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

net/publication/255179851

Study of the defensive performance indicators in peak performance basketball

Article  in  Revista de Psicologia del Deporte · December 2009

CITATIONS READS

19 317

4 authors, including:

Enrique Ortega Miguel Ángel Gómez Ruano

University of Murcia Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
317 PUBLICATIONS   2,674 CITATIONS    224 PUBLICATIONS   3,331 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

J. Salado
Fundación San Pablo Andalucía CEU
12 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Game Related Statistics Discriminating Between National and Foreign Players in EuroLeague Women Basketball (FIBA). View project

Home advantage in Sport View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Miguel Ángel Gómez Ruano on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Revista de Psicología del Deporte Universitat de les Illes Balears
2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 379-384 Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
ISSN: 1132-239X

STUDY OF THE DEFENSIVE

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IN
PEAK PERFORMANCE
BASKETBALL
Alejandro Álvarez*, Enrique Ortega*, Miguel Ángel Gómez**
& Jesús Salado*

KEY WORDS: performance indicators, basketball, defense.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of the present study was to analyze the different defensive performance indicators in basketball,
analyzing the difference in relation to success (efficacious or non-efficacious defenses) and the game result (win or loss). All half-
court offenses (n=1045) from the quarterfinal, semifinal, consolation game, and final of the 2008 Olympics Games were
analyzed. In each defense phase, the following variables were analyzed with regard to the team on defense: (1) Type of defense
used, (2) Pressure in offense transition, (3) Defensive switches, (4) Helping on defense, (5) Inside passes, (6) Degree of
opposition when shooting, (7) Points allowed, (8) Final result of the game, and (9) Defensive efficacy. The most significant
results show that: : a) the type of defense that was most used was quarter-court man-on-man (man-on-man at 6.25m), but the
one that was most efficacious was the half-court zone defense; b) transition pressure was used in 23.83% of the game phases; c)
defensive switches were done in 7.85% of the game phases; d) helping on defense was used in 60% of the game phases; e) inside
passes were taken in 30.9% of the game phases; f) 38.9% of the shots were done with high opposition; and g) points were scored
in 42.28% of the game phases, such that winning teams allowed the opponent to score in 38.81% of the game phases, and losing
teams in 45.77%.

D. Alejandro Álvarez. Plaza de los Barcos nº2, 2ºC. 11100 San Fernando. Cádiz.
E-mail: [email protected]
* Catholic University San Antonio
** Faculty of Education. Complutense University of Madrid
Álvarez, A., Ortega, E., Gómez, M.A. & Salado, J. Defensive performance indicators in basketball

Introduction the use of inside play was found between

winning and losing teams.
Within the study of performance In most studies the differences between
indicators in basketball, most papers winning and losing teams are analyzed,
analyze aspects related to the offensive although no studies have been found that
phase while few studies analize defense. In analyze the degree of efficacy of each
the studies that assess defensive actions, defense utilized. The purpose of the study
the most studied aspect has been the was to analyze the different defensive
influence of the defensive rebound on the performance indicators in basketball,
game result, and significant differences are studying the differences between winning
found in favor of the winning teams in and losing teams as well as between
relation to the amount of defensive efficacacious and non-efficacacious
rebounds made (García et al ., 2007). To a defenses.
lesser extent, information has been found
that analyzes the different types of Method
defensive systems(man-to-man, zone,
mixed, and others), and most of the results Through observational methodology, all
find man-on-man defense is what is most the half-court game phases (n = 1045)
often used (Farinha & Tavares, 2007). from the men's quarterfinals, semifinals,
Differentiating winning and losing consolation game, and final of the 2008
teams, Gómez et al. (2006) found that the Olympics Games were analyzed. In each
former used half-court man-on-man game phase were analyzed variables that
defense more, while the latter used man- can be seen in Table 1. The observers
on-man pressure and mixed defenses more. obtained a minimum reliability of 0.99 with
In regard to zone defense, these authors regard to inter- and intra-observer
did not find differences between the reliability. The chi-square test was used. A
groups. On the other hand, another significance level of p<0.05 was used.
analyzed defensive variable has been the
degree of opposition when shooting. Along Results
these lines, Ortega and Fernández (2007)
analyzed three-point shots and observed In table 1, the percentages of use and
that winning teams carried out a higher efficacy of the studied variables are presented.
percentage of three-point shots without A relationship was found between final
opposition than losing teams.In another result and type of defense. Both winning and
study, Ibáñez et al. (2007) found that the losing teams obtained their maximal efficacy
most frequent degree of opposition was percentage when they used a half-court zone
submaximal (23.9%) followed closely by defense, there were no statistically significant
opposition that they called medium and differences between type of defense and
high (21.9% and 21.7%, respectively). efficacy. In table 1, it is observed that in only
With regard to inside passes, Cárdenas one of four game phases the team on defense
et al., (1999) found that the average pressures the player dribbling the ball from the
number of inside passes per offensive back court to the front court. Winning teams
phases was only 0.41 and no difference in use pressure almost twice as much as losing

380 Revista de Psicología del Deporte. 2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 379-384
Álvarez, A., Ortega, E., Gómez, M.A. & Salado, J. Defensive performance indicators in basketball

WINNING LOSING TOTAL

Variable Category
Use Efficacy Use Efficacy Use Efficacy
Half-court Zone 3.05 68.75 20.96 49.54 11.96 52.00
Quarter-court man-to man 74.29 53.59 66.54 44.80 70.43 49.46
Type of defense Half-court man-to man 12.00 39.68 2.50 38.46 7.27 39.47
Full-court man-to man 8.38 54.55 5.00 46.15 6.70 51.43
Full-court zone 1.90 40.00 4.62 41.67 3.25 41.18
Other 0.38 0.00 0.38 100.00 0.38 50.00

Pressure transition No pressure 68.76 51.80 83.65 45.75 76.17 48.49

pressure 31.24 52.44 16.35 45.88 23.83 50.20

No switch 89.52 52.34 94.81 47.06 92.15 49.64

Defensive switches
Position-for-Position 3.62 63.16 2.12 9.09 2.87 43.33
Inside - outside 6.86 41.67 3.08 31.25 4.98 38.46

Help for player with ball No help 40.19 48.82 39.81 43.48 40.00 46.17
Help 59.81 54.14 60.19 47.28 60.00 50.72

Inside passes None used 73.33 53.51 64.81 49.55 69.09 51.66
Passes used 26.67 47.86 35.19 38.80 30.91 42.72

Low opp. 27.20 41.02 28.80 36.81 28.00 38.8

Opposition when shooting
Medium opp. 31.68 52.11 34.28 42.01 32.99 46.7
High opp. 41.12 46.71 36.92 37.92 38.91 42.5

0 61.19 54.23 57.72

1 5.54 3.65 4.60
Points allowed
2 21.99 28.65 25.31
3- 10.52 13.08 11.79
4 0.76 0.38 0.58

EFFICACY Efficacy 52.00 45.77 48.90

No efficacy 48.00 54.23 51.10

Table 1 .- Percentages of use and efficacy of different performance indicators in winning and losing teams

Revista de Psicología del Deporte. 2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 379-384 381
teams, and this difference was statistically =. 649). Both winning and losing teams
significant (χ 2 (1) = 31,920, p <.001). obtained their maximum efficacy percentage
Both winning and losing team obtained using a medium degree of shooting
their maximum efficacy percentage when they opposition, followed by high and low.
pressured the player that dribbled the ball from
the back court to the front court (χ 2 (2) = Discussion
10,351, p <.01).Winning teams obtained their
maximum efficacy percentage using defenses in The results of this study demonstrate that
which they do position-for-position defensive the man-to-man defenses are more often used
switches, followed by defenses where they do by both winning and losing teams, with
not use switches, and defenses with inside- quarter-court man-to-man (man-to-man at
outside defensive switches (χ 2 (2) = 2,510, p 6.25m) being the most common. However,
=. 285). On the contrary, losing teams obtained losing teams use zone defenses a lot and
their maximum efficacy percentage using further, they alternate more between the
defenses where there were no switches, and a different defenses due, possibly, to the fact
statistically significant relationship was found that since they are coming from behind, they
between defensive switches and efficacy (χ 2 (2) use all possible resources to catch up. Other
= 7,651, p <.05). On the other hand, helping studies have found similar results in other
on defense was done in more than half of the contexts, and man-to-man defenses are the
game phases. No differences were found most used defenses (Farinha & Tavares, 2007;
between winning and losing teams (χ 2 (1) =. Gómez et al. 2006). With regard to efficacy, it
016, p =. 900). Both winning and losing teams should be pointed out that in all types of
obtained their highest efficacy percentages defense, winning teams had a higher efficacy
when using defensive help. No statistically percentage than losing teams. In fact, only
significant relationships were found between winning teams, when defending in half-court
helping on defense and efficacy. Similarly, in zone, quarter-court man-to-man, and full-
table 1 it is demonstrated that in almost one out court man-to-man defenses, obtain efficacy
of three phases of offense, the defensive team percentages that are greater than 50%. Losing
allowed inside passes. Specifically, winning teams do not obtain efficacy percentages that
teams allowed inside passes in fewer game are greater than 50% in any defense. With
phases than losing teams, and statistically regard to pressure in transition, this defensive
significant differences were found (χ 2 (1) = factor was used much more by losing teams
8,892, p <.01). Both winning and losing teams than by winning teams. This action allows a
obtained their maximum efficacy percentage team on defense to stall the initial organization
when preventing inside passes. No statistically of the opponent's offensive phase, leaving less
significant relationships were found between time for the opponent.
type of defense and efficacy for winning teams As a result of the tactical offensive actions,
(χ 2 (1) = 1,313, p =. 252), but significant the defenders can be required to switch their
differences were found for losing teams (χ 2 (1) opponents. This is not very desirable for the
= 5,529, p <.05). Winning teams utilized defending teams, since it is assumed that
defenses where they obligated their opponent players were assigned most suitably to a
to take a higher number of shots with high specific opponent player to begin with. The
opposition than losing teams (χ 2 (2) =. 865, p results of this study indicate that this defensive

382 Revista de Psicología del Deporte. 2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 379-383
Álvarez, A., Ortega, E., Gómez, M.A. & Salado, J. Defensive performance indicators in basketball

factor is not used much (mostly by losing between winning and losing teams. In the
teams), though there were no differences present study, it can be confirmed that losing
between winning and losing teams. teams allow more inside passes and defend
One of the aspects that the bibliography
worse against them than winning teams. With
states as a defensive key is the use of helping on
defense. In the present study, it was observed regard to the degree of opposition, high
that 60% of the game phases that were opposition is the most utilized and low
analyzed used defensive help, though there opposition was the degree of opposition that
were no differences between winning and had the worst efficacy percentage (Ibáñez et
losing teams. Another aspect that is not studied al., 2007; Ortega & Fernández, 2007).
much is the use of inside passes. From the The winning teams should achieve
results of the present study, it is seen that in
approximately 60% of defensive phases in
peak-performance basketball, it is not used or
permitted much. Still, winning teams permit the which they do not allow points. Similarly, if
use of the inside pass much less than losing efficacy is defined as scoring and/or obtaining
teams; further, losing teams significantly a personal foul, winning teams should achieve
decrease their defensive efficacy when the approximately 52% of defensive phases in
opponent makes an inside pass. These data which they do not allow points or personal
indicate the tremendous importance of the fouls. All these data should serve as references
defense of inside passes and are not in
for professional basketball coaches, such that
agreement with the data registered by Cárdenas
et al. (1999) who, when analyzing games from they can be utilized both for practices as well
the Spanish first division (ACB league), did not as for monitoring competition (Ortega,
ind differences in the use of the inside game Giménez & Olmedilla, 2008).

References

Cárdenas, D., Piñar, M.I., Sánchez, M., & Pintor, D. (1999). Análisis del juego interior en
baloncesto. Motricidad, 5, 87-110.
Farinha, V., & Tavares, F. (2007). Análise das acções defensivas em equipas de basquetebol
sénior masculino. In F. Tavares (Ed.), 1º Congresso Internacional de Jogos Desportivos.
Porto:Universidade de Porto.
García, A., Parejo, I., De la Cruz, E., Domínguez, A. M., & Saavedra, J. M. (2007).
Differences in basketball game statistics between winning and losing teams in the
Spanish EBA league. Iberian Congress on Basketball Research, 4, 76-78
Gómez, M. A., Tsamourtzis, E. y Lorenzo, A,. (2006). Defensive systems in basketball ball possessions.
International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport., 6(1), 98-107.
Ibáñez, S. J., Feu, S., García, J., Cañadas, M., y Parejo, I. (2007). Multifactorial study of shot efficacy in
the spanish professional basketball league. Iberian Congress on Basketball Research, 4, 54-57
Ortega, E., & Fernández, R. (2007). Differences in 3-point shots between winning and losing teams in
formative years of basketball play. Iberian Congress on Basketball Research, 4,33-37.

Revista de Psicología del Deporte. 2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 379-384 383
 Álvarez, A., Ortega, E., Gómez, M.A. & Salado, J. Defensive performance indicators in basketball

Ortega, E., Giménez, J.M., & Olmedilla, A. (2008). Utilización del vídeo para la mejora de la
percepción subjetiva de la eficacia competitiva y del rendimiento en jugadores de
baloncesto. Revista de Psicología del Deporte 17(2), 279-290.
Farinha, V., & Tavares, F. (2007). Análise das acções defensivas em equipas de basquetebol sénior
masculino. In F. Tavares (Ed.), 1º Congresso Internacional de Jogos Desportivos.
Porto:Universidade de Porto Paper presentado en el I Congresso Internacional de Jogos
Desportivos, Porto.

384 Revista de Psicología del Deporte. 2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 379-384

View publication stats