest time of 6 sprints, AvePOW = sum of all 6 values O
6, FI = (MaxPOW2MinPOW) O Total time for the 6
sprints, R-MaxPOW = MaxPOW/body mass, R-AvePOW
= AvePOW/body mass, R-Fatigue Index = FI/body mass.
The test reliability (r = 0.88) for the RAST test was reported
by Zagatto et al. (36). In this study, we used only the relative
values of the average power and FI.
Tests of shooting accuracy included 6 tests, 3 of which
were performed under stationary (i.e., nonfatigued) condi-
tions (free throw, 2-point, and 3-point stationary test),
whereas 3 tests were performed under dynamic (i.e.,
fatigued) conditions (free throw, 2-point, and 3-point
dynamic test).
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2018 | 1983
 Predictors of Shooting Performance in Basketball

The stationary free-throw shooting test (Stationary-1-
point). After the warm-up protocol described in the testing
procedures, every player performed 3 series of 10 free-throw
shots, with a 3-minute rest period between each series. Two
players were positioned below the hoop, and they passed the
ball to the participant (Figure 1A). After one player had
completed 10 shots, another came to the free-throw line
and performed the same task. The average percentage of
shots made for the 3 trials was used for analysis.
To assure easier organization of the dynamic 60-second
free-throw shooting test (dynamic-1-point), we used volley-
ball court lines as illustrated in Figure 1B. Each player per-
formed 5 series of 2 free throws with sprinting between the
series. Each free-throw series had to be completed in 12 sec-
onds. Each player started the test with an 18-m sprint along
the volleyball court sideline, made a turn around a cone, and
ran 4.6 m to the free throw line. After performing 2 free
throws, the player ran 4.6 m to another cone, where he waited
for an auditory signal to start the next series. One tester used
a stopwatch to measure 12 seconds, and provided auditory
signals to the players. Another tester counted the number of
free throws completed. Two other players passed the balls to
the participant. The players performed 3 dynamic-1-point
tests with 5 minutes of recovery between each. The average
percentage of the 3 trials was used for analysis.
For the 2-point stationary test (Stationary-2-points), play-
ers performed 2 jump shots from 5 different positions in one
of 3 series (i.e., 10 shots in total; Figure 1C). The player’s
starting position was on the right wing, at position number 1.
Shooting positions were set at a distance of 5 m from the
vertical projection of the hoop’s center on the floor. There
was no time limit for the shots. Two other players caught the
ball and passed it back to the participant. There was a 3-
minute rest period between each shooting series. The aver-
age percentage of shots made for the 3 trials was used for
analysis.
For the dynamic 60-second 2-point shooting test
(dynamic-2-points), the player’s starting position was below
the hoop, next to cone 1 (Figure 1D). After the tester
sounded a signal, the player ran 5 m to the wing (cone 2),
where he received the ball from the passer (P1) and per-
formed a jump shot. Then, he ran again around cone 1
toward cone 3, where he received the ball again from the
same passer (P1) and performed another jump shot. After
completing the same procedure for cones 4, 5, and 6, he
continued with the test by running in the opposite direction
toward the fifth cone, the fourth cone and so on, depending
on the amount of time still available. The test finished after
60 seconds. The players were encouraged to run as fast as
they could and to perform as many shots as they could. One
rebounder and 2 passers were needed for the testing pro-
cedure. The rebounder (R) caught all shots made and passed
the ball to passer 2. Passer 2 always received the ball from
the rebounder and passed it to passer 1. Passer 1 always
passed the ball to the participant. The players performed
the 3 dynamic-2-point tests with 5 minutes of recovery
between each. The average percentage of shots made for
the 3 trials was used for analysis.

Figure 1. Execution of the stationary (nonfatigued) and dynamic (fatigued) basketball shooting skill tests (R = rebounder; P = passer; S = shooter/participant).
A) The stationary free-throw shooting test. B) The dynamic 60-second free-throw shooting test. C) The 2-point stationary shooting test. D) The dynamic 60-
second 2-point shooting test. E) The stationary 3-point shooting test. F) The dynamic 60-second 3-point shooting test.

the TM

1984 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

For the stationary 3-point shooting test (stationary 3
points), players performed 2 jump shots from 5 different
positions in one of 3 series, i.e., 10 shots in total (Figure 1E).
The player’s starting position was on the right wing, at posi-
tion number 1. Shooting positions were set at a distance of 3
points from the vertical projection of the hoop’s center on
the floor. There was no time limit for the shots. Two other
players caught the ball and passed it back to the participants.
There was a 3-minute rest period between each shooting
series. The average percentage of shots made for the 3 trials
was used for analysis.
For the dynamic 60-second 3-point shooting test
(dynamic 3 points), the player’s starting position was below
the hoop, next to cone number 1 (Figure 1F). After the
auditory signal, the player ran to 3-point line to the wing
(cone 2), where he received the ball from the passer (P1) and
performed a jump shot. Then, the player ran again around
cone 1 toward cone 3, where he received the ball again from
the same passer (P1) and performed another jump shot.
After completing the same procedure for cones 4, 5, and 6,
he continued with the test by running in the opposite direc-
tion toward the fifth cone, the fourth cone and so on de-
pending on the amount of time still available. The test
finished after 60 seconds. Players were encouraged to run
as fast as they could and to perform as many shots as they
could. One rebounder and 2 passers were needed for this
testing procedure. The rebounder (R) caught all shots made
and passed the ball to passer 2. Passer 2 always received the
ball from the rebounder and passed it to passer 1. Passer 1
always passed the ball to the participant. The players per-
formed the 3 dynamic-3-points tests with 5 minutes of
recovery between each. The average percentage of shots
made for the 3 trials was used for analysis. More details on
preliminary validation of basketball shooting tests are avail-
able elsewhere (25,27).
The players were tested immediately after the completion
of the season during a 2-week break in May. To avoid diurnal
variation, the assessment sessions were conducted over 6

TABLE 1. Descriptive statistics and reliability parameters for the studied variables of the perimeter basketball players
(N = 38).*

Variables Mean SD ICC (95% CI) SEM

Age (y) 18.97 2.86 —

Body height (cm) 185.35 6.73 —
Body mass (kg) 78.66 10.35 —
Body fat (%) 12.39 1.74 —
Fat-free mass (kg) 68.63 7.26 —
CMJ (cm) 38.48 3.45 0.92 (0.75–0.97) 0.98
SJ (cm) 31.09 31.09 0.91 (0.72–0.96) 1.33
MEDBALL (m) 10.01 1.15 0.89 (0.66–0.95) 0.38
Sit-ups (repetitions in 60 s) 54.34 5.29 0.91 (0.72–0.96) 1.59
Push-ups (no. of repetitions) 42.21 4.44 0.90 (0.66–0.95) 1.40
20-m sprint (s) 3.14 0.09 0.91 (0.72–0.96) 0.03
T-TEST (s) 10.48 0.409 0.89 (0.66–0.95) 0.14
V_ O2max (ml 3 kg21 3 min21) 63.67 6.79 —
Repeated Anaerobic Sprint Test—maximal power (W) 761.21 124.80 —
Repeated Anaerobic Sprint Test—minimum power (W) 494.46 96.91 —
Repeated Anaerobic Sprint Test—average power (W) 619.53 99.40 —
Repeated Anaerobic Sprint Test—relative maximal power (W$kg21) 9.68 0.93 —
Repeated Anaerobic Sprint Test—relative average power (W$kg21) 7.88 0.80 —
Fatigue index (W$s21) 8.21 1.44 —
Relative Fatigue Index (W$s21$kg21) 0.104 0.03 —
Stationary-1-point (%) 81.22 10.26 0.92 (0.75–0.97) 2.90
Dynamic-1-point (%) 66.66 12.10 0.82 (0.46–0.92) 5.13
Stationary-2-points (%) 63.25 11.76 0.82 (0.46–0.92) 4.99
Dynamic-2-points (%) 52.83 12.58 0.75 (0.27–0.89) 6.29
Stationary-3-points (%) 49.21 15.96 0.85 (0.54–0.94) 6.18
Dynamic-3-points (%) 42.00 13.20 0.81 (0.43–0.92) 5.75
1Point (%) 66.61 13.86 —
2Points (%) 46.74 16.47 —
3Points (%) 36.21 15.55 —

*ICC = Intraclass coefficient; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; CMJ = countermovement jump; SJ = squat jump; MEDBALL =
seated medicine ball toss; T-TEST = Agility T Test; 1Point% = percentage of successful free throws; 2Point% = percentage of
successful field shots for 2 points; 3Point% = percentage of successful field shots for 3 points.

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2018 | 1985

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 1986

Predictors of Shooting Performance in Basketball

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the

TABLE 2. Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficients (r) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) between players’ conditioning capacities and basketball
shooting tests (N = 38).*

Stationary-1-point Dynamic-1-point Stationary-2-points Dynamic-2-points Stationary-3-points Dynamic-3-points

r (95% CI) r (95% CI) r (95% CI) r (95% CI) r (95% CI) r (95% CI)

CMJ 20.05 (20.36 to 0.27) 0.12 (20.21 to 0.42) 0.11 (20.22 to 0.41) 0.34 (0.02 to 0.59)† 0.39 (0.08 to 0.63)† 0.49 (0.20 to 0.70)†
TM

SJ 20.13 (20.43 to 0.20) 0.16 (20.17 to 0.46) 0.07 (20.26 to 0.38) 0.25 (20.08 to 0.53) 0.34 (0.02 to 0.59)† 0.37 (0.06 to 0.62)†
MEDBALL 0.05 (20.27 to 0.36) 20.00 (20.32 to 0.32) 0.28 (20.04 to 0.55) 0.14 (20.19 to 0.44) 0.14 (20.19 to 0.44) 0.39 (0.08 to 0.63)†
Sit-ups 0.15 (20.18 to 0.45) 20.11 (20.41 to 0.22) 0.30 (20.02 to 0.57) 0.16 (20.17 to 0.46) 20.07 (20.38 to 0.26) 20.15 (20.45 to 018)
Push-ups 0.27 (20.05 to 0.54) 0.17 (20.16 to 0.46) 0.11 (20.22 to 0.41) 0.16 (20.17 to 0.46) 0.04 (20.28 to 0.36) 0.018 (20.15 to 0.47)
20-m sprint 20.10 (20.41 to 0.23) 20.30 (20.57 to 0.02) 0.12 (20.21 to 0.42) 20.23 (20.51 to 0.10) 20.27 (20.54 to 0.05) 20.28 (20.55 to 0.04)
T-TEST 20.14 (20.44 to 0.19) 20.04 (20.36 to 0.28) 20.03 (20.35 to 0.29) 20.29 (20.56 to 0.03) 20.26 (20.53 to 0.07) 20.19 (20.48 to 0.14)
V_ O2max 20.02 (20.34 to 0.30) 0.09 (20.24 to 0.40) 20.07 (20.38 to 0.26) 0.23 (20.10 to 0.51) 20.16 (20.46 to 0.17) 0.14 (20.19 to 0.44)
R-AvePOW 0.18 (20.15 to 0.47) 0.12 (20.21 to 0.42) 20.11 (20.41 to 0.22) 0.22 (20.11 to 0.50) 0.27 (20.05 to 0.54) 0.40 (0.09 to 0.64)†
R-Fatigue 0.12 (20.21 to 0.42) 0.34 (0.02 to 0.59)† 0.16 (20.17 to 0.46) 0.37 (0.06 to 0.62)† 0.18 (20.15 to 0.47) 0.25 (20.08 to 0.53)
Index
_ O2max = Maximal aerobic
*95% CI = 95% confidence interval; CMJ = countermovement jump; SJ = squat jump; MEDBALL = seated medicine ball toss; T-TEST = Agility T Test; V
power estimated using the 20 m shuttle run test; R-AvePOW = Relative Average Power achieved using Repeated Anaerobic Sprint Test (RAST); R-Fatigue Index = Fatigue Index
estimated using RAST.
†Statistical significance of p # 0.05.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

(V_ O2max). On the second day,

participants were evaluated on
TABLE 3. Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficients (r) with 95%
confidence interval (95% CI) between basketball-specific shooting tests and their performance of a counter-
competitive shooting efficiency observed as game statistics (N = 38).* movement jump and a squat
jump, the MEDBALL, a 20-m
Game statistics sprint and an agility T test. On
2Points% r the third day, the parameters
1Point% r (95% CI) (95% CI) 3Points% r (95% CI) of anaerobic capacity were as-
sessed using the RAST. On the
Stationary-1- 0.35 (0.04–0.60)† fourth, fifth, and sixth days, the
point specific shooting accuracy of
Dynamic-1-point 0.48 (0.19–0.69)†
Stationary-2- 0.32 (0.00–0.58) free throws, field goals, and 3-
points point shots were tested in
Dynamic-2- 0.34 (0.02–0.59)† a sport hall where the athletes
points regularly train and play games.
Stationary-3- 0.26 (20.07 to 0.54) Sit-ups and push-ups were as-
points
Dynamic-3- 0.33 (0.01 to 0.58)† sessed 3 times during the last 3
points testing days after assessing bas-
ketball shooting accuracy.
*95% CI = 95% confidence interval; CMJ = countermovement jump; MEDBALL = seated
To minimize the variation in
medicine ball toss; 1Point% = percentage of successful free throws; 2Point% = percentage
of successful field shots for 2 points; 3Point% = percentage of successful field shots for 3 climatic and other conditions,
points. all measurements were per-
†Statistical significance of p # 0.05.
formed in a sport hall on a par-
quet floor except for RAST,
which was performed in a track
and field stadium. All players
separate days, between 9 and 11 AM, with 48 hours between were familiar with the testing procedures because they rou-
the sessions. During the first testing day, body composition tinely performed the tests during individual strength and
was assessed for each subject. The subjects then performed conditioning programs. All of them were encouraged to
the warm-up, following which a multistage shuttle run test make as much effort as possible during all tests. A 10-
was used to estimate maximal oxygen consumption minute general warm-up (jogging) and 7 minutes of active
dynamic stretching and activi-
ties to increase intensity
(sprints and jumps) were per-
formed before physical fitness
TABLE 4. Multiple regression results between conditioning capacities and
testing. Twelve minutes of spe-
stationary basketball shooting skill tests (N = 38).*
cific basketball shooting drills
Stationary-1-point Stationary-2-points Stationary-3-points were additionally included
before testing basketball shoot-
b p b p b p
ing accuracy.
CMJ 0.42 0.18 20.81 0.60 0.40 0.14 The real-game shooting per-
MEDBALL 20.14 0.64 0.19 0.47 0.15 0.57 formance was observed over
Sit-ups 0.16 0.49 0.11 0.60 0.10 0.62 the competitive season. The
Push-ups 0.37 0.15 0.21 0.35 20.11 0.63 official statistics for participat-
20-m sprint 0.04 0.90 0.34 0.21 20.17 0.56
T-TEST 20.09 0.69 20.01 0.99 20.10 0.64 ing subjects were collected for
V_ O2max 20.30 0.25 20.03 0.89 20.28 0.24 all official games played during
R-AvePOW 0.41 0.56 20.54 0.38 20.31 0.10 the competitive season. For the
R-Fatigue Index 0.01 0.98 0.01 0.99 20.78 0.80 purpose of this study, we
Model summary R2 = 0.23; p = 0.75 R2 = 0.16; p = 0.14 R2 = 0.41; p = 0.02 observed the following: (a)
*b = Standardized Coefficient; CMJ = countermovement jump; MEDBALL = seated med- the percentage of the shooting
icine ball toss; T-TEST = Agility T Test; V_ O2max = Maximal aerobic power estimated using the efficacy for one point; i.e., the
20 m shuttle run test; R-AvePOW = Relative Average Power achieved using Repeated Anaer- free-throw percentage (1Point
2
obic Sprint Test (RAST); R-Fatigue Index = Fatigue Index estimated using RAST; R = coef-
ficient of determination. %), (b) the percentage of the
jump shot shooting efficacy for
2 points; only attempts taken

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2018 | 1987

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Predictors of Shooting Performance in Basketball

from outside the paint area (2Points%), and (c) the percent- anthropometric characteristics. The ICC for conditioning
age of the shooting efficacy for 3 points (3Points%). capacity variables was fairly high, ranging from 0.89 to 0.92,
with relatively small SEM (from 0.03 to 1.59). A slightly
Statistical Analyses lower reproducibility was observed for the basketball shoot-
Descriptive statistics (mean and SD) were calculated for ing tests (the ICC ranged from 0.75 to 0.92; with SEM
each variable. Data sets were tested for normality using the between 2.90 and 6.29) (Table 1).
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test and by visual observation of Countermovement jump performance was significantly
normality plots. The reliability of all conditioning capacities correlated with the performance of dynamic-2-point shots (r
was evaluated by the calculation of intraclass coefficients = 0.34, p # 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.02–0.59]),
(ICCs) and SEM with using freely available MS Excel charts dynamic-3-point shots (r = 0.49, p # 0.05, 95% CI [0.20–
(12). Univariate associations between variables were exam- 0.70]) and stationary-3-point performance (r = 0.39, p #
ined by Pearson’s product-moment correlation. A series of 0.05, 95% CI [0.08–0.63]). The seated medicine ball throw
multiple regression analyses were calculated to examine the test significantly correlated with dynamic-3-point perfor-
following: (a) the overall multivariate relationships between mance (r = 0.39, p # 0.05, 95% CI [0.08–0.63]). A significant
conditioning capacities and basketball shooting perfor- moderate correlation existed between the relative average
mance, and (b) the contribution of each independent vari- power achieved in the RAST test and performance on the
able to the established relationship. Before the calculation of dynamic-3-point test (r = 0.40, p # 0.05, 95% CI [0.09–
multiple regression, we checked the colinearity between the 0.64]). The relative FI correlated with performance on the
predictors. The variance inflation factor (VIF) for most of the dynamic one-point and dynamic-2-point shooting tests (r =
predictors was below 2.5, but the VIF for the squat jump and 0.34, p # 0.05, 95% CI [0.02–0.59]; r = 0.37, p # 0.05, 95% CI
CMJ showed high multicollinearity. When the squat jump [0.06–0.62], respectively). There were no significant correla-
was excluded from the predictor set, the VIF for the CMJ tions between estimated V_ O2max and performance on any of
was appropriate. Therefore, the squat jump was not included the applied basketball shooting tests (Table 2).
in multiple regression calculations. The significance for all Correlations between basketball shooting tests and shoot-
statistical tests was set at p # 0.05. All statistical analyses ing performance in real-game situations (i.e., statistics for the
were completed with the SPSS Ver. 14.0 software statistical competitive season) are presented in Table 3. All 3 dynamic
package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). shooting tests were significantly correlated to corresponding
game statistics (r = 0.48, p # 0.05, 95% CI [0.19–0.69]; r =
RESULTS 0.34, p # 0.05, 95% CI [0.02–0.59], and r = 0.33, p # 0.05,
The results of the K-S test showed that the data for all 95% CI [0.01–0.58] for dynamic one-point, dynamic-2-point,
measures were normally distributed. Descriptive statistics and dynamic-3-point tests, respectively). In addition,
were calculated for all tested variables including age and achievement on the stationary-1-point shooting test was sig-
nificantly correlated with
1Point% achievement for the
competitive season (r = 0.35,
TABLE 5. Multiple regression results between conditioning capacities and
p # 0.05, 95% CI [0.04–0.60]).
dynamic basketball shooting skill tests (N = 38).*
A significant overall relation-
Dynamic-1-point Dynamic-2-points Dynamic-3-points ship was found between pre-
dictors and performance on
b p b p b p
the stationary-3-point test (R2
CMJ 20.51 0.78 0.42 0.03 0.39 0.04 = 0.41; p = 0.02), with no sig-
MEDBALL 0.07 0.82 20.13 0.64 0.34 0.03 nificant partial regressors
Sit-ups 20.17 0.48 0.06 0.80 20.24 0.29 (Table 4). Predictors signifi-
Push-ups 0.09 0.73 20.10 0.69 0.18 0.46 cantly explained dynamic-1-
20-m sprint 20.61 0.06 20.27 0.37 20.01 0.96
T-TEST 0.22 0.35 20.33 0.04 0.13 0.57 point, dynamic-2-point, and
V_ O2max 20.05 0.85 20.01 0.96 0.07 0.79 the dynamic-3-point tests
R-AvePOW 20.08 0.91 20.03 0.97 0.46 0.04 (R2 = 0.36; p = 0.03; R2 =
R-Fatigue Index 20.37 0.03 20.37 0.02 20.38 0.41 0.44; p = 0.03; R2 = 0.39; p =
Model summary R2 = 0.36; p = 0.03 R2 = 0.44; p = 0.03 R2 = 0.39; p = 0.03 0.03, respectively). The anaero-
*b = Standardized Coefficient; CMJ = countermovement jump; MEDBALL = seated med- bic power (b = 0.46, p = 0.04),
icine ball toss; T-TEST = Agility T Test; V_ O2max = Maximal aerobic power estimated using the medicine ball toss (b = 0.34,
20 m shuttle run test; R-AvePOW = Relative Average Power achieved using Repeated Anaer- p = 0.03), and CMJ (b = 0.39,
2
obic Sprint Test (RAST); R-Fatigue Index = Fatigue Index estimated using RAST; R = coef-
ficient of determination. p = 0.03) were significant
predictors of dynamic 3 points.
In addition, the T-TEST
the TM

1988 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

(b = 20.33, p = 0.04), FI (b = 20.37, p = 0.02), and CMJ (b
= 0.42, p = 0.03) were good predictors of dynamic-2-point
performance. Also, the anaerobic FI was the single signifi-
cant predictor of dynamic-1-point performance (b = 20.37,
p = 0.03), indicating generally better shooting performances
in those players with better jumping, throwing, and anaero-
bic endurance capacities (Table 5).
DISCUSSION
This study investigated the association between conditioning
capacities and different shooting skills in basketball players.
The main finding of this research was the existence of
a positive relationship between studied physical capacities
and specific basketball shooting performance with stronger
relationships for dynamic shooting tests. Furthermore, no
relationship was evident between the observed conditioning
capacities and stationary shooting performance for the
short- and middle-distance tests. Finally, all 3 dynamic
shooting tests were significantly related to corresponding
real-game shooting statistics, whereas the stationary one-
point test was correlated with the corresponding statistics
over the competitive season. Before discussing those find-
ings, we will provide a brief overview of the appropriate
reliability of the shooting skill tests used in the investigation.
Shooting performance (i.e., shooting accuracy) is one of
the most important determinants of overall success in
basketball; however, tests of basketball shooting achieve-
ment (shooting skills) are rarely reported with regard to
reliability (3,27). To the best of our knowledge, only 2 studies
directly investigated and reported the reliability of basketball
shooting tests. In brief, De Groot et al. (3) reported poor
reliability of shooting tests in wheelchair basketball players,
and Pojskic et al. (27) systematically investigated shooting
tests used herein and reported appropriate reliability with
Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.75–0.92, an average interitem
correlation of 0.74–0.92. The experimental approach where
only perimeter players were observed as subjects most likely
led to a high consistency of the shooting performance, and
consequently resulted in appropriate reliability of the shoot-
ing tests. The higher reliability of the stationary shooting
tests was a logical consequence of fewer factors that could
influence the performance (i.e., stationary tests are per-
formed in nonfatigued conditions). This is consistent with
previous studies in which investigators compared the reli-
ability of precision performance in water polo players, and
reported better reliability for the tests of specific precision
performed in nonfatigued conditions (35).
Vertical jump performance evaluated using the CMJ
showed a positive correlation with the shooting skill tests,
predominantly with dynamic tests performed from longer
distances. In general, these findings are logical, given the
biomechanical and physiological characteristics of basketball
shooting. Specifically, the dynamic shooting tests are per-
formed in high-intensity conditions that include repeated
changes of direction, variations in speed, and jump perfor-
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
mance. Because of a similar physiological basis and the
necessity to rapidly produce force, the positive relationship
between the CMJ and dynamic shooting tests is logical (33).
Briefly, players who present superior vertical jumping ca-
pacities perform the jump shot with a lower release velocity,
which provides them with more time for executing the cor-
rect shooting technique. By contrast, the players with inad-
equate levels of jumping capacity are not able to generate
enough force; therefore, they use compensatory strategies of
increasing segmental velocity to achieve the necessary ball
distance (13). The compensatory strategies involve addi-
tional muscle activation, which detrimentally affects move-
ment coordination and shooting technique and
consequently impairs shooting accuracy (6,7). Indirectly,
our findings are in agreement with previous reports where
authors highlighted appropriate levels of lower limb explo-
sive power and superior jumping ability as essential compo-
nents in basketball (4,10). Finally, these results are in
agreement with the results of the study by Pojskic et al.
(27), who reported a positive relationship between vertical
jump performance and 3-point shooting accuracy during one
competitive season.
The previous explanation for the observed association
between the CMJ and dynamic shooting performance is
further supported by a significant association between the
medicine ball toss performance and achievement on the
dynamic-3-point test. Our results suggest that there is
a synergy between explosive power of the lower and upper
limbs when shots are performed from longer distances.
Knowing that the MEDBALL is basically a test of upper-
body explosive force (32), the obtained relationship is in
agreement with the results of Tang and Shung (34) who
reported a significant correlation between long-distance
shooting accuracy and the ability to rapidly produce force
in the upper limbs, (i.e., in their study, force was measured as
isokinetic strength of the elbow extensor muscles). In addi-
tion, Justin et al. (14) reported that training for maximum
strength of the elbow extensors improved the accuracy of 3-
point shooting. In this regard, players with more developed
strength will invest less muscular force into the movement of
shooting at the basket than those with less developed
strength. It is hypothesized that less trained individuals
would likely activate additional musculature and make com-
pensatory movements, which may contribute to shooting
technique modifications, i.e., impairment of the correct tech-
nique and accuracy (7). This is particularly important for
shooting over a longer distance and in fatigued conditions
when one is less able to exert muscular force (6,7).
Moreover, the findings of this study are supported by
Pojskic et al. (25), who reported similar results that empha-
sized significant correlations between upper-limb explosive
power and achievement in long-distance shooting observed
over one competitive season. Ultimately, the findings
showed that explosive power capacity of both the lower
and upper limbs had significant positive regression weights,
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2018 | 1989
 Predictors of Shooting Performance in Basketball
which indicates that players with a better explosive power
capacity have higher accuracy in the shooting tests per-
formed over longer distances. This is in agreement with
other studies that have shown that a quicker and higher
jump height enables a shooter to easily establish an advan-
tageous shooting position by releasing the ball from a higher
point (13,29) and disrupt the timing of defending players
(16), which makes it difficult for the defender to block a shot
or to cover the target.
Straight-line sprinting performance has not been shown to
be a good determinant of shooting accuracy. The dynamic
shooting tests require a player to constantly make short
sprints and change direction and speed before performing
a jump shot. Therefore, the authors originally expected that
linear sprinting speed would be correlated with dynamic
shooting test performance. The lack of association between
sprinting capacity and shooting accuracy may be explained
by the fact that very fast sprinting could actually negatively
influence optimal positioning for shooting. Specifically, with
increased speed, momentum increases (p = mv), which con-
sequently puts a player’s body out of optimal balance and
therefore alters shooting performance (22).
Preplanned agility performance was assessed by the T-
TEST and proved to be a good determinant of dynamic-2-
point performance, which is most likely related to the
similarity in movement templates between dynamic shoot-
ing tests and the T-TEST. Specifically, both performances
include stop-and-go movement patterns. Initially, we ex-
pected to find a significant relationship between the T-TEST
and dynamic-3-point performance; however, this was not
shown in our results. The lack of a significant association
between agility and this shooting performance could most
likely be attributed to a stronger contribution of explosive
power tests, such as the CMJ and MEDBALL, to long-
distance shooting accuracy (25).
Although it has previously been reported that aerobic
power affects game performance with a positive correlation
between V_ O2max and the number of high-intensity and
repeated sprint activities in basketball, in this study, aerobic
capacity was not shown to be a good determinant of perfor-
mance in the shooting skill tests (1,2). We hypothesized that
aerobic capacity could play an important role in dynamic
shooting performance because of a potentially shorter recov-
ery time between the intensive bouts of testing trials and
because the aerobic energy system is an important pathway
for the removal of blood lactate and replenishing the crea-
tine phosphate (23). However, our results did not support
the importance of aerobic capacity in shooting performance.
This finding is most likely because the players were very
homogenous in terms of aerobic power, which consequently
truncated the variance and reduced the correlation between
this conditioning capacity and shooting performance.
The anaerobic endurance capacities, which are expressed
as relative values, are important predictors of performance
on dynamic shooting tests, especially those performed over
the TM
1990 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
longer distances. It is a well-known fact that anaerobic
capacity is very important in intensive basketball activities
that last between 30 and 90 seconds (4). Our results indi-
cated that the players with a higher anaerobic capacity had
a higher percentage of completed shots in the dynamic tests
of shooting from short and middle distances (i.e., dynamic-1-
point and dynamic-2-point tests). The relationship between
the anaerobic capacity and shooting accuracy can be ex-
plained in light of fatigue resistance. It has been reported
that moderate and high fatigue could negatively influence
the jump shot height and other biomechanical determinants
of the long-distance shooting technique (6). Players with
superior anaerobic endurance capacity and greater fatigue
resistance are more capable of coping with the negative
effects of fatigue during repeated bouts of high-intensity
intermittent activities and have a better capacity to continu-
ously shoot with proper technique, which is one of the most
important determinants of accuracy.
Our results generally indicate that jumping and throwing
capacities and anaerobic endurance were better determi-
nants of shooting accuracy than aerobic power. These results
are in agreement with results of previous studies in which
the authors reported that basketball success was more
dependent on anaerobic power and capacity than on aerobic
power (4,10). It should be emphasized that the relationship
between conditioning capacities and shooting performance
was more evident when the players performed shots in
dynamic (i.e., fatigued) conditions. The physical demands
and induced fatigue during the dynamic tests can be ex-
plained by the tests’ intermittent nature and a design that
continuously required players to accelerate and decelerate
while overcoming their body inertia. In other words, the
dynamic tests are very similar to real competitive shooting
situations when players need to stop and perform jump shots
after sprinting and after they have performed quick changes
of direction.
Tests of basketball shooting in fatigued conditions (i.e.,
dynamic shooting tests) are significantly related to the
corresponding performance in a real basketball game (i.e.,
game statistics) observed over the competitive season. These
findings additionally support the previous discussion, where
dynamic shooting tests are highlighted as more appropriate
for evaluating the real-game shooting performance of
basketball players than stationary tests. Moreover, dynamic
shooting tests were originally designed to simulate sport-
specific situations and mimic real-game situations that occur
in basketball; they require a player to sprint, receive the ball,
turn to the basket, and perform a jump shot from middle and
long distances (27). Evidently, such simulated fatigued con-
ditions contributed to higher ecological validity of the
dynamic tests. Although we are not able to compare our
findings to other studies involving basketball, the results
from studies conducted in other team sports support our
results. In brief, Uljevic et al. (35) found that fitness tests
performed after standardized exhaustion were more valid

determinants of the quality of water polo players than cor-
responding fitness tests performed in nonfatigued conditions.
There are several limitations of the study. First, this study
failed to evaluate physiological responses such as heart rate
and blood lactate concentration during the dynamic shoot-
ing tests, which could help in explaining the underlying
mechanisms responsible for supporting the physiological
loads imposed during the assessments and facilitate better
understanding of the induced fatigue and observed relation-
ships between conditioning capacities and shooting perfor-
mance. In addition, we studied perimeter players only;
therefore, this investigation did not contribute to the
knowledge of possible associations between conditioning
capacities and shooting skills in players involved at other
playing positions in basketball. Although we are aware that
our results are not the final word on the topic, we are aware
of the lack of studies that have investigated this specific
problem and believe that the findings of this investigation
will contribute to knowledge in this field.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The applied jumping and throwing tests and tests of
anaerobic capacity proved to be good determinants of
performance on the dynamic shooting skill tests. Conse-
quently, it can be concluded that having advanced power
capacities and proper anaerobic fatigue resistance can pro-
vide players with a solid foundation for performing
long-distance shots successfully. Therefore, coaches and
conditioning specialists who work with basketball athletes
should include power and anaerobic training, not only to
improve these specific conditioning capacities, but also to
positively influence dynamic shooting skills.
In developing conditioning programs in basketball, special
attention should be focused on the combination of skill-
based high-intensity intermittent shooting drills with a short
recovery time between the shooting bouts. It can be
expected that such an approach will stimulate specific
adaptations for developing anaerobic capacity and fatigue
resistance while simultaneously improving shooting accu-
racy. In this way, players practice and improve their shooting
accuracy under physically demanding conditions similar to
those experienced in a basketball game. In addition,
throughout such conditioning protocols, players will be
conditioned with a ball, which provides a highly motivating
training environment compared with that of a generic
conditioning approach.
Dynamic shooting tests have been found to be more
related to corresponding game statistics than stationary
shooting tests. This is almost certainly a direct consequence
of the characteristics of shooting performance during
a basketball game when most of the shots are performed
under a certain level of exhaustion. Therefore, we suggest
the incorporation of the dynamic shooting tests that were
presented in this study to predict real-game shooting
performance of perimeter players.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors thank all athletes who voluntarily participated in
the study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to
disclose. The results of this study do not constitute
endorsement of the product by the authors or the National
Strength and Conditioning Association.
REFERENCES
1. Abdelkrim, NB, Castagna, C, Jabri, I, Battikh, T, El Fazaa, S, and El
Ati, J. Activity profile and physiological requirements of junior elite
basketball players in relation to aerobic-anaerobic fitness. J Strength
Cond Res 24: 2330–2342, 2010.
2. Abdelkrim, NB, El Fazaa, S, and El Ati, J. Time–motion analysis and
physiological data of elite under-19-year-old basketball players
during competition. Br J Sports Med 41: 69–75, 2007.
3. De Groot, S, Balvers, IJM, Kouwenhoven, SM, and Janssen, TWJ.
Validity and reliability of tests determining performance-related
components of wheelchair basketball. J Sports Sci 30: 879–887, 2012.
4. Delextrat, A and Cohen, D. Physiological testing of basketball
players: Toward a standard evaluation of anaerobic fitness. J Strength
Cond Res 22: 1066–1072, 2008.
5. Diener, MH, Golding, LA, and Diener, D. Validity and reliability of
a one-minute half sit-up test of abdominal strength and endurance.
Res Sports Med 6: 105–119, 1995.
6. Erculj, F and Supej, M. Impact of fatigue on the position of the
release arm and shoulder girdle over a longer shooting distance for
an elite basketball player. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1029–1036, 2009.
7. Erculj, F and Supej, M. The impact of fatigue on jump shot height
and accuracy over a longer shooting distance in basketball. Ugdym,
Kauno kult, Sportas 63: 35–41, 2006.
8. Gomez, MA, Gasperi, L, and Lupo, C. Performance analysis of
game dynamics during the 4th game quarter of NBA close games.
Int J Perform Anal Sport 16: 249–263, 2016.
9. Hashim, A. Objectivity, reliability, and validity of the 908 push-ups
test protocol among male and female students of sports science
program. JPES 12: 103–106, 2012.
10. Hoffman, JR, Tenenbaum, G, Maresh, CM, and Kraemer, WJ.
Relationship between athletic performance tests and playing time in
elite college basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 10: 67–71, 1996.
11. Hoffman, JR, Williams, DR, Emerson, NS, Hoffman, MW, Wells, AJ,
McVeigh, DM, McCormack, WP, Mangine, GT, Gonzalez, AM, and
Fragala, MS. L-alanyl-L-glutamine ingestion maintains performance
during a competitive basketball game. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 9: 4, 2012.
12. Hopkins, W. Reliability from consecutive pairs of trials (excel
spreadsheet). In: A New View of Statistics. sportsci.org: Internet Society
for Sport Science, 2000. Available at: http://sportsci.org/resource/
stats/xrely.xls. Accessed April 2015.
13. Hudson, JL. A biomechanical analysis by skill level of free throw
shooting in basketball. Biomech Sports 35: 95–102, 1982.
14. Justin, I, Strojnik, V, and Sarabon, N. The effect of increased
maximum strength of elbow extensors on the ability to shoot
accurately in darts and the three-point shot in basketball. Sport 2:
51–55, 2006.
15. Leger, L and Gadoury, C. Validity of the 20 m shuttle run test with
1 min stages to predict VO2max in adults. Can J Sport Sci 14: 21–26,
1989.
16. Miura, K, Yamamoto, M, Tamaki, H, and Zushi, K. Determinants of
the abilities to jump higher and shorten the contact time in
a running 1-legged vertical jump in basketball. J Strength Cond Res
24: 201–206, 2010.
17. Nunome, H, Doyo, W, Sakurai, S, Ikegmai, Y, and Yabe, K. A
kinematic study of the upper-limb motion of wheelchair basketball
shooting in tetraplegic adults. J Rehabil Res Dev 39: 63–71, 2002.
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2018 | 1991
 Predictors of Shooting Performance in Basketball
18. Okazaki, VH, Rodacki, AL, and Satern, MN. A review on the
basketball jump shot. Sports Biomech 14: 190–205, 2015.
19. Okazaki, VHA, Okazaki, FHA, Sasaki, JE, and Keller, B. Speed-
accuracy relationship in basketball shoot. Fiep Bull 77: 745–747,
2007.
20. Ostojic, SM, Mazic, S, and Dikic, N. Profiling in basketball: Physical
and physiological characteristics of elite players. J Strength Cond Res
20: 740–744, 2006.
21. Padulo, J, Attene, G, Migliaccio, GM, Cuzzolin, F, Vando, S, and
Ardigo, LP. Metabolic optimisation of the basketball free throw. J
Sports Sci 33: 1454–1458, 2015.
22. Pehar, M, Sekulic, D, Sisic, N, Spasic, M, Uljevic, O, Krolo, A,
Milanovic, Z, and Sattler, T. Evaluation of different jumping tests in
defining position-specific and performance-level differences in high
level basketball players. Biol Sport 34: 263–272, 2017.
23. Piiper, J and Spiller, P. Repayment of O2 debt and resynthesis of
high-energy phosphates in gastrocnemius muscle of the dog. J Appl
Physiol 28: 657–662, 1970.
24. Pojskic, H, Separovic, V, Uzicanin, E, Muratovic, M, and Mackovic,
S. Positional role differences in the aerobic and anaerobic power of
elite basketball players. J Hum Kinet 49: 219–227, 2015.
25. Pojskic, H, Separovic, V, Muratovic, M, and Uzicanin, E. The
relationship between physical fitness and shooting accuracy of
professional basketball players. Motriz 20: 408–417, 2014.
26. Pojskic, H, Separovic, V, and Uzicanin, E. Differences between
successful and unsuccessful basketball teams on the final Olympic
tournament. Acta Kinesiol 3: 110–114, 2009.
27. Pojskic, H, Separovic, V, and Uzicanin, E. Reliability and factorial
validity of basketball shooting accuracy tests. Sport Scientific Pract
Aspects 8: 25–32, 2011.
28. Puente, C, Abian-Vicen, J, Areces, F, Lopez, R, and Del Coso, J.
Physical and physiological demands of experienced male basketball
the TM
1992 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
players during a competitive game. J Strength Cond Res 31: 956–962,
2017.
29. Sallet, P, Perrier, D, Ferret, JM, Vitelli, V, and Baverel, G.
Physiological differences in professional basketball players as
a function of playing position and level of play. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness 45: 291–294, 2005.
30. Sekulic, D, Pehar, M, Krolo, A, Spasic, M, Uljevic, O, Calleja-
Gonzalez, J, and Sattler, T. Evaluation of basketball-specific agility:
applicability of preplanned and nonplanned agility performances for
differentiating playing positions and playing levels. J Strength Cond
Res 31: 2278–2288, 2017.
31. Sindik, J and Jukic, I. Differences in situation efficacy indicators at
the elite basketball players that play on different positions in the
team. Coll Antropol 35: 1095–1104, 2011.
32. Sisic, N, Jelicic, M, Pehar, M, Spasic, M, and Sekulic, D. Agility
performance in high-level junior basketball players: The predictive
value of anthropometrics and power qualities. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness 56: 884–893, 2016.
33. Struzik, A and Zawadzki, J. Leg stiffness during phases of
countermovement and take-off in vertical jump. Acta Bioeng Biomech
15: 113–118, 2013.
34. Tang, WT and Shung, HM. Relationship between isokinetic
strength and shooting accuracy at different shooting ranges in
Taiwanese elite high school basketball players. Isokinet Exerc Sci 13:
169–174, 2005.
35. Uljevic, O, Esco, MR, and Sekulic, D. Reliability, validity, and
applicability of isolated and combined sport-specific tests of
conditioning capacities in top-level junior water polo athletes. J
Strength Cond Res 28: 1595–1605, 2014.
36. Zagatto, AM, Beck, WR, and Gobatto, CA. Validity of the running
anaerobic sprint test for assessing anaerobic power and predicting
short-distance performances. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1820–1827,
2009.