| Sažetak | Osnovni je cilj ovog rada utvrditi razlike između pojedinih vrsta timskih obrana s obzirom na varijable početka, ishoda i trajanja obrane u košarci. Usporedni cilj bio je utvrditi razlike između pobjedničkih i poraženih ekipa temeljem istih varijabli. Za ostvarenje navedenog cilja provedeno je istraživanje na uzorku od 4388 entiteta faze obrane, koje su prikupljene na 24 utakmice muškog košarkaškog turnira na Olimpijskim igarama u Pekingu 2008. godine. Uzorak varijabli činila su obilježja faze obrane u košarci i to: početak obrane, vrsta obrane, ishod obrane i trajanje obrane. Svaka od navedenih varijabli, osim varijable trajanje obrane, bile su detaljno opisane i razvrstane na modalitete i submodalitete koji pripadaju svakoj od navedenih varijabli. Sukladno postavljenim ciljevima i definiranim hipotezama za utvrđivanje razlika upotrebljeni su: χ 2 - test, Kruskal-Wallisov test i univarijatna analiza varijance. Rezultati pokazuju da je struktura faze obrane slijedeća: Na Olimpijskom košarkaškom turniru u prosjeku su odigrane 91,4 faze obrane po ekipi s koeficijentom iskoristivosti od 0,88 poena. Faza obrane najčešće započinje ubacivanjem lopte s 57,82% pri kojem je najzastupljeniji modalitet ubacivanje lopte iza čeone crte u polju napada s 42,25% svih. Najčešća je vrsta timske obrane pozicijska obrana s 72,61% zastupljenosti i koeficijentom iskoristivosti od 0,84 poena i trajanjem od 13,61 sekundu. Slijedi ju tranzicijska obrana s 13,81% učešća, koeficijentom iskoristivosti od 1,12 poena i trajanjem od 4,56 sekundi. Obrana u tranzicijskoj ili pozicijskoj igri u posebnim situacijama ima udio od 6,24%, koeficijent iskoristivosti od 1,16 poena i trajanje od 1,81 sekundu. Najmanji udio imaju ostale obrane i obrana s prelazom iz presinga u pozicijsku obranu (4,01% odnosno 3,33%). Faza obrane ima strukturu ishoda od 42,62% pozitivnih, 40,38% negativnih i 17% neutralnih. U skladu s postavljenim hipotezama može se zaključiti da: 1. Razlika između tranzicijske i pozicijske obrane, obrane s prelazom iz presinga u pozicijsku obranu, obrane u tranzicijskoj ili pozicijskoj igri u posebnim situacijama te ostale obrane temeljem varijabli početka, ishoda i trajanja obrane statistički je značajna na razini značajnosti od p |
| Sažetak (engleski) | The main objective of this paper is to determine the differences between different types of team defenses with respect to the variables of beginning, outcomes and duration of the defense in basketball. A comparative goal was to determine the differences between winning and defeated team based on the same variables. In order to achieve this goal, a survey was conducted on a sample of 4388 entities the defense phase, which were collected in 24 matches of the 2008 Beijing men basketball tournament. The sample of variables consisted of the characteristics of the stage of defense in basketball, namely: beginning of defense, type of defense, outcome of defense and duration of defense. Each of these variables, apart from the duration of the defense variable, were described in detail and categorized into modalities and submodalities belonging to each of the variables. In accordance with the set goal and defined hypotheses, the following were used to determine the differences: χ2 - test, Kruskal-Wallis test and univariate analysis of variance. The results show that the structure of the defense phase is as follows: The Olympic Basketball Tournament has averaged 91,4 defense stages per team with an efficiency ratio of 0.88 points. The defense phase most often begins with the ball insertion at 57.82%, where the modality of inserting the ball behind the front line in the attack field is the most represented with 42.25% of all. The most common type of team defense is positional defense with 72.61% representation and an efficiency ratio of 0.84 points and a duration of 13.61 seconds. This is followed by a transitional defense with 13.81% participation, a 1.12 points efficiency rate and a 4.56 second duration. Defense in a transitional or positional play in special situations has a share of 6.24% an efficiency ratio of 1.16 points and a duration of 1.81 seconds. Other defenses and defense with a transition from pressing to positional defense have the smallest impact (4.01% and 3.33% respectively). The defense phase has an outcome structure of 42.62% positive, 40.38% negative and 17% neutral. In accordance with the hypotheses, it can be concluded that: 1. The difference between transitional and positional defense, defense with a transition from pressing to positional defense, defense in a transitional or positional play in special situations, and other defenses based on the variable beginning, outcome and duration are statistically significant at the significance level of p |
