Gonzalez, Adam M.; Hoffman, Jay R.; Rogowski, Joseph P.; Burgos, William; Manalo, Edwin; Weise, Keon; Fragala, Maren S.; Stout, Jeffrey R. (2012). Performance Changes in NBA Basketball Players Vary in Starters Vs. Nonstarters Over A Competitive Season. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: POST ACCEPTANCE, 29 May 2012.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare starters (S) to non-starters (NS), on their ability to maintain strength, power and quickness during a competitive NBA season. Twelve NBA players were assessed at the beginning and end of the competitive season. However, due to trades and injury, only seven (S = 4, NS = 3) players (28.2 +/- 3.4 y; 200.9 +/- 9.4 cm; 104.7 +/- 13.9 kg; 7.2 +/- 1.9 % body fat) participated in both testing sessions and underwent analysis. Anthropometric, performance (repetitive vertical jump power [VJP], squat power [SQT power], and reaction time) and subjective feelings of energy, focus, alertness, and fatigue were recorded during each testing session. Results were interpreted using magnitude-based statistics to make inferences on true differences between starters and non-starters using the unequal variances t-statistic. Starters played an average of 27.8 +/- 6.9 min[middle dot]game-1 and NS played an average of 11.3 +/- 7.0 min[middle dot]game-1. During the course of the season changes in VJP indicated that S was likely to increase VJP ([INCREMENT] = 77.3 +/- 78.1 W) compared to NS ([INCREMENT] = -160.0 +/- 151.0 W). There also appeared to be a possible beneficial effect on maintaining reaction time in S ([INCREMENT] = 0.005 +/- 0.074 s) compared to NS ([INCREMENT] = 0.047 +/- 0.073 s). In addition, no clear difference in [DELTA] SQT power were seen between S ([INCREMENT] = 110.8 +/- 141.4 W) and NS ([INCREMENT] = 143.5 +/- 24.7 W). Changes in subjective feelings of energy indicated that S were very likely to maintain their energy over the course of a season. It also appeared possible that S were able to have a more positive response to subjective measures of fatigue and alertness than NS, with only trivial differences between S and NS in regards to maintaining focus. Results of this study suggest that NBA players may enhance lower body power, repetitive jump ability and reaction during a competitive season, which appears to be enhanced with the stimulus of playing time.
I have written about the benefits of playing every player in terms of maintaining competitiveness in practice, and one could argue that these differences would be greater with youths or adolescents because they are in a more developmental period of growth.
Effects of sports massage and intermittent cold-water immersion on recovery from matches by basketball players. Anne Delextrat, Julio Calleja-González, Audrey Hippocrate, Neil David Clarke. Journal of Sports Sciences. 31 Aug 2012.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of intermittent cold-water immersion and massage on perceptual and performance markers of recovery by basketball players after competitive matches. Eight men (age 23 ± 3 years; stature 190.5 ± 8.9 cm; body mass 90.3 ± 9.6 kg; body fat 12.8 ± 4.8%) and eight women (age 22 ± 2 years; stature 179.0 ± 8.5 cm; body mass 77.6 ± 9.2 kg; body fat 22.5 ± 6.6%) basketball players participated. Massage, cold-water immersion or control were applied immediately after competitive matches, followed by assessments of perceptual measures of recovery and physical performance, countermovement jump and repeated-sprint ability 24 h after intervention. There was lower perception of fatigue overall and in the legs immediately after the massage and cold-water immersion condition (P < 0.001;
= 0.91). Furthermore, women had a lower perception of fatigue in cold-water immersion than massage at any testing time (P < 0.001;
= 0.37). Jump performance was greater after cold-water immersion than the control condition (P = 0.037,
= 0.37). There was no effect of any of the recovery interventions on repeated-sprint measures (P at best 0.067,
at best 0.68). The results suggest that both massage and cold-water immersion improve perceptual measures of recovery. Furthermore, cold-water immersion improves jump performance although neither such immersion nor massage had an effect on repeated-sprint ability. This suggests that, overall, cold-water immersion is more useful than massage in the recovery from basketball matches, especially in women.
Quick question…is there one offense / defense over another that you would recommend in order to insure this happens? It’s almost an impossible question to answer, I do realize that, however, some offenses (Grinnell System) seem to really be geared to use ALL players (mass substitutions, etc.). Just wondering.
I don’t think the type of offense matters. I think it has more to do with the emphasis of the coach. If you run the Grinnell offense and only allow two players to shoot, it does not really enhance each player’s development. If you run a basic motion offense, but allow equal opportunity, each player is more likely to develop, in my opinion. I prefer to play a faster pace to increase the number of possessions and to get more players playing time. Last year, without a shot clock, sometimes it was really hard to get all the players in the game, as players would play two minutes and still hadn’t touched the ball because we’d had only one or two possessions.
How would you ensure more playing time for all players if you have 5-6 players on the bench?
I have found players at least need to have a couple of trips down the court before they are comfortable in the game. You cannot take them out to quick because they feel they didn’t had enough time to make an impact.
On the other hand, you don’t wanna leave players that were playing well to long on the bench in order not to mess with their flow as well.
This creates a circular reasoning cause you pull out players to fast to ensure the proven flow of other players. Any thoughts?
I had 14 players last season, and every player played in every half of every game except 1-2 times when a player or two only played in one half (punishments excluded, but I don’t remember any punishments beyond a quarter for being late). It is not easy, and playing time was not equal. If a player was playing well, I tried to leave him in or get him back into the game quickly. I try not to take out players directly after a missed shot or turnover because I do not want them to associate being taken out of the game with the mistake. It’s far from perfect, but I don’t know if any system is flawless.
“I try not to take out players directly after a missed shot or turnover because I do not want them to associate being taken out of the game with the mistake.”
I agree with you here, I do the same. I like to play everyone as much as I can, but the truth is each game is different. This means that, depending on the game, the personnel used will vary. This also means that, while not playing much in one game, players actually might play more in another game because it suits them more.
There are also players which are able to adapt their game depending on what the team needs. These players naturally will get more playing time. The problem I have had over the years is role-identification in terms of what we as a coaching staff need for the team. Based upon practices and games we have a pretty good idea what players can or cannot do. However, the player and coach may not see eye to eye here, causing discussions over playing time. Almost all these discussions are driven by the fact the players feel they should have played more (I never have heard a player complain they played to much…).
So the solution I think would be to make the role of the player clear, for example by using a grading system in terms of what coaches expect and what they can do. That way they know how they measure up to their peers.
Dennis:
Here’s an article about discussions of playing time:
http://developyourbballiq.com/why-do-you-deserve-to-play/
As for roles, they can be limiting or empowering. With younger players, I try to stay away from roles because I don’t want them to be limited. In my paper on 3v3 basketball that was accepted for publication this week, one thing that I found was that positional roles did not change when the game moved from 3v3 to 5v5: the point guards still possessed the ball more than wings and posts. The possessions were spread out a little more evenly, but there was a statistically significant difference.
If roles persist in an early-season 3v3 pick-up game, what happens with clearly defined roles over the course of the season?
I suppose it depends on goals.
OTOH, when I gave professional players one specific goal to achieve to earn playing time, the goal (role) empowered and motivated them to accomplish the goal and earn playing time. Of course, I also emphasized that the role was their way into the rotation; once they entered the rotation, they could work to expand their game to earn more and more playing time.
Youth players shouldn’t be pressed into roles or positions on the court, that is something I strongly believe in. I feel I must clarify what my definition of roles is: roles are not limited to positions, they are based on what the player can do and because of that roles can change during the season as the player develops.
Let me illustrate this with an example, let us assume a player, regardless of position, has great defensive skills and is able to hassle and pressure the opposing guard. A role of this player can become exactly that, pressuring and hassling the opposing guard as much as possible. This is something that can help the team IMHO and doesn’t necessary limit the player in his possibilities. The role of the other four players changes as well, they need to put on pressure on the passing lanes as much as possible. There is no need to have one player pressuring as hard as possible while other players play laid-back defense allowing the opposing guard to bail himself out by passing to a teammate.
Hence my comment about grading to establish what a player can do and what the areas are they need to work on. When the game calls for a pressing situation as described in the above example I would put in players who are capable to shut down the passing lanes. When I put one player in that cannot perform in that role and the opposing team is smart, they can pass their way out of the pressure.
Let’s extend that example for a bit, let’s say there is a great offensive player, but he/she is a so so defender and is unable to pressure the passing lanes. When the game calls for a tight defense and therefore the team needs players to pressure the passing lanes. This might mean I have to bench my best offensive player cause he/she cannot perform that role. Afterwards the player complains of lack of playing time.
But then again, it just all depends on the definitions used. I would love to have a copy of your article if you’re willing to share it. I’m registered at your blog, so my email is around somewhere in the admin-panel.
Inspiring article by the way, I agree that showing up for practice is a minimum requirement for participation. However, in my situation my players either work or go to school even on evening hours. Bills need to be paid so they have to go to work. I use practice attendance as a reward for example by letting them start the game. Players that are unexcused will get a penalty and will not play in the first quarter for example. I also consider a late excuse (e.g. two hours before practice) as being unexcused except for sudden illness or important unexpected family matters.
But like you said, there are many more factors to be taken into consideration for the amount of playing time and practice attendance is just a small part of it. If you would use that as the only measurement what would you do if the player that has been at every practice is playing below his/her capabilities whereas the player that missed a few is diving for loose balls and works his/her ass of on the court?
What are the implications of telling a player that he is a defender? Is there a subliminal message that he is not an offensive player? How does that affect learning and development?
The implications are that the player is or becomes aware of his strength and weaknesses. I must stress that I don’t agree with labeling players, like being a defender. I specifically mention that during the season, where players are learning and developing, shifts occur as the player turns weaknesses into strengths.
I do agree the danger within this approach lies that the coach focuses on the strengths and does not give the player the possibility to address his weaknesses. Essentially the coach says: you’re good at defending, so you’re a defender and that is it. That is the same as saying to a large kid aged 14 that he needs to play in the post because he is tall.
As far as learning and development, I think as a player you need to know your strengths and weaknesses. Turn your weaknesses into strengths and use them.
I was that tall kid, I was the one who was put underneath the basket with the sole instruction to stop every one from attacking the basket and on offensive move from weak side to ball side and rebound. I was also that kid who was told at a later age what my strength (post-play) and weaknesses where. I heard my coach tell me to develop my weaknesses into strengths but during games he allowed me to do what I did best at that time. As time progressed I gradually expanded my role on the team, moving further away from the basket. During the summer I worked on my threepoint shot and perimeter defense so when I got back I could play inside and outside. That gave me a huge advantage as I could post up smaller players, while taking taller players out of their defensive comfort zone. I worked on my ballhandling skills, making my left hand as strong as my right, up till the point the other coaches could not tell if I was a lefty or not. Eventually I moved to the guard spot where I learned to pass and look for teammates. I had a great run as a player and being able to do all those things made me completer as a player.
Recently Published Basketball #Research http://t.co/jiovd5Zajc