General offensive and defensive skills analysis of the top 8 teams in 2015 U16 Asia Men's Basketball Championship

• Main Authors: Wu, Cheng-Chieh, 吳正杰
• Other Authors: 蔡博隆
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2018
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/6aeb4u

碩士 === 臺北市立大學 === 體育學系碩士在職專班 === 106 === The purpose of this study is to explore the difference of the offensive and defensive techniques of the eight national teams in the U16 Asian men's Basketball championships in 2015, and to analyze the scores and rankings by using each different category. The target is to study the top eight national teams, which has total of 95 people participating in the 2015 U16 Asian Men's basketball championships. With independent sample t test and single factor variance analysis, its goal is to test and explain the difference between the Chinese team and the other seven national teams as well as different background variables in the 15 offensive and defensive techniques. If the value of each variable F reaches a significant level, then the data will be compared with LSD after the analysis; such related analysis of the offensive and defensive technical performances, the scores, and ranks of the game were presented in the reference to Pearson. Finally, logistic regression analysis was used to explore the predictive effect of 12 offensive and defensive techniques on the outcome of the competition. The results show that: The Chinese team in the 15 offensive and defensive technical performances compared to the other seven national teams: within all of the significant differences, the Chinese team shows inferiority in the category of turnovers, but the other projects are superior to other countries. Two, different background variable in 15 offensive and defensive technique performance analysis suggests: The top eight national teams’ starters and the substitutions show no significant difference in categories of scoring and the free throw percentage, whereas the remaining 13 categories all have distinguishable outcomes. Furthermore, the national teams ranked top four shows superiority in eight categories, such as the overall field-goal percentage, assists, positive and negative values, efficiency values and scores. The comparison of the top eight national teams’ guards, forwards, and centers show significant differences in 10 categories regarding field-goal percentage, the rebounding, assists, turnovers, steals, shot-blocks, performance efficiency, and scoring. Third, correlations in general performance of the offensive and defensive technology, the scoring, and the rankings among these teams: For one, correlations to scoring: (a) Positive correlation: two points, three points, the overall field-goal percentage, the overall rebounding, assists, steals, shot-blocks, the positive-negative values, and the efficiency values. (b) Negative correlation: turnovers and fouls. For two, positive correlations related to ranking: two points, three points, the overall field-goal percentage, positive and negative value, efficiency value, and scoring. Thirdly, the 12 offensive and defensive technical performances have medium to high intensity of correlation to the outcome of the competitions, specifically in the categories of defensive rebounds, assists and steals, which can be served as prediction of the outcome of the game; the overall outcome forecast rate of 91.3%.