# Sports Analysis of Wheelchair Basketball Game Statistics
## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FC1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FC1.5**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FC2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FC2.5**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FC3**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FC3.5**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FC4**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FC4.5**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FC4.5**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FC4.5**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FC4.5**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**H**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Df**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{_P_} \\ \cline{2-19}  & \(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\) & **SD** & \(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\) & **SD** & \(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\) & **SD** & \(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\) & **SD** & \(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\) & **SD** & \(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\) & **SD** & \(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\) & **SD** & \(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\) & **SD** \\ \hline Points & 1.39 & 2.43 & 2.53 & 4.20 & 3.88 & 5.22 & 4.08 & 5.10 & 5.66 & 6.28 & 5.05 & 6.49 & 7.57 & 8.22 & 8.20 & 8.40 & 641.056 & 7 & 0.000 * \\ Successful throws & 0.65 & 1.15 & 1.17 & 1.96 & 1.75 & 2.38 & 1.80 & 2.22 & 2.47 & 2.76 & 2.15 & 2.85 & 3.27 & 3.61 & 3.57 & 3.85 & 592.291 & 7 & 0.000 * \\ Attempted throws & 1.66 & 2.41 & 2.77 & 3.51 & 4.38 & 4.88 & 4.65 & 4.46 & 5.72 & 5.785 & 5.16 & 5.75 & 7.31 & 6.68 & 7.67 & 6.75 & 662.148 & 7 & 0.000 * \\ Successful 2-point & 0.64 & 1.14 & 1.16 & 1.94 & 1.65 & 2.25 & 1.68 & 2.04 & 2.28 & 2.60 & 2.03 & 2.76 & 3.10 & 3.50 & 3.41 & 3.73 & 562.713 & 7 & 0.000 * \\ Attempted 2-point & 1.63 & 2.34 & 2.65 & 3.35 & 3.92 & 4.44 & 4.12 & 3.78 & 5.02 & 5.10 & 4.60 & 5.16 & 6.57 & 6.10 & 7.03 & 6.25 & 619.868 & 7 & 0.000 * \\ Successful 3-point & 0.01 & 0.09 & 0.02 & 0.14 & 0.10 & 0.40 & 0.12 & 0.48 & 0.18 & 0.55 & 0.12 & 0.46 & 0.17 & 0.54 & 0.16 & 0.53 & 149.511 & 7 & 0.000 * \\ Attempted 3-point & 0.04 & 0.30 & 0.11 & 0.41 & 0.45 & 1.99 & 0.53 & 1.27 & 0.70 & 1.51 & 0.56 & 1.60 & 0.74 & 1.60 & 0.64 & 1.33 & 349.281 & 7 & 0.000 * \\ Successful free throws & 0.08 & 0.33 & 0.16 & 0.57 & 0.26 & 0.72 & 0.35 & 0.92 & 0.54 & 1.11 & 0.62 & 1.21 & 0.85 & 1.44 & 1.04 & 2.23 & 490.064 & 7 & 0.000 * \\ Attempted free throws & 0.21 & 0.70 & 0.36 & 0.99 & 0.51 & 1.20 & 0.70 & 1.39 & 1.01 & 1.71 & 1.07 & 1.73 & 1.51 & 2.17 & 1.82 & 2.63 & 538.983 & 7 & 0.000 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
H: Kruskal–Wallis H test; Df: Degree of freedom; \({}^{*}p\leq 0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Descriptive and inferential analysis regarding the players’ FC. coaches can identify trends, evaluate team performance and plan successful strategies to win the game. As for the results obtained when taking the gender of the players as a reference, male athletes (\(n=5.07\)) scored a greater number of average points per game than female athletes (\(n=4.47\)). In the same way, considering two- and three-point throws, as well as free throws, the male players exhibited the best results. On the other hand, after analysing the results in an individual perspective, the total number of throws and two-point throws attempted was not associated with significant differences between the genders. These results are in agreement with previous studies carried out in basketball, where male athletes showed greater efficiency and number of throws taken during competitions [32]. These differences in performance are related to anthropometric, functional and motor differences between male and female teams [33]. Therefore, game dynamics and technical-tactical aspects are different depending on gender. In the same way, aspects such as the percentage of blocks and turnovers, as well as the number of missed throws, are determinants in the differences in performance between male and female players [34]. Therefore, to increase efficiency in shooting, offensive game dynamics focused on allowing a free throw to the shooter, as well as the development of organized and stable attacking systems, should be considered. Finally, and focusing on the FC of the players, it was observed that players with a higher functionality obtained better results compared to those with a lower FC.