## 3 Results  
There were statistically significant differences for playing positions in all measured anthropometric characteristics and skeletal muscle mass and fat mass (all \(p\)-values \(<\) 0.01; Table 1). The wings were significantly shorter compared to backcourt players (\(p\)\(<\) 0.001), pivots (\(p\) = 0.035), and goalkeepers (\(p\) = 0.018). Similar significant differences were obtained in weight (pivots vs. wing, \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; wings vs. backcourt players, \(p\)\(<\) 0.001), wingspan (wings vs. pivots, \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; wings vs. backcourt players, \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; wings vs. goalkeepers, \(p\) = 0.038), and thigh circumference (wings vs. pivots, \(p\)\(<\) 0.001; wings vs. backcourt players, \(p\) = 0.041). Additionally, pivots were heavier than goalkeepers (\(p\)\(<\) 0.001) and backcourt players (\(p\)\(=\) 0.003) and had larger thigh circumference compared to goalkeepers (\(p\)\(<\) 0.001) and backcourt players (\(p\)\(<\) 0.001), whereas backcourt players were heavier than goalkeepers (\(p\)\(=\) 0.015). Body composition measurements revealed that goalkeepers had significantly less skeletal muscle mass than backscatter players (\(p<0.001\)) and pivots (\(p<0.001\)), while wings had less skeletal muscle mass than backcourt players (\(p<0.001\)) and pivots (\(p<0.001\)). Pivots, on the other hand, had significantly more fat mass than wings (\(p<0.001\)), backcourt players (\(p<0.001\)) and goalkeepers (\(p=0.005\)). Lastly, goalkeepers also had significantly more muscle mass than wings (\(p=0.010\)). Similar to the anthropometric characteristics, the playing positions differed in maximal isokinetic concentric extensor strength at 60\({}^{\circ}\)/s and 180\({}^{\circ}\)/s (\(p<0.001\)), concentric knee flexion of the left knee at 60\({}^{\circ}\)/s (\(p=0.007\)), and borderline significance of the right knee (\(p=0.070\)) (Table 2). Pivot players displayed lower isokinetic concentric torque of knee extensors and flexors compared with wings and backcourt players at 60\({}^{\circ}\)/s and 180\({}^{\circ}\)/s, respectively, whereas backcourt players were superior compared to goalkeepers at 60\({}^{\circ}\)/s and 180\({}^{\circ}\)/s of knee flexion and extension. Additionally, wings performed better than goalkeepers at 60\({}^{\circ}\)/s and 180\({}^{\circ}\)/s of knee extension and flexion. Otherwise, no differences between playing positions were obtained in hamstring-to-quadriceps ratio (HQR) and in bilateral differences in maximal concentric torque of extensors and flexors at 60\({}^{\circ}\)/s and 180\({}^{\circ}\)/s. players were significantly faster than goalkeepers (\(p<0.001\)). Moreover, backcourt players and wings jumped significantly higher compared to pivots (backcourt players vs. pivots: CMJ, \(p=0.007\), SJ, \(p=0.027\); wings vs. pivots: CMJ, \(p<0.001\), SJ, \(p<0.001\)) and goalkeepers (backcourt players vs. pivots: CMJ, \(p=0.006\); wings vs. goalkeepers: CMJ, \(p<0.001\), SJ, \(p=0.004\)), respectively. There were also significant differences in ball velocity among playing positions (both \(p\)-values \(<\)0.001). Post hoc analysis showed that goalkeepers shoot the ball at significantly lower velocity while shooting from ground position (all \(p\)-values \(<0.01\)) or while performing a three-step jump shot (all \(p\)-values \(<0.01\)). Correlations between handball shooting performance and sprinting, jumping, and maximal strength performance are shown in Table 4. With the exception of body fat mass and thigh circumference, all other anthropometric characteristics were significantly correlated with the ball velocity of a three-step set shot and jump shot. A higher SJ was significantly correlated with the ball velocity of the set shot, and borderline significant with the ball velocity of the jump shot. Maximal isokinetic torque of knee flexors and extensors was significantly correlated with ball velocity of both shot types. Lastly, HQR at 60\({}^{\circ}\)/s was significantly correlated with the ball velocity of the set shot.