Joint- and subject-specific strategies in male basketball players across a range of countermovement jump heights

Phase-Specific Predictors of Countermovement Jump Performance That Distinguish Good From Poor Jumpers

ABSTRACT

Krzyszkowski, J, Chowning, LD, and Harry, JR. Phase-specific predictors of countermovement jump performance that distinguish good from poor jumpers. J Strength Cond Res 36(5): 1257-1263, 2022-The modified-reactive strength index (RSImod) is commonly examined during the countermovement vertical jump (CMJ) to assess neuromuscular characteristics (i.e., explosiveness, fatigue, adaptation, etc.) of an athlete. However, both phase-specific variables explaining RSImod and corresponding differences between good and poor jumpers are not well understood in trained populations. This study sought to (a) identify predictors of RSImod during the CMJ based on phase-specific temporal and rate of force development (RFD) variables, and (b) identify differences in those predictors between performers with high and low RSImod performances from a sample of collegiate male basketball players (n = 22; 20 ± 2 years; 1.99 ± 0.06 month; 93.8 ± 7.5 kg). Subjects performed 3 maximal effort CMJ trials while ground reaction force data was recorded using 2 force platforms. Phase-specific temporal and RFD variables were calculated and entered into separate stepwise regression models using backward elimination to identify predictors RSImod. Individuals were then categorized into high (n = 11; RSImod = 0.68 ± 0.10) and low (n = 11; RSImod = 0.48 ± 0.04) RSImod groups according to the overall median RSImod (RSImod = 0.55). Independent t-tests (α = 0.05) were conducted and supplemented by Cohen's d effect sizes (d ≥ 1.2, large) to compare groups relative to significant predictors identified by the linear regression models and related variables. The temporal regression model (R2 = 0.530) retained unloading time and concentric time, whereas the RFD regression model (R2 = 0.429) retained unloading RFD and braking RFD. The high RSImod group exhibited significantly greater RSImod scores (d = 2.51, p < 0.001) and jump heights (d = 1.58, p < 0.001), shorter times to takeoff (d = 1.27, p = 0.007) and concentric times (d = 1.51, p = 0.002), and a greater braking RFD (d = 1.41, p = 0.005) than the low RSImod group. Individuals targeting enhanced CMJ performance may consider exploring strategies or interventions to develop quicker unloading and concentric phases and increasing eccentric RFD abilities.

A Systematic Review on Fitness Testing in Adult Male Basketball Players: Tests Adopted, Characteristics Reported and Recommendations for Practice

Background

As basketball match-play requires players to possess a wide range of physical characteristics, many tests have been introduced in the literature to identify talent and quantify fitness in various samples of players. However, a synthesis of the literature to identify the most frequently used tests, outcome variables, and normative values for basketball-related physical characteristics in adult male basketball players is yet to be conducted.

Objective

The primary objectives of this systematic review are to (1) identify tests and outcome variables used to assess physical characteristics in adult male basketball players across all competition levels, (2) report a summary of anthropometric, muscular power, linear speed, change-of-direction speed, agility, strength, anaerobic capacity, and aerobic capacity in adult male basketball players based on playing position and competition level, and (3) introduce a framework outlining recommended testing approaches to quantify physical characteristics in adult male basketball players.

Methods

A systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify relevant studies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies were required to: (1) be original research articles; (2) be published in a peer-reviewed journal; (3) have full-text versions available in the English language; and (4) include the primary aim of reporting tests used and/or the physical characteristics of adult (i.e., ≥ 18 years of age) male basketball players. Additionally, data from the top 10 draft picks who participated in the National Basketball Association combined from 2011–12 to 2020–21 were extracted from the official league website to highlight the physical characteristics of elite 19- to 24-year-old basketball players.

Results

A total of 1684 studies were identified, with 375 being duplicates. Consequently, the titles and abstracts of 1309 studies were screened and 231 studies were eligible for full-text review. The reference list of each study was searched, with a further 59 studies identified as eligible for review. After full-text screening, 137 studies identified tests, while 114 studies reported physical characteristics in adult male basketball players.

Conclusions

Physical characteristics reported indicate a wide range of abilities are present across playing competitions. The tests and outcome variables reported in the literature highlight the multitude of tests currently being used. Because there are no accepted international standards for physical assessment of basketball players, establishing normative data is challenging. Therefore, future testing should involve repeatable protocols that are standardised and provide outcomes that can be monitored across time. Recommendations for testing batteries in adult male basketball players are provided so improved interpretation of data can occur.

Clinical Trial Registration

This review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and allocated registration number CRD42020187151 on 28 April, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40279-021-01626-3.

Force-length-velocity behavior and muscle-specific joint moment contributions during countermovement and squat jumps

The countermovement (CMJ) and squat (SJ) jump are common tasks used to assess neuromuscular performance. While much is known about joint-level differences between both tasks, not much is known about differences in muscle-level biomechanics. The purpose of this study was to calculate the forces, force-length-velocity behavior, and muscle-specific contributions to net joint moments (NJM) during CMJ and SJ. Eight basketball players performed maximal CMJ and SJ while motion capture and ground reaction force (GRF) data were recorded. A musculoskeletal model and static optimization algorithm computed muscles forces and force generating abilities of the soleus (SOL), gastrocnemii (GAS), vastii (VAS), rectus femoris (RF), hamstring (HAM), and gluteus maximus (GMAX) muscles during CMJ and SJ. In addition, the moments created by each muscle were calculated and studied in relation to the respective NJMs. CMJ were characterized by longer movement duration, but similar GRFs and jump heights as SJ. VAS and GMAX exhibited greater muscle forces and force generating abilities during CMJ, likely because of more optimal force-velocity behavior. In contrast, the HAM exhibited more favorable force-length behavior during SJ. Muscle moments during CMJ and SJ were similar, except for the HAM, which produced greater hip extension and knee flexion muscle moments during CMJ. Although muscle forces and force generating abilities of the VAS and GMAX were greater during CMJ, more optimal force-length behavior and greater muscle moment contribution to knee NJM by the HAM during SJ appear to balance such that overall GRF and jump height remain similar regardless of jump task.

Different Movement Strategies in the Countermovement Jump Amongst a Large Cohort of NBA Players

Previous research has demonstrated large amounts of inter-subject variability in downward (unweighting & braking) phase strategies in the countermovement jump (CMJ). The purpose of this study was to characterize downward phase strategies and associated temporal, kinematic and kinetic CMJ variables. One hundred and seventy-eight NBA (National Basketball Association) players (23.6 ± 3.7 years, 200.3 ± 8.0 cm; 99.4 ± 11.7 kg; CMJ height 68.7 ± 7.4 cm) performed three maximal CMJs. Force plate and 3D motion capture data were integrated to obtain kinematic and kinetic outputs. Afterwards, athletes were split into clusters based on downward phase characteristics (k-means cluster analysis). Lower limb joint angular displacement (i.e., delta flexion) explained the highest portion of point variability (89.3%), and three clusters were recommended (Ball Hall Index). Delta flexion was significantly different between clusters and players were characterized as "stiff flexors", "hyper flexors", or "hip flexors". There were no significant differences in jump height between clusters (p > 0.05). Multiple regression analyses indicated that most of the jumping height variance was explained by the same four variables, (i.e., sum concentric relative force, knee extension velocity, knee extension acceleration, and height) regardless of the cluster (p < 0.05). However, each cluster had its own unique set of secondary predictor variables.

Maximalist shoes do not alter performance or joint mechanical output during the countermovement jump

This study examined potential differences between maximally cushioned (MAX) shoes and standard cushioned (STND) shoes during countermovement vertical jump (CMVJ) performance. Twenty-one males (23[2] y; 86.5[15.4] kg; 179.8[6.3] cm) completed eight jumps each in MAX and STND shoes while three-dimensional kinematic and kinetic data were collected. Paired-samples t-tests (α = 0.05) and Cohen's d effect sizes (ES) were used to compare the following variables: vertical jump displacement, jump time, hip, knee and ankle joint angles at the start of the countermovement, the end of the unloading phase, the end of the eccentric phase, and at takeoff, peak joint power, and the joint contributions to total lower extremity work during the eccentric and concentric phases. The ankle was more dorsiflexed at the end of the countermovement in the MAX shoe (p = 0.002; ES = 0.55) but greater plantarflexion occurred in the STND shoes at takeoff (p = 0.028; ES = 0.56). No other differences were observed. The result of this study suggests that unique ankle joint angular positioning may be employed when wearing MAX versus STND shoes. Since the unique ankle joint positioning did not alter jump performance, potential MAX footwear users might not need to consider the potential for altered CMVJ performance when determining whether to adopt MAX footwear.