## 3 Results  
### General Descriptive Analysis  
Table 2 provides a descriptive overview of all the variables analyzed, accompanied by the results of the \(\chi^{2}\) test applied to evaluate differences across the categories of each criterion (\(\chi^{2}\) goodness-of-fit test). The analysis revealed significant differences in thefollowing criteria: team result, quarter, score difference, start location, type of offense, type of defense, number of passes used, screens, possession, type of finish, finish outcome, ending court zone and ending player. We also carried out a \(\chi^{2}\) test of independence to explore the relationships between the study's criteria and those identified by the researchers as most significant (basket and team result). When basket was used as the reference criterion, significant associations were found with team result, score difference, screens, possession, type of offense, type of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Criterion** & **Code** & \(n\) = 709** & \% & \(\chi^{2}\) & **Criterion** & **Code** & \(n\) = 709** & \% & \(\chi^{2}\) \\ \hline Game & HOME & 342 & 48.2 & \(\chi^{2}=0.882\) & & CS & 109 & 15.4 & \(\chi^{2}=454.793\) \\ location & AWAY & 367 & 51.8 & \(p\) = 0.348 & & AOB & 25 & 3.5 & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001 \\ \hline Team & WIN & 266 & 37.5 & \(\chi^{2}=47.647\) & & DR & 123 & 17.3 & \\ result & TIE & 151 & 21.3 & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001 & Type of finish & LY & 85 & 12.0 & \\  & LOS & 292 & 41.2 & & FL & 33 & 4.7 & \\ \hline Quarter & LM & 459 & 64.7 & \(\chi^{2}=61.609\) & & OR & 20 & 2.8 & \\  & OT & 250 & 35.3 & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001 & & NOT & 8 & 1.1 & \\ \hline Score difference & D0 & 151 & 21.3 & \(\chi^{2}=8.918\) & & FOUL & 88 & 12.4 & \\  & D1 & 175 & 24.7 & \(p\) = 0.030 & & B2 & 99 & 14.0 & \(\chi^{2}=885.506\) \\  & D2 & 207 & 29.2 & & B3 & 60 & 8.5 & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001 \\  & D3 & 176 & 24.8 & & OR & 4 & 0.6 & \\ \hline Start & BACK & 356 & 50.2 & \(\chi^{2}=340.111\) & & 2 FT & 177 & 25.0 & \\  & SLOB & 115 & 16.2 & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001 & & 2 FT1 & 4 & 0.6 & \\ location & BLOB & 25 & 3.5 & & M2 & 7 & 1.0 & \\  & PLAY & 213 & 30.0 & & Finish outcome & M3 & 0 & 0 & \\ \hline Type of offense & FB & 68 & 9.6 & \(\chi^{2}=463.087\) & & MFT & 101 & 14.2 & \\  & SET & 641 & 90.4 & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001 & & TO & 124 & 17.5 & \\ \hline Type of defense & MM & 708 & 99.9 & \(\chi^{2}=705.087\) & & BLK & 4 & 0.6 & \\  & ZN & 1 & 0.1 & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001 & & STL & 51 & 7.2 & \\  & MX & 0 & 0 & & OF & 10 & 1.4 & \\ \hline  & P0 & 230 & 32.4 & \(\chi^{2}=292.966\) & & 24 & 8 & 1.1 & \\  & P1 & 198 & 27.9 & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001 & & OTH & 13 & 1.8 & \\ \cline{2-7} Number & P2 & 135 & 19.0 & & & RI & 54 & 7.6 & \(\chi^{2}=112.312\) \\ used & P3 & 74 & 10.4 & & CI & 17 & 2.4 & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001 \\  & P4 & 37 & 5.2 & & LI & 64 & 9.0 & \\  & P5+ & 35 & 4.9 & & & RMR & 62 & 8.7 & \\ \hline  & NS & 301 & 42.5 & \(\chi^{2}=374.928\) & & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001 & & CMR & 66 & 9.3 & \\  & ON & 217 & 30.6 & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001 & zone & MRZ & 66 & 9.3 & \\  & OFF & 49 & 6.9 & & RP & 117 & 16.5 & \\  & ON- & OFF & 113 & 15.9 & & CP & 77 & 10.9 & \\  & HO & 29 & 4.1 & & & LP & 120 & 16.9 & \\ \hline  & 8–0 & 437 & 61.6 & \(\chi^{2}=305.749\) & & & BC & 66 & 9.3 & \\ Possession & 16–9 & 213 & 30.0 & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001 & & Ending & GUA & 396 & 55.9 & \(\chi^{2}=203.867\) \\  & 24–17 & 59 & 8.3 & & Player & FOR & 227 & 32.0 & \(p\) \(<\) 0.001 \\ \hline  & & & & & & CEN & 86 & 12.1 & \\ \cline{2-7}  & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Descriptive analysis of the research. finish, finish outcome, and ending court zone. On the other hand, when team result was selected as the reference, notable differences emerged in relation to start location, score difference, quarter, number of passes, possession, screens, type of offense, type of finish, finish outcome, ending court zone, and basket.