Relationship of training load and wellness status with player’s in-game basketball performance: An automated exploratory data analysis case
Franc García,Xavier Reche,Jairo Vázquez-Guerrero,Juan Martín,Ray G. Butler
DOI: https://doi.org/10.25115/eea.v40i1.6998
2022-05-05
Studies of Applied Economics
Abstract:The purpose of the study was to examine the relationships of different training load variables and wellness responses, with in-game basketball performance across playing positions (backcourt and frontcourt players). External load variables (e.g., total distance, accelerations, etc), internal responses (e.g., rate of perceived exertion [RPE]) and wellness status (e.g., Hooper index) were monitored during 7 consecutive in-season months on 15 professional male basketball players. Besides, game-related individual statistics (performance index rating [PIR], and player total contribution [PTC]) were used to assess the performance during competition. Although no positive relationship was found between training load variables and basketball game performance, some wellness questionnaire parameters were significantly associated to game-related individual statistics. In particular, we found that only competing against direct rivals, players that reported stable values of stress stability achieved significantly higher PTC and PIR scores than players with high variability in stress values (8.53 IQR [6.09, 14.8] vs 0.00 IQR [-0.46, 0.84], and 0.47 ± 0.40 vs 0.10 ± 0.50; respectively; P < 0.05). Similarly, players with variable values of stress managed to maximize PIR scores during losses compared to players that presented high variability in stress levels (0.42 IQR [0.27, 0.55] vs 0.00 IQR [-0.12, 0.37], P < 0.05). Regarding playing positions, backcourt players showed higher PTC scores compared to frontcourt players when the fatigue levels are stable during the microcycle (8.27 ± 5.75 vs 4.77 ± 4.42; P < 0.05). Because basketball teams tend to accumulate more backcourt players that frontcourt players, it would be advisable to control training load maintaining it stable and avoiding load spikes during microcycle to allow team performance optimization. In conclusion, the results suggest that the best performances during official competition are not associated with higher training external and internal loads. Nevertheless, the wellness status could provide useful information when assessing player’s training responses and approaching possible peak performance during basketball competition. This shows the necessity to assess basketball performance from a holistic approach and consider more than just physical and physiological parameters, such as decision-making and psychological capacities, to better understand player’s performance during basketball competition.