Shooting accuracy and conditioning characteristics in proficient and non-proficient male perimeter basketball players: effects of distance and condition

Introduction Shooting accuracy is a key performance indicator in basketball, highlighting the importance of understanding how it varies with playing proficiency across different shooting conditions and distances. The present study had a three-fold aim to examine: i) the effects of shooting distance and condition complexity on shooting accuracy with respect to playing proficiency, ii) differences in shooting accuracy betwee playing proficient (PP) and non-proficient (NP) basketball perimeter players across different distances and conditions, and iii) differences in conditioning characteristics between PP and NP. Methods The sample included 14 PP (age: 23.8 ± 3.4 years; body height: 189.4 ± 5.3 cm; body mass: 85.8 ± 5.6 kg) and 14 NP (age: 20.2 ± 2.0 years; body height: 182.7 ± 6.3 cm; body mass: 74.0 ± 10.2 kg) perimeter players. Three shooting conditions were assessed: stationary, dynamic, and competitive, across three distances (free-throw, two-point, and three-point). Conditioning characteristics were evaluated using a comprehensive battery of tests encompassing lower- and upper-body power, aerobic fitness, sprinting speed, change-of-direction speed, anaerobic capacity, and fatigue resistance. Results A binomial generalized linear mixed model examined all main effects and interactions. Independent-samples t-tests with Holm correction assessed differences in conditioning characteristics, quantified using Hedges’ g. Even though PP showed greater overall shooting accuracy ( p = .041), playing proficiency did not significantly moderate the effects of shooting condition or distance (all p ≥ .431). Accuracy declined with increasing distance and condition complexity (both p < .001), with a condition×distance interaction ( p = .024). Competitive accuracy was lower than dynamic accuracy at two- and three-point distances. PP demonstrated greater upper-body power, absolute maximal and average power estimated during repeated sprints, and estimated absolute countermovement jump peak power (g = 1.28–1.60; adjusted p ≤ .038). Other conditioning comparisons, including body-mass-normalized power, were nonsignificant. Discussion In conclusion, PP demonstrated greater overall shooting accuracy and better performance in selected conditioning tests, but there was no convincing evidence that PP and NP responded differently to changes in shooting condition or distance.