Effects of playing experience on joint kinetics and ball-release velocity in mid- and long-range basketball jump shots


Abstract

Purpose: This study investigated how playing experience influences joint kinetics and ball-release velocity during mid- and long-range jump shots. Wrist, elbow, shoulder, and knee rate of torque development (RTD), peak power (Ppeak), and angular impulse (AI) were quantified, along with vertical release velocity (VV) and horizontal release velocity (HV) at release. Methods: In a cross-sectional design, 30 players executed three successful jump shots from 4.8 m and 6.75 m. A 3-D motion-capture system synchronised with force plates provided the data used to compute RTD, Ppeak, AI, VV, and HV. Outcomes were compared with a two-way mixed ANOVA. Results: Experienced athletes exhibited greater wrist AI (p < 0.001), elbow RTD (p = 0.002), Ppeak (p = 0.045), and AI (p < 0.001), knee Ppeak (p = 0.002), and VV (p < 0.001). Longer shooting distance increased shoulder peak (p = 0.036) and HV (p = 0.018). Conclusions: Collectively, these results show that experience enhances joint kinetic output, providing the mechanical foundation for more efficient and dependable shooting. For novice players, emphasising wrist-endurance work, explosive-power training for the elbow and knee, and targeted drills to raise VV is recommended to improve overall on-court shooting performance.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].