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

net/publication/263213540

Effects of defensive pressure on basketball shooting performance

Article  in  International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport · December 2013

DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2013.11868673

CITATIONS READS

23 1,664

4 authors:

Gábor Csátaljay Nic James

Middlesex University, UK
6 PUBLICATIONS   125 CITATIONS   
106 PUBLICATIONS   2,393 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Mike Hughes Henriette Dancs

Institute of Technology, Carlow University of West Hungary, Sopron
79 PUBLICATIONS   3,391 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   156 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

My long term research View project

Performance Variables in Elite Hurling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gábor Csátaljay on 16 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport
2013, 13, 594-601.

Effects of defensive pressure on basketball shooting

performance

Gabor Csataljay1, Nic James1, Mike Hughes1 and Henriette Dancs2

1
London Sport Institute, Middlesex University, UK
2
Institute of Sports Sciences, Savaria Campus, University of West Hungary, Hungary

Abstract

Reasons behind successful team performance were explained through

analysing the effects of defensive pressure on basketball shooting
performance. Team success, shooting efficiency and defensive opposition
were analysed from 3344 shooting attempts with Wilcoxon signed ranks
tests, Friedman tests and odds ratio calculations. Results of the analysis
identified significant differences between winners and losers for close 2
point and 3 point shooting percentages. The increased level of defensive
pressure had influential effect on the shooting performance and the game
outcome. It was concluded that winning teams achieved more effective
shooting percentages as the consequence of better team cooperation,
because players could work out more opened scoring opportunities
without any active defensive presence. The other occasion of the higher
shooting percentages was the level of defensive performance because
winners more times forced their opponent to try under maximal defensive
pressure. After all, perhaps the most important difference between
winning and losing teams was that winners could exploit their scoring
opportunities more effectively, not only without defensive opposition but
also from the hardest situations under high level of defensive pressure
also.

Keywords: basketball, defensive pressure, shooting performance, team

success

1. Introduction

Previous research in basketball has identified performance indicators that distinguish

winning and losing teams usually based on outcome variables e.g. two and three point
shooting performance or number of rebounds, steals, turnovers, assist passes (Choi et
al., 2006; Ibanez et al., 2008; Ibanez et al., 2009; Lorenzo et al., 2010; Sampaio and
Janeira, 2003). Many of the authors emphasized the importance of 2 point shots (Choi et
al., 2006; Gomez et al., 2006a,b; Ibanez et al., 2009; Lorenzo et al., 2010; Sampaio and
Janeira, 2003) and 3 point shooting performance (Choi et al., 2006; Csataljay et al.,

594
2009; Gomez et al., 2006a,b; Ibanez et al., 2009) as distinguishing factors that
contribute to successful team performance. However a better understanding of the
processes that lead to better shooting performance would provide the reasons behind
success. Consequently data collection and analysis on process variables would
potentially enable a more comprehensive explanation for performance differences.
Analysis of game situation process variables can be found for performance analysis of
basketball for both offensive (Bazanov et al., 2005; Remmert, 2003; Tavares and
Gomes, 2003; Tsamourtzis et al., 2005) and defensive phases (Alvarez et al., 2009;
Gomez et al., 2006) of the game. Ortega and Fernandez (2007) analyzed the
effectiveness of 3 point shots from the U19 Spanish championship in 2005 based on
several process variables such as the phase of offence, the number of defensive players
affecting the shot, the level of defensive pressure at the moment of shooting and the
previous offensive actions in that particular possession. For example, 3 point shots were
deemed the most efficient when there was no defensive pressure. It was also found that
the majority of 3 point shots were taken under partial defensive pressure where an
increased level of defensive pressure caused lower shooting efficiency. Ibanez et al.
(2007) also showed a significant relationship between the shooting efficiency and the
defensive pressure when they analyzed 152 games from the Spanish ACB League.
Alvarez et al. (2009) analyzed defensive efficiency during the 2008 Olympic Games
and determined that the defense did effect the opponent’s shooting performance but
there was no significant relationship between the types of defensive pressure and team
success.

Distinguishing winning and losing teams based on outcome variables has been a
popular research activity in notational analysis as it is felt that distinguishing
performance indicators is important for coaches. However the processes that lead to
obtaining successful performance indicators would seem to be more important in terms
of offering useful information for performance improvement (James, 2009).
Consequently this paper will investigate shooting performance from various distances in
relation to defensive pressure on the shooting player in the context of team success.

2. Methods

Using Focus X2 software, an analysis of 52 team performances of 26 games of a

Hungarian first division basketball team (Falco Basketball Club, Szombathely) in the
regular season of 2007/2008, enabled 3344 shooting attempts to be notated. Shooting
attempts were divided into successful and unsuccessful shots from the 3 s restricted area
(2 pts from close distance), from mid-range (2 pts from far distance) and behind the 3
point line and each of the shots were grouped into winning or losing team performances
based on game outcomes. Types of defensive pressure (minimal, half and maximal)
were also recorded for each shooting attempt. A definition of defensive pressure on the
shooting player was established based on the distance between the shooter and the
defender, which was related to the optimal defensive distance. Thus the level of
defensive pressure was determined and notated for the moment that the ball was
released during the shot. Data were processed in Excel and SPSS 18 statistical software.
The influential effects of the 3 different levels of defensive pressure were analysed by
Friedman tests. A series of Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were used to compare shooting

595
efficiency and frequency of shots for winners and losers under different defensive
conditions. The effects of defensive pressure on shooting efficiency were reported in
terms of odds ratios. As two of the predictors had more than two categories, effects
were broken down into 2x2 contingency tables. Odds ratios were calculated to compare
the shooting performance of winners and losers in three categories related to the
defensive aggression.

Odds for shooting performance were calculated separately for winning and losing teams
with the following equations:

Odds for shooting performance = Successful shots / Missed shots

Odds ratios were calculated from the previously counted odds of winning and losing
teams:

Odds ratios = Odds for winning teams / Odds for losing teams

Using the number of successful and missed shots instead of calculating shooting
percentages for odds ratio allows comparing both the shooting efficiency and the
amount of shooting situations worked out under different conditions (distance and
defensive pressure) between successful and unsuccessful teams.

3. Results

3.1. Frequency and efficiency of shooting

Wilcoxon signed ranks tests identified statistically significant differences between game
winners and losers for the efficiency of 2 point shots from close distance (z = - 2.1, p <
0.05) and 3 point shots (z = - 2.7, p < 0.01) when solely shooting percentages were
considered. However, winning performances can be characterized by better shooting
percentages from each of the observed shooting distances (Table 1). Interestingly both
the winning and losing teams reached higher percentages from 3 points shots than from
mid-range 2 points shots.

Table 1. Shooting efficiency of winners and losers from different distances.

Winners Losers
(mean+SD) (mean+SD)
2 pt Close 61.8+11.4 * 55.3+9.9
2 pt Far 37.9+16.0 33.8+15.0
3 pt 41.7+10.1 ** 34.6+10.7
Significantly different to losing team: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

Table 2 indicated that game winner teams could carry out higher number of opened
scoring opportunities without defensive pressure from all the three distances compared

596
to losing teams. On the other side winning teams forced their opponent to make shots
more frequently under maximum defensive pressure from close distance and the 3 point
area. The only statistically significant difference between winners and losers was found
for the frequency of close shots under maximal defensive pressure (z = - 2.5, p < 0.05).

Table 2. Frequencies of shots worked out against different categories of defensive

pressure.
Min. pressure Half pressure Max. pressure
Winners Losers Winners Losers Winners Losers
(mean+SD) (mean+SD) (mean+SD) (mean+SD) (mean+SD) (mean+SD)
2 pt Close 10.2+4.9 8.7+2.9 2.8+2.3 3.2+1.7 15.8+4.6 * 19.6+5.9
2 pt Mid-range 3.5+1.9 2.6+1.8 2.0+1.5 1.8+1.6 5.3+2.3 4.7+2.3
3 pt 9.5+4.4 8.5+3.6 6.6+2.1 5.8+2.8 8.5+2.9 9.3+4.0
Significantly different to losing team: * p < 0.05

The analysis of the influencing effect of defensive pressure on shooting efficiency

(Table 3) shows that winning teams attempted with higher shooting percentages almost
from all distances and against each types of defensive pressure. The only exception is
the case of 3 point shots under half pressure where game winner teams achieved lower
shooting percentages than losing ones. Testing differences by Wilcoxon signed ranks
tests showed significantly higher shooting percentages for winners under maximal
pressure from behind the 3 point line (z = - 2.2, p < 0.05).

Table 3. Shooting efficiency of winners and losers against different categories of

defensive pressure.
Min. pressure Half pressure Max. pressure
Winners Losers Winners Losers Winners Losers
(mean+SD) (mean+SD) (mean+SD) (mean+SD) (mean+SD) (mean+SD)
2 pt Close 85.6+12.2 80.1+14.9 70.8+27.7 68.7+34.2 46.6+16.8 41.7+9.1
2 pt Mid-range 50.5+28.4 40.2+35.4 36.6+38.3 32.7+40.7 34.3+25.8 30.9+20.1
3 pt 46.3+19.1 40.4+21.8 36.6+18.7 37.5+25.9 40.6+21.8 * 27.1+17.2
Significantly different to losing team: * p < 0.05

Friedman tests revealed that the increased level of defensive pressure significantly
affected the efficiency of shots both for winners (χ22 = 23.1, p < 0.001) and for losers
(χ22 = 24.1, p < 0.001) when close attempts were considered. Although the values of
shooting percentages were reduced due to the increasing level of defensive pressure, the
analysis could not identify statistically significant differences for mid-range and 3 point
shooting percentages. The only case when the shooting percentages did not fall down in
contempt of the increasing defensive opposition was the 3 point shots of winning teams.

3.2. Effect sizes in shooting performance

Calculating effect sizes for total shots indicated that without defensive pressure winners
were 1.27 times more likely to make successful shots related to losing teams (Table 4).
The odds ratio is 1.26 when maximal defensive pressure is considered. The lowest odds

597
ratio was counted for shots under half pressure when all the shots were analysed. There
was no statistically significant difference between the frequencies and shooting
percentages of winners and losers when close shots without defensive pressure were
compared (Table 2,3), although the odds ratio indicates that winning teams could score
1.28 times more from these situations. The reason of the higher effect size was that the
slightly higher efficiency and frequency together extended the effects of each other. For
the same reason winning teams reached higher odds ratios when 3 point shots without
defensive pressure (1.46) were considered. The highest value of odds ratios (1.97) was
identified for the mid-range shooting attempts under half pressure, however, because of
the low occurrences of 2 point shots from far distances (Table 2) this fact does not
extend the odds ratios for total shots under half defensive pressure. Winners achieved
higher odds ratios (1.24) for close distance attempts under high pressure because losing
teams were forced to attempt more frequently from these situations (Table 2). In the
case of strongly defended 3 point shots the significantly higher shooting efficiency
(Table 3) contributed to enhance the level of odds ratio (1.52).

Table 4. Odds ratios for contrasting winning and losing shooting performances.
Defensive 2 pt shots from 2 pt shots from 3 pt shots Total shots
pressure close distance mid-range
Minimal 1.28 1.09 1.46 1.27
Half 1.02 1.97 1.02 1.06
Maximal 1.24 1.15 1.52 1.26

4. Discussion

The results of the current analysis indicated the importance of shooting efficiency as an
important factor that contributes to achieve successful team performance. Significant
differences were found between game winner and loser teams for the shooting
percentages of situations under the basket and 3 point shots. This fact coincides with the
results of some previous researchers who identified 2 point shooting percentages
(Hofler and Payne, 1997; Markoski et al., 2012; Pojskic et al., 2009; Russo et al., 2012)
and 3 point percentages (Csataljay et al., 2009; Csataljay et al., 2012; Witkos, 2010) as
distinguishing indicators between winning and losing teams. The higher shooting
efficiency of 3 point shots related to 2 point mid-range shots both for winners and losers
might looks surprising at first sight. However, some of the basketball coaches build up
their defensive philosophy to avoid layups from close distance and 3 point shots from
set position after out passes from penetration or from low post moves; and to force the
opponent to try mid-range jump shots after one or two dribbles which is considered to
be one of the less effective individual technical element in modern basketball (Messina,
2011).

The analysis of shooting performances from several distances supports the statement of
Tsamourtzis et al. (2005) that the highest shooting efficiency in basketball can be
reached when a team creates situations near to the basket without the active presence of

598
any defensive players. The current research demonstrated that game winner teams not
merely achieved higher shooting performances but on the defensive side they forced
their opponent into higher number difficult scoring situations. Winners showed better
defensive performance as losers were forced to accomplish their shots more frequently
with increased level of defensive pressure form close distance which is considered as
the most effective area for shots (Tsamourtzis et al., 2005). On the other hand winners
could organize more effectively their offenses in order to avoid difficult shooting
situations under maximal pressure. The other main difference between winning and
losing teams was the better shooting performance from 3 point shots under maximal
defensive pressure.

The analysis of shooting performances, defensive pressure and team success from 52
team performances agrees with the conclusions of previous researchers (Ibanez et al.,
2007; Ortega and Fernandez, 2007) who determined that the level of defensive pressure
is a very important influencing factor of the shooting efficiency and contributes to
achieve long term team success. In conflict with the findings of Alvarez et al. (2009),
the results of the current research revealed statistically significant differences between
match winners or losers for the level of defensive pressure on shooting attempts.

Calculating effect sizes using frequencies of successful and unsuccessful shots enabled
the probability of making a basket to be compared between winners and losers. The
value of odds ratios were found above 1.0 for each types of defensive pressure. This fact
indicated that game winner teams showed better performance when shooting and
defensive aspect of the games were considered at the same time.

5. Conclusions

Defensive pressure as a process variable was used to provide a comprehensive

explanation for performance differences between shooting efficiency of winning and
losing basketball teams. The results of the statistical analysis identified differences
between shooting percentages and defensive performances of winners and losers. The
more effective shooting of winning teams was found as the consequence of better team
cooperation as players could work out more opened scoring opportunities without any
active defensive presence. The other occasion of the higher shooting percentages was
the level of defensive performance because winners more times forced their opponent to
try under maximal defensive pressure. After all, perhaps the most important difference
between winning and losing teams was that winners could exploit their scoring
opportunities more effectively from each distance, not only without defensive
opposition but also from the hardest situations under high level of defensive pressure
also.

Considering the results of this research can help for better understanding of the process
that lead to successful shooting performance, however, questions for future research
might arise, e.g. analysis of shooting efficiency related to defensive pressure could be
more informative when performance of guards, wings and centres are observed
separately, as height of players facing each other also may affect the level of defensive
pressure.

599
6. References

Alvarez, A., Ortega, E., Gomez, M.A. and Salado, J. (2009), Study of the defensive
performance indicators in peak performance basketball. Revista de Psicologia
del Deporte, 18, (Supplement), 379-384.
Bazanov, B., Hajland, R. and Vohandu, P. (2005), Offensive teamwork intensity as a
factor influencing the result in basketball. International Journal of
Performance Analysis in Sport, 5(2), 9-16.
Choi, H., O’Donoghue, P.G. and Hughes, M.D. (2006), A Study of team performance
indicators by separated time scale using a real-time analysis technique within
English national basketball league. In H. Dancs, M.D. Hughes & P. O’Donoghue
(Eds.) World Congress of Performance Analysis of Sport VII – Book of
Proceedings (pp.125-128). Cardiff: UWIC.
Csataljay, G., James, N., Hughes, M. and Dancs, H. (2012), Performance differences between
winning and losing basketball teams during close, balanced and unbalanced quarters.
Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 7(2), 356-364.
Csataljay, G., O’Donoghue, P., Hughes, M.D. and Dancs, H. (2009), Performance indicators
that distinguish winning and losing teams in basketball. International Journal of
Performance Analysis in Sport, 9(1), 60-66.
Gomez, M.A. Calvo, L.A. and Toro, O.E. (2006a). Differences between winning and
losing under-16 male basketball teams. In H. Dancs, M.D. Hughes & P.
O’Donoghue (Eds.) World Congress of Performance Analysis of Sport VII –
Book of Proceedings (pp.142-149). Cardiff: UWIC.
Gomez, M. A., Calvo, L. A. and Toro, O. E. (2006b), Performance differences between
winning and losing teams in elite Spanish male and female basketball. In H.
Dancs, M.D. Hughes & P. O’Donoghue (Eds.) World Congress of
Performance Analysis of Sport VII – Book of Proceedings (pp.180-184).
Cardiff: UWIC.
Gomez, M. A., Tsamourtzis, E. and Lorenzo A. (2006), Defensive systems in basketball
ball possessions. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport,
6(1), 98-107.
Hofler, R.A., and Payne, J.E. (1997), Measuring efficiency in the National Basketball
Association. Economics letters, 55, 293-299.
Ibanez, S. J., Feu, S., Garcia, J., Canadas, M. and Parejo, I. (2007), Multifactorial study of shot
efficiacy in the Spanish professional basketball league. Iberian Congress on
Basketball Research, 4, 54-57. Retrieved from:
http://cfp.ammonsscientific.com/php/journal_search_query2.php
Ibanez, S. J., Garcia, H., Feu, S., Lorenzo, A. and Sampaio J. (2009), Effects of consecutive
basketball games on the game-related statistics that discriminate winner and losing
teams. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 8, 458-462.
Ibanez, S. J., Sampaio, J., Feu, S., Lorenzo, A., Gomez, A.M. and Ortega, E. (2008), Basketball
game-related statistics that discriminate between teams' season-long success. European
Journal of Sport Science, 8(6), 369-372.
James, N. (2009), Performance analysis of golf: Reflections on the past and a vision of the
future. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 9(2), 188-209
Lorenzo, A., Gomez, M.A., Ortega, E., Ibanez, S.J. and Sampaio, J. (2010), Game
related statistics which discriminated between winning and losing under-16 male
basketball games. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 9, 664-668.

600
 Markoski, B., Ivankovic, Z. and Ivkovic M. (2012), Using Neural Networks in Preparing and
Analysis of Basketball Scouting. In A. Karahoca (Ed.), Data Mining Applications in
Engineering and Medicine. InTech. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/48178
Messina, E. (2011), My favorite drills [online video]. FIBA Europe – Coaching Clinics.
Retrieved from: http://coaching.fibaeurope.com/Default.asp?cid={E8DBEC51-0212-
4C9D-B387-4CB5D1D3A722}&coid={F3FDEF06-32B7-42F3-AED2-
7EE3A4BF9483}&articleMode=on&
Ortega, E. and Fernandez, 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. Retrieved from:
http://cfp.ammonsscientific.com/php/journal_search_query2.php
Pojskic; H., Separovic, V. and Uzicanin, E. (2009), Differences between successful and
unsuccessful basketball teams on the final Olympic tournament. Acta Kinesiologica,
3(2), 110-114.
Remmert, H. (2003), Analysis of group-tactical offensive behaviour in elite basketball
on the basis of a process orientated model. European Journal of Sport Science,
3(3), 1-12.
Russo, L., Miglietta, G. and Izzo, R.E. (2012), Research on performance indicators from
game-related statistics in male basketball European Championship. In I. Jirasek,
J. Kosiewicz & D.N. Jr. Roberson (Eds). Sport and Physical Culture in the
Mirror of the Social Sciences – Electronic Proceedings Book of The 3rd
International Society for the Social Sciences of Sport Conference (pp.64-70).
Olomouc: Palacký University. Retrieved from: http://www.issss2011.upol.cz/
Sampaio, J. and Janeira, M. (2003), Statistical analysis of basketball team performance:
understanding teams’ wins and losses according to a different index of ball
possessions. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 3(1),
40-49.
Tavares, F. and Gomes N. (2003), The offensive process in basketball – a study in high
performance junior teams. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport,
3(1), 27-33.
Tsamourtzis, E., Karypidis, A. and Athanasiou, N. (2005), Analysis of fast breaks in
basketball. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 5(2), 17-
22.
Witkos, R. (2010), Determining the Success of NCAA Basketball Teams through Team
Characteristics. Dissertation, (Honors Projects in Mathematics). Bryant University,
USA. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/honors_mathematics/5

601

View publication stats