## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Game Load** & _Mean (\(\pm\)SD)_ & _Comparison_ & \(p\) & _ES_ & \\ \hline
**Pre-game** & & & & & \\
**recovery** & & & & & \\ \hline High & 646 (\(\pm\)101) & High–Medium & \textless{}0.001 & 0.65 & Moderate \\ Medium & 414 (\(\pm\)164) & High–Low & 0.002 & 0.53 & Moderate \\ Low & 431 (\(\pm\)219) & Medium–Low & 1.000 & 0.04 & Trivial \\ \hline
**PIR** & & & & & \\ \hline High & 589 (\(\pm\)125) & High–Medium & \textless{}0.001 & 0.48 & Small \\ Medium & 428 (\(\pm\)166) & High–Low & \textless{}0.001 & 0.90 & Large \\ Low & 159 (\(\pm\)86) & Medium–Low & \textless{}0.001 & 0.71 & Moderate \\ \hline
**Perceived** & & & & & \\
**individual** & & & & & \\
**performance** & & & & & \\ \hline High & 515 (\(\pm\)117) & High–Medium & 0.003 & 0.41 & Small \\ Medium & 386 (\(\pm\)171) & High–Low & 0.207 & 0.21 & Small \\ Low & 445 (\(\pm\)205) & Medium–Low & 0.030 & 0.15 & Trivial \\ \hline
**Previous** & & & & & \\
**experience** & & & & & \\ \hline High & 542 (\(\pm\)215) & High–Medium & 0.008 & 0.25 & Small \\ Medium & 450 (\(\pm\)142) & High–Low & \textless{}0.001 & 0.39 & Small \\ Low & 367 (\(\pm\)192) & Medium–Low & 0.001 & 0.24 & Small \\ \hline
**Playing time** & & & & & \\ \hline High & 576 (\(\pm\)123) & High–Medium & \textless{}0.001 & 0.56 & Moderate \\ Medium & 413 (\(\pm\)117) & High–Low & \textless{}0.001 & 0.85 & Large \\ Low & 193 (\(\pm\)110) & Medium–Low & \textless{}0.001 & 0.70 & Moderate \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Pairwise comparison for game load. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Pre-Game** & _Mean (\(\pm\)SD)_ & _Comparison_ & \(p\) & _ES_ & \\ \hline
**Playing position** & & & & \\ \hline Guard & 7.61 (\(\pm\)0.73) & Guard–Forward & 0.015 & 0.24 & Small \\ Forward & 7.14 (\(\pm\)1.13) & Guard–Center & 0.321 & 0.15 & Trivial \\ Center & 7.33 (\(\pm\)1.06) & Forward–Center & 0.454 & 0.09 & Trivial \\ \hline
**Season phase** & & & & \\ \hline Preseason & 7.81 (\(\pm\)1.17) & Preseason–First round & 0.558 & 0.15 & Trivial \\ First round & 7.49 (\(\pm\)0.99) & Preseason–Second round & 0.003 & 0.34 & Small \\ Second round & 7.01 (\(\pm\)1.03) & First round–Second round & \textless{}0.001 & 0.23 & Small \\ \hline
**Recovery cycle** & & & & \\ \hline Short & 7.19 (\(\pm\)1.07) & Short–Long & 0.018 & 0.14 & Trivial \\ Long & 7.49 (\(\pm\)1.00) & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Pairwise comparison for pre-game recovery. In relation to the game load (Table 7), this was significantly higher when the pre-game recovery values were high than when they were medium (\(p<0.001\)) or low (\(p=0.002\)). The players with a high PIR also accumulated more load in the games (\(p<0.001\)), and the more experienced players accumulated more load in relation to those with medium (\(p=0.008\)) or low (\(p<0.001\)) experience. Regarding playing time, the players who played more minutes had higher loads (\(p<0.001\)). Table 8 shows that during the second round, the pre-game recovery data were significantly worse than those during the preseason (\(p=0.003\)) and the first round (\(p<0.001\)). When the recovery cycle was short, the pre-game recovery values were also significantly lower (\(p=0.018\)). Table 9 shows that the players who perceived that their individual performance had been high also had a significantly higher PIR (\(p<0.001\)). The centers had a better PIR than the guards (\(p=0.025\)) and the forwards (\(p<0.001\)). The less experienced players had a lower PIR than the players with medium (\(p=0.003\)) and high (\(p=0.017\)) experience. The players who spent the most minutes on the court were the most valued (\(p\leq 0.001\)). When the game was won, the players' PIR was also higher (\(p=0.010\)).