| 摘要: | 背景：運動專項體能對運動員於競技場上的運運動表現有著重要的影響程度，專項體能和運動表現是否相關，國內大多以攻守統計進行分析運動表現，但國際許多籃球組織及體育分析師則運用效率指標 (efficiency rating, EFF ) 來評估運動員場上效率。目的：探討籃球專項體能之無負重反向跳、負重反向跳、單腳反向跳右腳、單腳反向跳左腳、 5 公尺衝刺、10 公尺衝刺、改變方向 (505 Agility Test) 及身體組成 (體脂肪量、體脂肪率及肌肉量) 比較 WSBL 與 UBA 選手專項體能之差異及專項體能與球員效率值之關係。方法：以參加 2018 年 WSBL 女子甲組超級籃球聯賽 11 名選手及 2018 年 UBA 大專院校籃球運動聯賽女甲一級 11 名選手共 22 名為研究對象，WSBL 及 UBA 年齡與球齡分別為 25.54 ± 4.29、19.72 ± 1.90 (年)、14.00 ± 3.79、18.90 ± 1.92 (年)，於聯賽賽季前進行身體組成檢測及專項體能測驗，球員效率值以 201 8年 WSBL 及 2018 年 UBA 聯賽之攻守數據，加以帶入 EFF 公式換算。所得之數據以獨立樣本t檢定 (t-test) 比較 WSBL 與及 UBA 大專組身體組成、專項體能及運動表現檢測結果，以皮爾森積差相關檢定專項體能與球員效率值之相關性，顯著水準訂為 α = .05。結果：兩組基本資料球齡與年齡達顯著差異，身體組成之各項檢測無顯著差異，UBA 單腳反向跳左腳 14.56 ± 1.57 vs 12.63 ± 1.42、右腳15.36 ± 1.81vs 12.60 ± 2.34 (公分) 優於 WSBL 達顯著差異，其餘下肢爆發力測驗項目及敏捷性之改變方向 (505) 0~3.5 雖優於 WSBL 但未達顯著， WSBL 則於5、10公尺衝刺及改變方向 (505) 3.5~5 公尺優於 UBA 但未達顯著；EFF 與專項體能相關之結果WSBL選手 EFF 與專項體能唯負重反向跳呈高相關 (r = .660) 達顯著 (p < .05)，UBA選手EFF 與專項體能的負重反向跳離心階段 (r = .812) 呈很高相關、無負重反向跳最大峰值 (r = .736)、無負重反向跳離心階段 (r = .751) 呈高相關且皆達顯著且 (p < .01)，無負重反向跳 (r = .681)、負重反向跳 (r = .710)、負重反向跳最大峰值 (r = .680)、單腳反向跳左腳 (r = .681)、單腳反向跳右腳 (r = .624)、單腳反向跳右腳最大峰值 (r = .624) 呈高相關與 EFF 皆達顯著 (p < .05)。結論：UBA 選手下肢爆發力優於 WSBL 應與與年齡有關，越年輕者下肢爆發力與改變方向能力較佳，但 WSBL 選手有較佳的加速度能力；EFF與專項體能與之關係在較高層級及經驗較完備的WSBL選手中較不顯著，在高層級比賽裡所面臨到的隊伍需透過較多經驗、更多的技術及團隊合作及教練精確的戰術，以獲得勝利。但 UBA 賽事中當專項體能越好則 EFF 表現則越佳，專項體能在任何層級的選手都是必備，透過專項體能測驗能較準確的評估運動員體能及擬定訓練計畫，實施測驗再和運動表現相關數據對應，將可提高籃球體能測驗價值。
Background: Sport-specific physical fitness has an important influence on the performance of athletes on the field. When estimate whether specific physical fitness and athletic performance are related, most domestic athletic performances are measured by offensive and defensive statistics. However, many basketball organizations and sports analysts in the world use the efficiency rating (EFF) to evaluate the efficiency of the athletes. Purpose: To explore the specific physical fitness in basketball, including unloaded countermovement jump (ULCMJ), loaded countermovement jump (LCMJ), right side loaded countermovement jump (RSLCMJ), left side loaded countermovement jump (LSLCMJ), 5-meter sprint test, 10-meter sprint test, 505 agility test and body composition (including body fat mass, body fat percentage and muscle mass). Methods: We included 22 participants, WSBL and UBA age 25.54 ± 4.29 and 19.72 ± 1.90 (years), experience age 14.00 ± 3.79 and 18.90 ± 1.92 (years), in which were 11 players from the 2018 WSBL and 11 players from the 2018 UBA League. Body composition testing and specific physical fitness tests were performed before the start of the league season. The players’ efficiency values were estimated by EFF formula by the offensive and defensive statistics of the 2018 WSBL and the 2018 UBA League games. We used independent sample t test with obtained data to compare the test results of the body composition and the specific physical fitness and the sports performance between WSBL group and UBA league group. We used Pearson product-moment correlation test to investigate the correlation between specific physical fitness and players’ efficiency value, with the significance level set at α= .05. Results: The differences of the specific physical fitness between two groups are as follows: UBA league group is better than WSBL group in lower limb explosive force (measured by CMJ) and agility of changing direction (measured by 505 agility test in 0-3.5 meters), especially in LSLCMJ (14.56 ± 1.57 and 12.63 ± 1.42, separately) and RSLCMJ(15.36± 1.81 and 12.60 ± 2.34, separately), which show significant differences. WSBL group is better than UBA league group in 5-meter sprint test, 10-meter sprint test and 505 agility test (3.5-5meters). The EFF of the WSBL group is significantly associated with the specific physical fitness only in loaded countermovement jump (LCMJ) high correlation (r = .660, p < .05). The EFF of the UBA league group is significantly associated with the specific physical fitness in loaded centrifugal stage of LCMJ (r = .812, p < .01) very high correlation, peak value of ULCMJ (r = .736, p < .01), centrifugal stage of ULCMJ (r = .751, p < .01) high correlation. Countermovement jump (ULCMJ) (r = .681, p < .05)., loaded countermovement jump (LCMJ) (r = .710, p < .05), peak value of LCMJ (r = .680, p < .05), left side loaded countermovement jump (LSLCMJ) (r = .681, p < .05), right side loaded countermovement jump (RSLCMJ) (r = .624, p < .05), peak value of RSLCMJ (r = .624, p < .05) high correlation. Conclusion: Specific physical fitness is a must for players at any level. Teams in high-level competitions need more experience, more skills, more teamwork and more precise coach tactics when facing opponents. The relationship between EFF and special physical fitness is less significant in a more experienced team, but in UBA events, the better the specific fitness, the better the EFF performance. Through the specific physical fitness test, the athlete's physical fitness can be assessed more accurately and formulate the training plan more accurately. Implementing the test and then correlating it with athletic performance data will improve the value of the basketball fitness test. |
