MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relationship between physical fitness and game-related statistics in elite professional basketball players: Regular season vs. playoffs

2017· article· en· W2614478161 on OpenAlexfundno aff
João Henrique Gomes, Renata Rebello Mendes, Marcos Bezerra de Almeida, Marcelo Callegari Zanetti, Gerson dos Santos Leite, Aylton Figueira

Bibliographic record

VenueMotriz Revista de Educação Física · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsBasketballAnthropometryEliteStatisticsBench pressMathematicsLean body massPhysical fitnessPsychologyPhysical therapyBody weightGeographyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS This study aimed to verify th erelation ship between of anthropometric and physical performance variables with game-related statistics in professional elite basketball players during a competition. METHODS Eleven male basketball players were evaluated during 10 weeks in two distinct moments (regular season and playoffs). Overall, 11 variables of physical fitness and 13 variables of game-related statistics were analysed. RESULTS The following significant Pearson’scorrelations were found in regular season: percentage of fat mass with assists (r = -0.62) and steals (r = -0.63); height (r = 0.68), lean mass (r = 0.64), and maximum strength (r = 0.67) with blocks; squat jump with steals (r = 0.63); and time in the T-test with success ful two-point field-goals (r = -0.65), success ful free-throws (r = -0.61), and steals (r = -0.62). However, in playoffs, only stature and lean mass maintained these correlations (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS The anthropometric and physical characteristics of the players showed few correlations with the game-related statistics in regular season, and these correlations are even lower in the playoff games of a professional elite Champion ship, wherefore, not being good predictors of technical performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMotriz Revista de Educação FísicaSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207