Effects of a shoot training programme with a reduced hoop diameter rim on free-throw performance and kinematics in young basketball players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper investigated the effects of a shoot training programme with a reduced hoop diameter (0.35 m) rim on kinematics and performance of basketball free-throws. Eighteen young male basketball players were divided into control (CG, n = 9) and experimental (EG, n = 9) groups. Both groups undertook a 10-week training programme comprising two training sessions per week. Under fatigued conditions, each participant shot 150 free-throws in each training session, with the CG using a standard rim, and the EG a smaller rim. All other training was identical between groups. Ball release parameters, player's kinematics and mean of successful free-throws (out of 150 attempts) were determined for each participant, before and after completion of the training programme. Following training, a significant increase (P < 0.05) in ball release angle, speed and height and in shoulder joint angle at release (P < 0.01) was observed for the EG. Both the CG (P < 0.001) and the EG (P < 0.0001) showed an increase in the number of successful free throws, although the increase was greater (P < 0.05) for the EG (22.7 ± 6.4 free throws) than for the CG (14.6 ± 7.8 free throws). We conclude that training with a reduced rim significantly improves free-throw performance in young basketball players.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".