Acceso usuarios
El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar la eficacia de los lanzamientos a canasta en baloncesto. Se examinó la relación existente entre la eficacia del tiro a canasta y una serie de variables registradas durante la acción del lanzamiento. La muestra estuvo constituida por un total de 8.471 lanzamientos (217,2±25,4), de 39 partidos de la NBA. El 21,4% de los lanzamientos analizados fueron de 1 punto, el 62,8% de 2 puntos y el 15,7% de 3 puntos. Existe relación estadística significativa entre la eficacia y el rol del jugador (..2 (4, N= 1.457) = 12,61, p<0,01) en los lanzamientos de 1 punto. Los bases y aleros tienen una eficacia mayor que los pívots.
En los lanzamientos de campo, 2 y 3 puntos, la eficacia está relacionada con: i) Período (..2 (8, N= 6.654) = 22,76, p< 0,005); ii) Cuarto (..2 (16, N= 6.091) = 48,70, p< 0,001); iii) Gestoforma (..2 (44, N= 6.654) = 903,54, p< 0,001); iv) Presión defensiva (..2 (28, N= 6.654) = 13.544,6, p< 0,001); v) Zona del lanzamiento (..2 (60, N= 6.654) = 885,28, p< 0,001); vi) Rol (..2 (8, N= 5.525) = 83,28, p< 0,001), y vii) Acción previa (..2 (15, N= 5,193) = 154,34, p< 0,001). Estos resultados ponen de manifiesto la necesidad de realizar el entrenamiento de forma más real, adecuándolo a las características de la competición analizada. Conocer las acciones que permiten conseguir una mayor eficacia en el lanzamiento a canasta en cada competición facilitará a los entrenadores el diseño de las sesiones de entrenamiento.
The aim of this research was to analyze shot efficacy in basketball. Examining the relationship that exists between shot efficacy and a series of variables registered during this action. The sample was constituted a total of 8471 shots (217.2±25.4) of 39 games of NBA league. 21.4% of the analyzed shot were free throws, 62.8% were 2-point field goal and 15.7% were 3-point field goal. A significant relationship existed only between shot efficacy and the player position that took the shot the free throw (..2 (4, N= 1457) = 12.61, p<.01). Point guard and small forwards had higher efficacy than centers. Field goals, in 2- and 3-point shots, the following relationships were found:
i) between efficacy and period (..2 (8, N= 6654) = 22.76, p< .005); ii) between efficacy and quarter (..2 (16, N= 6091) = 48.70, p< .001); iii) between efficacy and technique (..2 (44, N= 6654) = 903.54, p< .001); iv) between efficacy and defensive pressure (..2 (28, N= 6654) = 13544.6, p< .001);
v) between efficacy and zone from which the shot was taken (..2 (60, N= 6654) = 885.28, p< .001); vi) between efficacy and player position (..2 (8, N= 5525) = 83.28, p< .001); and vii) between efficacy and the previous action taken (..2 (15, N= 5193) = 154.34, p< .001). These results show the necessity to carry out the training in a realer way, adapting it to the characteristics of the analyzed competition. To know the actions that allow obtaining a bigger effectiveness in basketball shot will facilitate the coaches the design of the sessions of training.
