Defensive systems in basketball ball possessions.

Gómez Miguel Ángel 1, Tsamourtzis Evangelos2 & Lorenzo Alberto 1.

1
Faculty of Physical Activity & Sport Sciences. Polytechnic University of Madrid.
2
Democritus University of Thrace, Dept. of Physical Education & Sport Science.

Correspondence:
Gómez Ruano, Miguel Ángel,
E-mail: magor_2@yahoo.es

Abstract
The aim of the present study was to analyse the importance of defensive systems used
by winning and losing basketball teams in their ball possessions, trying to study their
influence in the offensive success. To achieve this, 1450 ball possessions were
registered from 8 close games (final score differences below 12 points) of the Spanish
Basketball Play-offs series, from the 2004-2005 season. The ball possessions were
registered by systematic observation with Cohen’s Kappa for each observational
category coefficients >0.90; the variables registered were: final classification (winner
and loser), type of defensive system (man-to-man half court, man-to-man pressure, zone
in half court, zone pressure and mixed), points scored, number of passes and duration
per ball possession. Statistical analysis used were Crosstabs commands, non-
parametric χ2 (chi-square) test and a Student t-test for independent samples. The results
showed these main conclusions: a) The winning teams made more ball possessions
versus different types of defensive systems (mixed, zone pressure, man-to-man pressure)
than losing teams; while the last ones generally made their ball possessions versus
man-to-man and zone in half court ; b) The winners got more points scored per ball
possession versus different defensive systems, while the losers usually made their ball
possessions without scoring versus half court defensive systems (zone and man—to-
man); c) The winning teams made more number of passes and spent more time duration
their possessions of the ball versus different defensive systems than losing teams. This
profile helps the coach to prepare practices and tasks to this specificity of defensive
systems, and allow him to be ready to control these variables during the game in
special situations like play-off series.

Key words: Basketball, defensive systems, winners, losers,

1 Introduction

The basketball investigators try to compare players or teams of different level of

performance, based on indicators usually used to evaluate players or game situations
with the purpose of finding the factors that define teams or players (Hughes & Franks,
2004). In this way, the defensive systems used by basketball teams are one of the most
important aspects that affect to the game and ball possession, so this topic has been
analysed in basketball studies.
Published research focused on the quantitative analysis through basketball game-
related statistics, showed the importance of some defensive variables associated with the
success like defensive rebounds (Akers, Wolf & Buttross, 1991; Ittenbach, Kloos &
Etheridge, 1992; Osterman, 1993; Ittenbach & Esters, 1995), steals and offensive

1
rebounds (Dezman, Erculj & Vuckovic, 2002), as well as blocks or fouls (De Rose,
2004).
On the other hand, some studies made a qualitative analysis in basketball through
systematic observation and scouting, where man-to-man was the most defensive system
used in contrast to zone and mixed defensive systems (Mikes, 1987; Mexas, Tsiskaris,
Kyriakou & Garefis, 2005). However, some authors consider that defensive systems
used depend on teams’ performance and basketball rules (Oliver, 2004; Schmidt &
Braum, 2004). According to the importance of defensive systems used in formative
teams, the zone defences were used more than man-to-man defensive systems in U-16
and U-18 teams (Cruz & Tavares, 1998; Silva, 1998), probably explained by the
inability of young players to score far from the basket. Moreover, this evidence is
related with fouls strategies to take away easy shots (Mosca, 1985). In senior teams, the
most commn defensive system was the man-to-man defences, because it produces less
throws and more opportunities to steal the ball (Mikes, 1987). Studying the importance
of new rules and their relation with defensive systems used, Schmidt and Braun (2004),
showed that the rule of 24 seconds shot clock in European Basketball forced to the
teams to take a shot very quickly and then use more ball possessions, it explains that the
teams with the new rule made less percentage of man-to-man defences (90% after
compared to 96%), more percentage of zone (8% after compared to 3%) and mixed (2%
after compared to 1%) defences.
Analyzing the level of competition, some differences appear between winning and
losing teams, we have found only two studies about this topic, in a first research from
senior teams, Tsamourtzis, Salonikidis, Taxildaris and Mawromatis (2002), found that
winners made their attacks versus man-to-man (75.2%), defensive transition moves
(19.4%), zone (3.3%), zone pressure (1.7%), man-to-man pressure (0.3%) and mixed
defences (0.1%); while losers made their offences versus man-to-man (68.5%),
defensive transition moves (20.3%), zone (7.4%), zone pressure (2.7%) and man-to-man
pressure defences (1.1%). In a second research from U-16 teams, Cruz and Tavares
(1998), found that winning teams attack more times versus zone (43.3%) than losing
teams (20.7%), while losing teams attack more times versus man-to-man defences
(79.3%) than winning teams (56.7%). These differences could be explained by the
teams’ performance, where the losing team tried to block with different defensive
systems to the winning teams from getting good inside shots.
In all available literature, none is focused on explaining the defense tactics used
according to points scored, time duration and number of passes between winning and
losing teams in play-off series. With an overview analysis of these results, it may help
to provide the coaches with supplemental information about team performance versus
different defensive systems in a specific context like play off series, and, thus making
tasks and game plans more specific and detailed.
Therefore, the present study aims to analyze the importance of defensive systems used
by winning and losing basketball teams in their ball possessions, trying to study their
influence in the points scored, number of passes made and time duration per ball
possession.

2 Methods

2.1 Participants

2
The sample of this study was constituted by 1450 ball possessions, corresponding to 8
games of the Spanish Basketball play-offs series, from the 2004-2005 season. Only
those games with final scores differences below 12 points have been selected because
they represent the best performance from opposing teams in each specific context
(Ibáñez et al., 2003; Sampaio, Ibáñez & Feu, 2004b).

2.2 Procedure

The games have been analyzed through a systematic observation by 4 experienced

observers, trained throughout the regular season. Furthermore, the so-called inter-rater
reliability of two separate observations has been calculated to guarantee a sufficient
quality of the observations system, Cohen’s Kappa for each observational category
coefficients >0.90 (Remmert, 2003). In order to verify the registers authenticy has been
made a second observation procedure of 2 games randomly selected from the sample.
Finally for a reliable register, all the dates have been compared using an expert
computer with the official box-scores of the League (ACB), selecting the games with a
100% agreement between both samples.
The selected variables were determined by an expertise group of coaches and
researchers, and were registered by experienced observers in a Universitary section of
team sports strategy analysis. The analysis has been made by notational system (Hughes
& Bartlett, 2002; Hughes & Franks, 2004). In this way, the variables registered were the
following ones:
1. Final classification: winner or loser.
2. Points scored, number of passes and time duration per ball possession.
3. Type of defensive system carried out in front of the offensive team: man-to-man
half court and man-to-man pressure (full- and three-quarter court), zone half
court and zone pressure (full- and three-quarter court) and mixed.

2.3 Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis package SPSS 12.0 was used for the statistical analysis of the
data. The Crosstabs command and non-parametric χ2 (Chi-square) test were used to
establish relationships between nominal variables (Norusis, 1998). The Student t-test for
independent samples was also used to determine differences between winning and
losing teams. Statistical significance was set to p≤.05 (Ntoumanis, 2001).

3 Results

Trying to analyze the differences between winning and losing teams’ attacks versus
different defensive systems in their ball possessions, in table 1 there are significant
differences between both groups in the amount of the ball possessions [x2=56.4, p<.01].
In this way, the winners show more ball possessions versus man-to-man pressure
[x2=34.24,p<.01] and mixed defences [x2=6.81, p<.01], while losers had more
possession versus man-to-man half court defensive systems [x 2=11.74, p<.01].
Moreover, there are not statistically significant differences between both groups in zone
in half court [x2=0.08, p>.05] and zone pressure defences [x2= 2.94, p>.05].
According to points scored per possession versus different defensive systems, there
are significant differences between winners and losers in their scoreless ball possessions
[x2=30.03, p<.01], where winning teams attacks more times versus man-to-man pressure

3
 [x2=7.45, p<.01] and mixed [x2=8.0, p<.01] defences, while losing teams attacks more
times versus man-to-man half court defences [x2=5.59, p<.05]. But, there are not
significant differences in zone in half court [x2=2.13, p>.05] and zone pressure defences
[x2=2.33, p>.05].
In offences with 2 points scored per possession there are significant differences too
[x2=13.93, p<.01], the winners had more ball possessions with scoring versus man-to-
man pressure defences [x2=10.52, p<.01], , as well as winners attacking more times
versus other defensive systems without significant differences like man-to-man half
court [x2=0.52, p>.05], zone pressure [x2=1.28, p>.05] and mixed defences [x2=0.36,
p>.05], while losers attack more times versus half zone defences, but no statistically
significant differences [x2= 1.28, p>.05] were observed.
Studying ball possessions with 1 point scored there were no statistically significant
differences observed in all the possessions [x2=1.98, p>.05] and in the attacks versus
man-to-man half court [x2=0.54, p>.05], zone in half court [x2=0.33, p>.05], zone
pressure [x2=1.52, p>.05], and mixed defences [x2=0.83, p>.05] but there are significant
differences between winners and losers in man-to-man pressure defences [x2=7.14,
p<.01]. Finally, in the ball possessions with 3 or more points scored there also appears
significant differences between both groups [x2=13.22, p<.01], where there were not
statistically significant differences observed. But the winning teams scored more ball
possessions versus mixed [x2=0.25, p>.05] and man-to-man pressure defences [x2=1.63,
p>.05], besides they have similar results without significant differences to losing teams
in zone in half court defences [x2=1.25, p>.05], zone pressure defences [x2=2.10,
p>.05], and man-to-man half court defences [x2=0.46, p>.05].

Table 1. Points scored according to the different defences used between winning and
losing teams.

Relative values 0 Points 1 Point 2 Points 3 or more Defensive

(percentage %) points systems
Distribution
L W L W L W L W L W
Man-to-Man 45.3* 32.7* 41.9 34.9 40.6 41.6 41.8 36.6 85.5* 72.2*
Man-to-Man pressure 2.5* 5.9* 2.3* 14.0* 2.4* 7.7* 0 6.0 4.3* 13.9*
Zone pressure 0.8 1.6 1.2 1.2 0.5 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.6 3.1
Zone in half court 4.2 4.2 2.3 1.2 2.7 2.1 4.5 4.5 7.3 7.2
Mixed 0.9* 1.9* 1.2 0 0 1.1 0 3.7 1.2* 4.4*
Distn of ball possessions 62.1* 55.5* 5.7 6.2 23.6* 28.5* 8.7* 9.8* 100* 100*
 p≤.05; W= winners; L= losers

Trying to differentiate winners and losers in duration and number of passes per ball
possession according to the defensive system used by the opposing team, in table 2
significant differences have been found, where winning teams show longer duration in
their ball possessions than losing teams in man-to-man pressure defences [t= -2.348,
p<.05] and zone in half court defences[t=-2.786, p<.01], while losing teams show longer
duration in their ball possessions versus zone pressure [t=1.586, p<.05]. In the other
types of defensive systems there did not appear significant differences between both
groups, with similar duration in man-to-man half court and mixed defences.
In another way, winners made more passes than losers versus zone in half court [t=-
3.725, p<.01], and mixed defences [t=-2.258, p<.05], but losers made more passes
versus zone pressure defences [t=3.428, p<.01]. Moreover, the man-to-man defensive

4
systems (half court and pressure) showed similar values in number of passes between
both groups without significant differences.

Table 2. Differences between winners and losers in time duration and number of passes
made when attack versus different types of defensive systems.

NUMBER OF PASSES DURATION

Winners Losers Winners Losers
Man-to-Man 3.2±2.1 2.9±1.8 11.7±6.1 11.1±6.5
Man-to-Man pressure 3.2±1.9 2.6±1.7 12.2±7.1* 8.9±5.7*
Zone pressure 2.4±1.4** 4.5±2.0** 10.6±6.3* 14.2±6.4*
Zone half court 5.5±2.1** 4.1±1.7** 15.9±5.1** 13.2±4.9**
Mixed 4.8±1.9* 3.2±1.7* 15.1±5.4 14.2±5.9
* p≤.05; ** p≤.01

4 Discussion

The aim of the present study was to analyze the importance of defensive systems used
by winning and losing basketball teams in their ball possessions, trying to study their
influence in the points scored, number of passes made and time duration per ball
possession. We argue that physical, technical and tactical performance differences
would configure the defensive game strategies, thus, this would be necessarily reflected
in points scored, number of passes and time duration per ball possession.
In this topic, the winning teams showed more ball possession versus man-to-man
pressure (13.9% compared to 4.3%), zone pressure (3.1% compared to 1.2%), and
mixed (4.4% compared to 1.2%) defensive systems than losing teams, while the last
ones showed more ball possessions versus zone and man-to-man in half court (85.5%
compared to 72.2%) defences. These results were different from the results found by
Tsamourtzis et al. (2002), in both groups, winners and losers, only with similar values
in winning teams ball possessions versus man-to-man defences (75.2% compared to
72.2%), and in losing teams ball possessions versus zone defensive systems (7.4%
compared to 7.3%). According to these results the differences could be determined by:
i) the importance of game situation like play-off series, where the teams’ performances
were similar, thus, the teams reduce the fastbreaks percentage and make other team
strategies like different defensive systems (Fotinakis, Laparidis, Karipidis & Taxildaris,
2002); and ii) the new basketball rules, like 24 seconds shot clock, made a dynamic
game with different game plans, where the defences play an important role, trying to
force the opposite team to take a shot (Oliver, 2004; Schmidt & Braun, 2004). In a
general way, it reflects that winning teams defend better than losing teams in half court,
especially in man-to-man, so they took more steals and take bad shots from the opposite
team, shooting far from the basket with a good defensive pressure (Mikes, 1987; Oliver,
2004).
The results of the research with reference to the points scored per ball possession,
showed that losers had more ball possession without scoring than winners (55.5%
compared to 62.1%); On one hand, the winning teams made more attacks versus man-
to-man and zone pressure and mixed defensive systems; it enhances the importance of
time-outs and free-throws scored to get bad and early attacks from winning teams,
showing the surprise effect in ball possessions (Kozar et al., 1993). On the other hand,
the losing teams made more ball possession without scoring versus man-to-man half
court defences, these results reinforce the idea of a better defence from winners in this

5
type of defensive system by tactical and physical performances (Oliver, 2004; Carter,
Ackland, Kerr & Syappf, 2005), furthermore, the losers have less ability to perfom
structured ball possessions versus some changes in game strategies (Mace, Lalli, Shea &
Nevin, 1992), thus the winners get more defensive rebounds and consequently more
fastbreaks opportunities, therefore, it gives easy shots near the basket (Sampaio &
Janeira, 2003; Ibáñez et al., 2003; Tsamourtzis, Karypidis & Athanasiou, 2005).
The frequency of 2 points scored per ball possessions, showed that winning teams
made more possessions than losing teams (28.5% compared to 23.6%), where the
winners get better percentages in their ball possessions versus man-to-man half and
pressure, zone pressure and mixed defensive systems; While losing teams only get
better percentages versus zone half court. This effect of defensive systems and points
scored per ball possession is probably determined by the team work, where the team
that made more structured attacks get more assistances and good inside shots (Melnick,
2001; Ibáñez et al., 2003; Sampaio & Janeira, 2003) breaking the different defensive
systems (Fotinakis et al., 2002). In this topic, Sampaio et al. (2004a), indicated that the
close games (below 3 points), differentiate winners from losers in successful 2 points
field-goals from middle distance preceded by 1 on 1 situations. Thus, it could be
expected that winning teams could have better performances in assists and successful
two point field-goals in different game-contexts.
In the same way the ball possessions with three points scored, indicated some
differences between both groups (9.8% winners versus 8.7% losers), losers made their
attacks versus man-to-man half court, while winners made more attacks versus zone in
half court and zone pressure. The results showed the importance of shots selection
according to the type of defensive systems, where the team-work (inside-outside passes)
and good shooters play a special role in the winning teams (Mavridis et al., 2003).
Ball possessions with 1 point scored are the least common in all the sample,
furthermore, the winners get more opportunities than losers (6.2% compared to 5.7%).
It indicates that the first ones get more fouls in their attacks, especially in the last five
minutes of the game (Kozar et al., 1994), where the close games were determined, in
these moments the most frequent defensive system used by losing teams is the man-to-
man pressure, so the winning teams get more foul-shots with fast attacks. The losing
teams made more attacks versus man-to-man half court and zone in half court, but it
could be explained by the better percentage of winning teams in 2 points field-goals
(Akers et al., 1991; Tsamourtzis et al., 2002), and the use of fouls as a resource for
winners to take away easy shots near the basket (Mosca, 1985).
The importance of time duration and the number of passes made per ball possession
versus different defences, reflects that the winners show best adaptation and less time
dribbling versus different defences and game strategies, so they made more passes and
spent more time in possessions of the ball versus man-to-man half and pressure, zone in
half court and mixed defences; they only spent less time and used less passes versus
zone pressure defences.
The use of more passes and more time in the ball possessions, reflects more
assistances as well as good inside shots near the basket, in this way the winners spend
less time dribbling and pass more frequently versus different defensive systems
(Stavropoulos & Foundalis, 2005) like zone half court, where the teams try to use
spaces between players getting good shots without defensive pressure near the basket
(Mikes, 1987; Silva, 1998).
The obtained results need to be used to perform the training process, like the use of
different defences during the game. Thus, in the play-offs series the offensive and
defensive aspects of defensive systems must be taught; but with special attention to

6
man-to-man and zone half court, and man-to-man pressure defences. This is because,
these were the most commonly used in the games, as well as, the teams made more
points per ball possession versus the same ones.
From the offensive point of view, the ball possessions structures must be taught with
specific tasks, and with some special changes if the opposite team use different
defensive systems; trying to train the passes and the time duration of their attacks to get
more easy shots. All of this means that the training process and the coach direction
during the game point out these factors to improve game performance.

5 References

Akers, M. D., Wolff, S, & Buttross, T. (1991). An empirical examination of the factors
affecting the success of NCAA Division I College Basketball teams. The Journal of
Business and Economic Studies, 1(2), 14-21.
Carter, J. E. L.; Ackland, T. R.; Kerr, D. A. & Stappf, A. B. (2005). Somatotipe and size
of elite female basketball player. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(10), 1057-1063.
Cruz, J., & Tavares, F. (1998). Notational Analysis of the offensive patterns in cadets
basketball teams. In M. Hughes & Tavares, F. (Ed.), Notational Analysis of Sport
IV. Proceedings of the IV World Congress. (pp. 112-119). Oporto. Portugal.:
FCDEF-UP.
De Rose, D. (2004). Statistical Analysis of Basketball Performance Indicators
According to Home/Away Games and Winning and Losing Teams. Journal of
Human Movement Studies, 47(4), 327-336.
Dezman, B., Erculj, F., & Vuckovic, G. (2002) Differences between winning and losing
teams in playing efficiency. Acta Kinesiologiae Universitatis Tartuensis, 7
(Supplement), 71-74.
Fotinakis, P., Laparidis, C., Karipidis, A., & Taxildaris, K. (2002). A coaching approach
to technical and tactical differences between NBA and European basketball game by
use of an advanced coding program. Rivista di cultura sportiva, 21(55), 52-56.
Hughes, M., & Franks, I. M. (2004). Notational Analysis of Sport. Systems for better
coaching and performance in sport. London: E. And F. N. Spon.
Hughes, M., & Bartlett, R. (2002). The use of performance indicators in performance
analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(10), 739-754.
Ibáñez, S. J., Sampaio, J., Sáenz-López, P., Jiménez, J., & Janeira, M. A. (2003). Game
statistics discriminating the final outcome of junior world basketball championship
matches (Portugal 1999). Journal of Human Movement Studies, 74, 1-19.
Ittenbach, F., Kloos, T, & Etheridge, J. D. (1992). Team performance and national
polls: The 1990-91 NCAA Division 1 basketball season. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 74, 707-710.
Ittenbach, R. F., & Esters, I. G. (1995). Utility of Team Indices for Predicting End of
Season Ranking in Two National Polls. Journal of Sport Behavior, 18(3), 216-224.
Kozar, B., Vaughn, R. E., Whitfield, K. E., Lord, R. H., & Dye, B. (1994). Importance
of free-throws at various stages of basketball games. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
78(1), 243-248.
Mace, F. C., Lalli, J. S., Shea, M. C., & Nevin, J. A. (1992). Behavioral momentum in
college basketball. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 657-663.
Mavridis, G., Laios, A., Taxildaris, K., & Tsiskaris, G. (2003). Developing Offense in
Basketball After A Return Pass Outside As Crucial Factor Of Winning. Inquiries in
Sport & Physical Education, 2(1), 81-86.

7
Melnick, M. J. (2001). Relationship Between Team Assists and Win-Loss Record in the
National Basketball Association. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92(2), 595-602.
Mexas, K., Tsiskaris, G., Kyriakou., D & Garefis, A. (2005) Comparison of
effectiveness of organizated offences between two different championships in high
level basketball, International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 5(1), 72-
82.
Mikes, J. (1987). Computer Breakdown of percentage Basketball. Scholastic Coach,
57(11), 52-54.
Mosca, G. (1985). Another Look at Fouling strategies in Basketball. Scholastic Coach,
54, 32-68.
Ntoumanis, N. (2001). A step-by-step Guide to SPSS for Sport and Exercise Studies.
London: Ed. Routledge.
Oliver, D. (2004). Basketball on paper. Rules and Tools for Performance Analysis.
Brassey´s, Inc, Washington, D. C.
Osterman, M. (1993). Taft’s team game objetive and individual evaluations. Texas
Coach, 5, 36-39.
Remmert, H. (2003). Analysis of group-tactical offensive behavior in elite basketball on
the basis of a process orientated model. European Journal of Sport Science, 3(3), 1-
12.
Sampaio, J., Ferreira, A. P., Ibáñez, S., & Ribeiro, C. (2004a). Success in the last 5
minutes of basketball close games. Investigating final outcome of ball possessions,
duration of ball possessions, number of players’ involved, defensive opposition and
court location. Paper presented at the World Congress of Performance Analysis in
Sport 6., St. Mary´s University., Belfast.
Sampaio, J., Ibáñez, S., & Feu, S. (2004b). Discriminatory Power of Basketball Game-
Related Statistics by Level of Competition. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 1231-
1238.
Sampaio, J., & Janeira, M. (2003). Statistical analyses of basketball team performance:
understanding team’s wins and losses according to a different index of ball
possessions. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport., 3(1), 40-49.
Schmidt, G. J., & Braun, C. (2004). Entwiclung der Angriffs- und Verteidigungstaktik
im eurpäischen Spitzenbasketball. Leistungssport, 2, 32-35.
Silva, J. C. (1998). Analysis of basketball structure and the output in male junior teams.
In M. Hugues, & Tavares, F (Ed.), Notational Analysis of Sport IV. Proceedings of
the IV World Congress. (pp. 120-122). Oporto. Portugal: FCAFD-UP.
Stavropoulos, N., & Foundalis, H. (2005) The influence of passing and dribbling during
out of bounds in offensive success in the game of basketball. Inquiries in Sport &
Physical Education, 3(3), 298-303.
Tsamourtzis, E., Karypidis, A., & Athanasiou, N. (2005). Analysis of fast breaks in
basketball. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 5(2), 17-
22.
Tsamourtzis, E., Salonikidis, K., Taxildaris, K., & Mawromatis, G. (2002). Technical and
tactical characteristics of winners and losers in basketball. Leistungssport, 1, 54-58.