© National Strength & Conditioning Association
Volume 25, Number 2, pages 57–64
Basketball: Applying Time Motion Data
to Conditioning
John Taylor, MS, CSCS, *D
New Mexico State University
Las Cruses, New Mexico
Keywords: time motion analysis; high intensity efforts;
submaximal efforts; movement patterns.
THERE IS NO SINGLE BEST
approach for conditioning basket-
ball athletes. Although it is pru-
dent for strength and conditioning
professionals to base conditioning
programs on the available scien-
tific evidence, interpretation and
application of this information can
vary greatly. Research findings are
inconclusive regarding the relative
contribution of the aerobic and
anaerobic energy systems to the
sport of basketball. Although an
excellent review of the scientific
evidence is available (1), a precise
assessment of the physiological
demands is lacking. However, it is
possible to characterize basketball
as a sport consisting of high-in-
tensity efforts followed by lower-
intensity efforts with intermittent
stops and play and breaks be-
tween halves or quarters. Move-
ment patterns consist of sprints,
jogs, jumps, shuffles, back pedals,
walking, and standing (1, 2). The
intensity of the game can vary
greatly depending on the level of
play, coaching philosophy, game
strategies, and athletes’ condition-
ing levels.
This article describes a
process of using time motion data
April 2003
to base a conditioning program for
a men’s NCAA Division I basket-
ball program at 1 university. The
5-step conditioning modeling pro-
cedure for designing specialized
metabolic conditioning programs
as described in the Essentials of
Strength Training and Conditioning
was used as a guide in this
process (3). An outline and sample
data from this process are found
in Table 1. The purpose of this ar-
ticle is to provide an example of
the application of this process to
conditioning programs and hope-
fully to encourage other strength
and conditioning professionals to
use this process.
■ Identify Competition Model
and Nature and Scope of Tacti-
cal Events
Level of play, conference, divi-
sion, and time period in most
cases are obvious and easily
identified through simple investi-
gation. The scheme, style, sys-
tem, and possibly personnel will
require input from the basketball
coaching staff. Intensity levels,
outcomes, goals, and objectives
can be identified based on obser-
vation and game statistics. Preci-
Strength and Conditioning Journal
sion in this step is problematic
because of the transitional na-
ture of basketball and the diver-
sity of game plans, but it is pos-
sible once the time motion
analysis is completed. Also, the
modeling criteria under this step
will vary depending on the per-
ception of the individual using
this process and the head coach’s
style of play.
■ Videotape Specific Competi-
tion
The next step in this process is to
videotape a game. In the ideal
setup, you should be able to view
the tape in forward or reverse at
various speeds, including frame
by frame. A pause feature with
good on-screen clarity is helpful. A
stopwatch can be used to time ef-
forts.
To diversify the type of contest
evaluated, four videotapes should
be chosen: two identified by the
basketball coaching staff as the
best and worst games of the year,
one contest chosen based on the
fewest number of fouls in a game
for the competitive season as de-
termined by a review of box statis-
tics, and one postseason contest.
57
 standing, shuffles, backpedals,
Table 1 runs, and jumps) for the purpose
Example of the Conditioning Model Procedure for of assessing work to relief pat-
Collegiate Basketball terns, only the change in intensi-
Step 1: identify competition model with respect to the following: ty of efforts. It has been suggested
Level: college that evaluators identify high-in-
Conference: Sun Belt tensity efforts as movements of ex-
Division: NCAA Div I treme effort with distinct change
Scheme, style, system: perimeter play, force respect the inside in tempo relative to obviously less
game, great defense intense efforts.
Time period: two 20-minute halves
Personnel: team with regular position substitution (position break
down by perimeter and inside players) ■ Example Using Time Motion
Step 2: identify nature and scope of tactical events Data in Conditioning
Intensity levels: The following are specific details
Subjective: high-intensity (fast breaks) efforts followed by submax-
relevant to how we completed the
imal efforts with intermittent stops and play
Objective: coaches game style: fast break/early offense
grading processes. One athlete, a
Yearly statistics guard by position, with the high-
Totals 1999 and 2000: athlete mean N 12, est average playing time (33:2
games played, mean minutes minutes) during the regular play-
Mean: 23.2, 17.5; maximum: 32.2, 33.2; minimum, 6.9, 2.8 ing season for a period of 2 years
Outcomes, goals, objective: was evaluated in 4 contests. The
Settled: (offensive possession, defensive setup) subject played an average of 34.5
Unsettled: jump ball, fast break, loss ball, transition back and ± 6:4 minutes in the 4 contests
forth between offense and defense; free throw to live play and out
evaluated. Three forms were used
of bounds to live play
for the time motion analysis: 1
Step 3: videotape specific competitions each for high-intensity efforts,
• One athlete with the highest average playing time per year was
submaximal efforts, and intermit-
evaluated in 4 contests
• Movement patterns were graded and times for high-intensity tent stops in play. The high-inten-
efforts and efforts below high intensity were tallied sity efforts and the submaximal-
• Intermittent breaks in play were broken down into time segments intensity efforts forms had the
and tallied (injuries, out of bounds ball, fouls, and officials’ dis- same structure and were used to
cussion) tally timed efforts. Timed efforts
• Game time-outs were timed and the number per contest recorded were tallied in ranges of 5-second
Step 4: evaluate increments up to 35 seconds. The
Fundamental exercise: relief pattern length and number of time-outs
Table 4a, 4b, 4c. were also recorded. Each time-out
Step 5: select training and/or testing drills constituted the end of a series. At
Table 5 the beginning of a new series,
bouts were tallied on the next row
and continued until the end of
Two evaluators should analyze the contest independent of the 4 con- that series. Intermittent stops in
videotapes. To minimize bias, it is tests selected. A comparison of play were tallied as they occurred
recommended that one individual each evaluator’s graded results throughout the half (i.e., any stop
be a trained certified strength and should be relatively consistent. If in play that was not a time-out).
conditioning professional and the the comparison grading is not The form had a range of 1–75 sec-
other an individual familiar with consistent, then the standardiza- onds split into 5-second incre-
the sport but not a strength and tion process should be repeated. ments. Separate forms were used
conditioning professional. To Each evaluator should then ana- for the first and second half. The
standardize the method of evalua- lyze 2 of the 4 selected contests in- forms and the results of the first
tion, both individuals should dis- dependently of 1 another. It is not half of game 4 are provided in
cuss the grading process and then necessary to differentiate between Table 2 as an example of this
simultaneously grade one-half of a movement patterns (i.e., walking, process.

58 Strength and Conditioning Journal April 2003

 Table 2
Evaluation Forms and Tallied Results from One Half of Play

Game 4, first half; movement at high intensity

1–5 s >5–10 s >10–15 s >15–20 s >20–25 s >25–30 s >30–35s Time-outs

|||||||| |||||| ||| 2.30

||| |||| | 2.14

||| ||| |||||| 2.14

| || | 0.55

|||||| |||| 2.06

||| |||||| end

Game 4, first half; movement at <high intensity

0–5 s >5–10 s >10–15 s >15–20 s >20–25 s >25–30 s >30–35 s Time-outs

||||| ||||||||| ||| || | || 2.30

| |||| ||| | 2.14

|| ||| ||| | 2.14

|| | || | 0.55

|| |||||| |||| | 2.06

||| |||||| || ||| | end

Intermittent stop in play

0–5 s >5–10 s >10–15 s >15–20 s >20–25 s >25–30 s >30–35 s >35–40 s >45–50 s >55–60 s >60–75 s

| || | ||||| |||| | |||| ||||| || ||

■ Fundamental Exercise-relief
Patterns
Fundamental exercise-relief
patterns were evaluated based on
the results of the time motion
analysis. Descriptive statistics are
found in Table 3 and Table 4a–4c.
Table 3 is an example of the data
from one-half of play and reflects
the information compiled in Table
2. Tables 4a–4c represent the final
data from all 4 contests based on
34:5 ± 6:4 minutes of playing
time. Results showed (Table 4a)
that high-intensity efforts of 1–5
seconds occurred most frequent-
ly, comprising 52% of the inter-
vals. High-intensity efforts ranging
from 1–15 seconds comprised
97% of the intervals. Alternately,
submaximal efforts ranging from
5–10 seconds occurred most fre-
quently, thus comprising 38% of
all intervals, followed by 10–20
second efforts, which comprised
25% of all intervals. Submaximal
efforts ranging from 1 to 20 sec-
onds comprised 94% of all inter-
vals. There was a mean of 15.75 ±
2.8 series per contest. A series was
designated as the total number of
both high-intensity and submaxi-
mal efforts that occurred before a
time-out. There was a mean of
18.86 ± 12.21 efforts per series.
Mean high-intensity bouts was
134.75 ± 32.4, and the mean sub-
maximal bouts was 150.25 ± 40.6.
This establishes a high-intensity
to submaximal-intensity work-to-
relief ratio of 1:1.12. The mean
total intermittent stops in play
was 25.25 ± 11.76 per playing
time (Table 4b). This equates to an
average of 1 intermittent stop in
play every 11.28 bouts and was
calculated by dividing the mean
total efforts per playing time of
285 (Table 4c) by the mean num-
ber of intermittent stops in play.
This establishes the mean density
of intermittent stops to bouts
(mean 1:11). Ranges were estab-
lished in the same manner utiliz-
ing ±1 standard deviations from
the mean (low, 1:10; high, 1:20). A
summary of these results is pre-
sented in Table 5.
Results of 1 study also show
that the majority of high-intensity

April 2003 Strength and Conditioning Journal 59

and submaximal-intensity efforts
in basketball are very short in du-
ration (2). The study investigated
the intensities of activity and
movement patterns of 8 elite play-
ers who were members of the Aus-
tralia National Basketball League
(NBL). NBL games consist of four
12-minute quarters with a 10–15
minute break at half-time and 2-
minute breaks between the first
and second as well as the third
and fourth quarters. The total live
playing time of an NBL game is 8
minutes, or 20% longer then a col-
legiate game. The mean minutes
played by all subjects in the
study was 36:33 ± 6:28, which is
5.3% longer than the mean play-
ing time in this study. The mean
of total bouts was 997 ± 183, of
which is considerably larger then
reported here (285 ± 71.8). This
is most likely because of the
longer duration of NBL games
and the fact the study discrimi-
nated between several movement
patterns (stand/walk; jog run;
stride/sprint; shuffles of low,
medium, and high intensities; and
jumps) where the process used in
this evaluation did not. However,
the majority of high-intensity and
submaximal efforts are very short
in duration in both studies. The
Australian researchers reported
that the mean duration of all ac-
tivities was less than 3 seconds
and the maximum duration of
continuous high-intensity activity
was 13.5 seconds (2), which is
very similar to what was observed
here.
■ Selecting Training and/or
Testing Drills
General recommendations for de-
veloping conditioning sessions

Table 3
Example of Compiled Statistics From Table 2

Game 4, first half; high-intensity effort

Series 0–5s >5–10s >10–15s >15–20s >20–25s >25–30s >30–35s Time-outs
1 8 6 3 0 0 0 0 2.30
2 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 2.14
3 3 3 6 0 0 0 0 2.14
4 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0.55
5 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 2.06
6 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 end
N efforts 24 26 10 1 0 0 0 61 (total N efforts)
Mean/series 4.0 4.3 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 (Mean total efforts/series)
Maximum/series 8.0 6.0 6.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Minimum/series 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
% of total N 39 43 16 2 0 0 0

Game 4, first half; <high-intensity effort

Series 0–5s >5–10s >10–15s >15–20s >20–25s >25–30s >30–35s Time-outs
1 5 9 2 2 1 2 0 2.30
2 1 4 4 1 0 0 0 2.14
3 2 3 2 0 0 1 0 2.14
4 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0.55
5 2 6 4 0 1 0 0 2.06
6 3 6 0 2 3 1 0 end
N efforts 15 29 12 7 6 4 0 73 (Total N efforts)
Mean/series 2.5 4.8 2.0 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.0 12.2 (Mean total efforts/series)
Maximum/series 5.0 9.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 0.0
Minimum/series 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
% of total N 21 40 16 10 8 5 0

60 Strength and Conditioning Journal April 2003

 Tables 4a, 4b, and 4c
Fundamental Exercise: Relief Patterns

4a. Four Game Total

High-intensity efforts

Seconds 1–5 >5–10 >10–15 >15–20 >20–25 >25–30 >30–35 Total N Mean N/game

N efforts 280.0 181.0 59.0 14.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 539 134.75 ± 32.4

Mean/series 9.5 6.2 2.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0

SD 1.8 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0

Maximum/series 19.5 11.5 6.0 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.0

Minimum/series 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% of total N 52 34 11 3 1 0 0

SD (%) 4 3 2 2 1 0 0

Less than high-intensity efforts

Seconds 1–5 >5–10 >10–15 >15–20 >20–25 >25–30 >30–35 Total N Mean N/game

N efforts 118.0 204.0 136.0 59.0 43.0 21.0 20.0 601 150.25 ± 40.6

Mean/series 4.1 7.3 4.5 1.9 1.6 0.7 0.7

SD 1.4 2.0 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.5

Maximum/series 9.3 14.5 10.0 5.8 4.5 3.3 2.5

Minimum/series 0.3 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% of total N 22 38 25 11 8 4 4

SD (%) 4 5 4 3 3 1 3

4b. Four Game Total Intermittent Stops in Play

Seconds 1–5 >5–10 >10–15 >15–20 >20–25 >25–30 >30–35 >35–40 >45–50 >55–60 >60–75

Mean N 0.3 1.0 2.0 2.5 4.3 3.3 2.5 3.3 3.8 1.5 1.0 25.25 ± 11.76
(Mean total N)

SD 0.5 1.4 2.2 2.6 3.9 2.2 1.9 2.6 4.1 1.3 1.4

Mean % of total 1 4 8 10 17 13 10 13 15 6 4

SD (%) 2 5 8 10 12 9 16 6 11 4 4

4c. Total Bouts per Game

Game 1 Game 2 Game 3 Game 4 Total Mean SD

Total bouts 291 375 200 274 1140 285 71.8

Note: Data are based on mean playing time of 34:5 ± 6:4 minutes.

April 2003 Strength and Conditioning Journal 61


Figure 1a–b. a. Comparison of work to relief based on percentage of total effort.
b. Comparison of work to relief based on average number of bouts.
based on the compiled data are
covered in this section. Because
obtaining specific data on which to
base a conditioning model was the
goal of this process, selecting test-
ing drills was not considered at
this time. Furthermore, discus-
sion of a comprehensive peri-
odized conditioning model based
on the results is beyond the pur-
pose and scope of this article.
The key decision in this step is
how much of an actual basketball
62
game to mimic during a condition-
ing session (3). The combined re-
sults of steps 1–4 should be con-
sidered in this selection process
with considerable emphasis
placed on the results of the time
motion analysis (step 4). Based on
the interpretation of the compiled
data, ideal and real training ses-
sion recommendations are pre-
sented in Table 5 and graphically
represented in Figure 1. Real and
ideal training sessions would con-
Strength and Conditioning Journal
sist of a series of high-intensity
bouts (sprints, shuffles,
backpedals, maximal jumps) al-
ternated with relief patterns of
less intense bouts (walks, jogs,
slow shuffles, slow back pedals).
Bouts would be executed at vari-
ous court distances coinciding
with the results of the time motion
analysis. Based on the compiled
data presented here, distances
that can be covered in 1–15 sec-
onds would be utilized for high-in-
tensity bouts alternated with sub-
maximal bouts over distances that
can be covered in 1–20 seconds.
Intermittent stops in play and
time-outs would also be assigned
based on the results of the time
motion analysis.
Real training sessions should
be developed as part of a compre-
hensive conditioning model utiliz-
ing an annual periodized plan to
distribute training volume, fre-
quency, and intensity as estab-
lished by the results. The pro-
posed ideal training session (Table
5; Figure 1) was developed based
on the compiled data utilizing the
following method. The number of
bouts per half (179) were estab-
lished by taking half of the total
bouts per game 1 standard devia-
tion above the mean (358). By ap-
plying the high ratio of intermit-
tent stops to bouts (1:20) to the
bouts per half, 9 intermittent
stops in play per half were estab-
lished. The number of series per
half (8) were established by taking
half of the series per game 1 stan-
dard deviation above the mean
(16.8). By dividing the 179 bouts
per half by 8 series per half, an av-
erage of 22.37 bouts per series
(rounded to 22) was established.
When planning conditioning,
it is important to consider not only
the mean results, but also the
ranges. The ideal training session
is based on 1 standard deviation
above the mean, and the real ses-
April 2003
 season basketball practice ses-
Table 5
sions to conditioning drills (1).
Competition Modeling for Division 1A Collegiate Basketball
Given the demands on strength
Interpretation of results and conditioning professionals
Number of players evaluated: 1 (guard) and the time-intensive nature of
Number of contests evaluated: 4 this modeling procedure, it may
not be practical to break down
Mean minutes played: 34.5 ± 6.4
each position. As previously indi-
Mean N of series: 15.3 ± 1.5/game
cated, a guard by position with the
Mean N high-intensity efforts: 134.5 ± 32.4/game (8.8 ± 5.9/series)
highest average 2-year playing
Mean N submaximal-intensity efforts: 150.3 ± 40.6/game time was the subject of the time
(9.9 ± 6.6/series)
motion analysis of the purpose of
Mean N intermittent stop in play: 25.25 ± 11.8/game this process. It is believed that the
Density (high intensity:submaximal intensity): 1:1.12 analysis of this particular athlete
Density (intermittent stops:bouts): mean 1:11, low 1:10, high 1:20 will provide a real estimate of the
Intermittent stops in play at 25–40 s physiological demands placed on
Density (bouts:series) 18.7 ± 12.21:1 a basketball player during the
Time-out at 50 s to 2 min course of a game. Although specif-
ic needs may be required of each
“When determining how much of an actual contest to mimic in 1 condi- position (e.g., boxing out and low-
tioning session, the choice between ideal and real criteria is a key decision”
post game for both centers and
(3). The following is an example of ideal and real criteria based on an inter-
power forwards), previous authors
pretation of the results.
have discussed the likely similar
Ideal drill: physiological demands placed on
2 halves (20 min break between) each position (1). This is primarily
Each half consists of 179 total bouts dispersed across 8 series based on the shared responsibili-
Mean 22 bouts per series ties seen between all positions
1:00–2:00 time-out after each series, 9 intermittent stops in (i.e., shooting, rebounding, and
play at 25–40 s passing; 1).
High-intensity bouts alternated with submaximal bouts consisting of As with any training program,
sprints, jogs, walks, shuffles, back pedals; work to relief at 1–15 the strength and conditioning pro-
s:1–20 s) fessional must evaluate each
Real drill: athlete’s response to the given
Utilizing periodization, volume, frequency, and intensity of training is training demands and make
established and distributed throughout the year. adjustments based on those
Number of bouts based on daily distribution. responses. The success of any
Density training program is based on the
Exercise:relief 1:1 outcome. Adjusting a program rel-
evant to the outcome is dependent
Mean exercise: relief/rest
on the quantifiable nature of the
1:11 Intermittent:bouts
program. The 5-step conditioning
1:19 Time-out:bouts
model procedure for designing
specialized metabolic conditioning
sion is based on the mean results. because of the integration of other programs (3) is a good guide for
The mean is used as a baseline, training components in the overall producing data on which a quan-
and training sessions can vary training program (i.e., weight tifiable, sports-specific condition-
within the established ranges. An training, speed drills, plyometrics, ing program can be based. The
ideal conditioning session would flexibility). Furthermore, it has resulting challenge is to develop a
most likely occur only during peak been suggested that it may be nec- flexible tool that can easily be
training times once or twice a year. essary to leave some room for fur- used by the strength and condi-
The dissemination of the ideal ses- ther anaerobic improvements in tioning professional to distribute
sion would be quite lengthy and conditioning levels, because many and track training volume; estab-
may not be practical or necessary coaches dedicate much of the pre- lish training frequency, intensity,

April 2003 Strength and Conditioning Journal 63

and recovery; and make adjust-
ments as needed. It is the author’s
intent to suggest such a tool and a
compressive model based on these
results in the future. ▲

■ References
1. Hoffman, J.R., and C.M.
Maresh. Physiology of basket-
ball. In: Exercise and Sports
Science (2nd ed.). W.E. Garrett
Jr. and D.T. Kirkendall, eds.
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins, 2000. pp.
733–744.
2. McInnes, S.E., J.S. Carlson,
C.J. Jones, and M.J. McKen-
na. The physiological load im-
posed on basketball players
during competition. J. Sports
Sci. 13:387–397. 1995.
3. Plisk, P. Speed, agility, and
speed-endurance develop-
ment. In: Essential Principles
of Strength and Conditioning
(2nd ed.). T. Baechle and R.
Earle, eds. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 2000. pp.
485, 487.

■ Acknowledgments:
The author would like to thank
Jay Hoffman, Steve Plisk, and Bill
Allerheiligen for their guidance
and insight on this project.

Taylor

John Taylor is head perfor-

mance training coach and an ad-
junct instructor in the Health,
Physical Education, and Dance
Department at New Mexico State
University.

64 Strength and Conditioning Journal April 2003