## 3 Results  
Descriptive statistics on anthropometry, biological maturation, and fitness tests are presented in Table 1. Except for CA and basketball experience, all variables fit the assumption of normal distribution. Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics and MANOVA results. The efficacy levels were very similar between shooting conditions (ball size five: 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.6 points; ball size six: 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 points). No significant statistical differences were observed for ball release variables (angle, velocity, or height). However, the mean ball release velocity was greater, and the mean ball release angle was lower, in shots performed with the size five ball. The CoM variables did not differ significantly between shooting conditions (horizontal displacement: \(F\) = 0.005, \(p\) = 0.95, partial eta squared = 0.000; maximum height: \(F\) = 0.034, \(p\) = 0.85, partial eta squared = 0.001), indicating a similar jump phase while shooting. Among the angles formed by the joints at the release point, significant differences were observed exclusively for the shoulder (\(F\) = 2.982, \(p\)\(\leq\) 0.01, partial eta squared = 0.208). Although greater knee flexion during the preparatory phase (knee minimum angle) was detected while shooting with the size six ball, the differences were not statistically significant  
(F = 0.541, \(p\) = 0.47, partial eta squared = 0.010). Overall, the peaks of the joints' angular velocities were greater while performing with the size six ball but with no substantial differences. At release, the shoulder angular velocity was significantly lower in shots with the size six ball (\(F\) = 3.089, \(p\)\(\leq\) 0.01, partial eta squared = 0.256). Similar angular velocities at ball release were observed for the elbow and knee joints. The Pearson product correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationships between all analyzed kinematic parameters, anthropometry, and fitness variables. Tables 3 and 4 present only the significant results of the Pearson product correlation coefficient according to the ball size used. While shooting with the size five ball, ball release height was the kinematic parameter that showed the highest number of relationships with anthropometry and fitness tests. Strong and positive correlations were found between ball release height and stature (r = 0.71, \(p\)\(\leq\) 0.01), body mass (r = 0.77, \(p\)\(\leq\) 0.01), handgrip (r = 0.60, \(p\)\(\leq\) 0.01), and the 2 kg medicine ball throw (r = 0.67, \(p\)\(\leq\) 0.01). While shooting with the size six ball, ball release height also presented the highest number of relationships. Stature (r = 0.63, \(p\)\(\leq\) 0.01) and body mass (r = 0.71, \(p\)\(\leq\) 0.01) retained strong positive \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Unit**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SD**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Kolgomorov–Smirnov**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & **Value** & **(95\% CI of the Mean)** & & **Value** & \(p\) \\ \hline Chronological age & years & 12.1 & (11.9 to 12.4) & 0.7 & 0.20 & \(\leq\)0.01 ** \\ Body mass & kg & 48.8 & (43.8 to 53.9) & 12.8 & 0.14 & 0.20 \\ Stature & cm & 153.3 & (150.1 to 156.5) & 8.0 & 0.17 & 0.06 \\ Sitting height & cm & 69.8 & (68.3 to 71.3) & 3.8 & 0.14 & 0.17 \\ Estimated leg length & cm & 83.5 & (81.0 to 85.9) & 6.2 & 0.09 & 0.20 \\ Predicted height & cm & 166.3 & (164.9 to 167.7) & 3.5 & 0.09 & 0.20 \\ CMJ height & cm & 20.9 & (19.2 to 22.5) & 4.2 & 0.08 & 0.20 \\ Handgrip & kg & 21.3 & (19.5 to 23.1) & 4.5 & 0.12 & 0.20 \\ Sit-ups & n & 30.5 & (26.7 to 34.3) & 9.7 & 0.09 & 0.20 \\
2 kg ball throw & m & 4.4 & (4.1 to 4.8) & 0.9 & 0.07 & 0.20 \\ Basketball experience & years & 3.7 & (3.0 to 4.4) & 1.8 & 0.20 & \(\leq\)0.01 ** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive statistics on anthropometry, biological maturation, and fitness tests of female adolescent basketball players (n = 27).