by Art Horne
Just recently Dr. Stuart McGill, Jordan Andersen and myself published an article in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research examining the link between traditional pre-season strength, fitness, and sports medicine testing to overall on-court basketball performance and injury resilience throughout the course of two collegiate basketball seasons. Although I would be the first to admit that there are some clear limitations to this study (number of participants for example), key performance predictors (points scored, ability to rebound, block shots, etc) were NOT associated with traditional strength or performance measures so often pursued in collegiate basketball strength programs.
Over the course of the next few weeks I will review this article in detail and provide insight into how actual on-court basketball performance may be improved upon beyond simply finding better parents or recruiting.
Predicting Performance and Injury Resilience From Movement Quality and Fitness Scores in a Basketball Team Over 2 Years
McGill, Stuart M.1; Andersen, Jordan T.1; Horne, Arthur D.2
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
The ability to successfully predict injury resilience and competition performance from preseason testing is a very wishful goal; however, questions remain regarding this objective: Do tests of fitness have a predictive ability for injury and are there other factors that can be assessed that may predict injury? Are there specific indicators that predict performance? This study was motivated by these questions.
Attempts to understand injury mechanisms and performance sometimes consider links to fitness. Traditionally, fitness testing, at least in occupational settings, has included the assessment of strength (13), joint range of motion (ROM) (23), and physiological variables such as heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen uptake (2), but the performance scores in the occupational context are difficult to quantify. In contrast, there have been some studies relating fitness to sporting performance that are more tangible. In studies of ice hockey players (6,24), success could be more tangibly quantified from on-ice measures such as total minutes played and scoring chances. Green at al. stated that “goals scored” was not the best measure of hockey skill. Studies of football players suggest that those who score higher on movement quality tests have few injuries (11,12); however, preseason football combine testing is dominated by tests of strength and running speed. Recognizing that movement asymmetry and compromises to neuromuscular control have been linked to both future injury (11,12) and with having a history of back injury (17), movement assessments have been developed (3,4) and have been suggested to predict injury rates. Further, several fitness and movement tests have been implicitly assumed to predict “playing” performance by their inclusion into standard preseason tests. These include tests of endurance, strength, joint ROM, agility, and speed. The question remains as to the validity of these factors when attempting to predict injury resilience and performance.
Although links between moving well and injury resilience and performance seem intuitive, this notion remains controversial. Interestingly, some evidence suggests that fitness training alone may not ensure peak performance or injury resilience (8,20). In addition, movement quality has been suggested to predict future injury (12). A possible mechanism may be that injury changes the way a person moves as an accommodation to pain (consider, e.g., the changes in mechanics throughout the anatomical linkage when limping from foot pain). Having a history of injury, in particular back injury, appears to change movement patterns (17). Movement patterns determine important injury criteria, such as joint and tissue load, together with influencing the length of time and repetitions an individual is able to perform a task with uncompromised form. Compromised form exposes the tissues to inordinate load elevating the risk of injury. Several examples of this link are available, for example, not maintaining a neutral curve in the lumbar spine while bending and lifting decreases the tolerable load at injury (in this case tissue failure ); having restricted hip motion is linked to having more spine motion when bending (17). Movement competency has also been linked with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury rates, for example, having larger knee abduction moments and angles when landing from a jump predicted higher ACL injury rates (9). Given the variety of considerations for interpreting the links between movement, fitness, performance, and potential injury, the goal of this study was to first evaluate some traditional fitness test scores in a controlled athletic group that has a variety of challenging movement demands and also perform an assessment of the quality of movement. It was hoped that following a test group for a period of time would reveal links between specific fitness scores and movement quality with variables to predict injury resilience and performance. If such links exist, they could form a rationale for specific tests to be included in preseason testing.
The purpose of this study was to see if specific tests of fitness, and movement quality, could predict injury resilience and performance in a team of basketball players over 2 years (playing seasons).
It was hypothesized that in a university basketball population, (a) Preseason movement quality and fitness scores would predict in-season performance scores. (b). Preseason movement quality and fitness scores would predict in-season injury resilience.
by Carl Valle
I decided to interview Rob Shugg from Kinetic Performance after hearing a few new definitions of what power is, and felt that we needed more sport science tools to help the performance community understand how to develop power in team sports. Track and field is very objective, but the methodologies tend to be cloudy. I wanted to get Rob's opinion on the matters of true development and monitoring of elite sport as he has many years with the Australian Institute of Sport and in the private sector with technology and performance. The BSMPG is the first conference in the US to promote Gymaware and Kinetic Performance as technology and data is becoming more and more important to help teams find the winning edge.
Most of the US professional and college teams are familiar with linear transducers for measuring power, could you expand on the differences between Gymaware and the Tendo system, specifically with the advanced analytics and cloud benefits.
First I’d like to give your readers a quick outline of the GymAware components:GymAware Power Tool - A linear transducer that connects via bluetooth to an iPad, iPod Touch or iPhone.
GymAware Lite App - a stand-alone weightlifting analyzer app withextensive training, feedback and plotting functions.
GymAware App - a cloud-connected weightlifting analyzer app offering online data and athlete management.
GymAware/Kinetic-Athlete cloud analysis server - a web based account for managing and analysing Power Tool and other athlete performance data.So as you can see, while the Power Tool and the Tendo weightlifting analyser are both linear transducers, only GymAware offers a complete athlete performance stack, from data collection to athlete performance management. You canstill use the Power Tool like you use the Tendo unit to motivate and train athletes, but in addition you can start to look at[other variables] like dip and lift profile to improve technique.
The GymAware Power Tool has evolved through 5 different models over the last 10 years with each new release improving accuracy and usability. There is a good comparison [here] between the latest Power Tool and the Tendo Power and Speed Analyzer. To talk about the benefits of the cloud server and advanced analytics, you first need to look at system accuracy as this is fundamental to the success of the advanced features.The high accuracy of the Power Tool opens up new opportunities in preparing athletes for competition. With high accuracy you can look for more subtle changes over time that give you real insight into the state of the athlete.
Power is often pursued by teams, could you look at how power can act as a marker of both performance and fatigue with team sports? Currently Benchmarks and profiling seem to be important for individualization.
There’s no doubt that power is a key factor in producing game winning performances, and power profiling to optimize power training plays a vital role in any professional team. But recently in Australia, regular (3 to 5 times per week) power and/or velocity monitoring has proved to be a very reliable way of monitoring for fatigue. At last year’s ASCA conference Dr Kristie Taylor suggested that we should
Other performance managers have reported to us that the Power Tool measurements are so sensitive that they can see slower power recovery after games played at a particular stadium known to have a hard playing surface. Regular monitoring with GymAware adds a completely new dimension to the knowledge available to the sports performance professional.
Kinetic Athlete is not new to player monitoring, why does Kinetic Performance's experience make you a leader in player management? I think to answer this you need to look at environment that lead to the development ofGymAware.
Click HERE to continue reading...
Learn more about this new technology along with the most advanced health and performance monitoring tools currently available at the 2012 BSMPG Summer Seminar - May 19/20th.