## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & **F** & **gl1** & **gl2** & \(p\) & \(\mathbf{\eta^{2}}\) \\ \hline P/MIN & 4.242 & 6 & 151 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.027 \\ T2 Pa/MIN & 17.607 & 6 & 152 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.104 \\ T2 Pi/MIN & 15.958 & 6 & 152 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.095 \\ \%T2P & 5.441 & 6 & 149 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.035 \\ T3 Pa/MIN & 17.378 & 6 & 147 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.106 \\ T3 Pi/MIN & 26.334 & 6 & 149 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.153 \\ \%T3P & 0.655 & 6 & 142 & 0.686 & 0.005 \\ TCA/MIN & 7.456 & 6 & 151 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.047 \\ T5C/MIN & 2.135 & 6 & 151 & \textless{}0.052 & 0.014 \\ \%T6 & 14.500 & 6 & 151 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.088 \\ TLa/MIN & 2.450 & 6 & 151 & \textless{}0.027 & 0.016 \\ TLi/MIN & 4.258 & 6 & 151 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.027 \\ \%TL & 1.763 & 6 & 144 & \textless{}0.111 & 0.012 \\ RO/MIN & 34.675 & 6 & 149 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.189 \\ RD/MIN & 31.731 & 6 & 149 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.176 \\ RT/MIN & 49.084 & 6 & 149 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.248 \\ AS/MIN & 22.985 & 6 & 151 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.132 \\ FP/MIN & 0.996 & 6 & 149 & 0.430 & 0.007 \\ BP/MIN & 5.012 & 6 & 153 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.032 \\ BR/MIN & 2.930 & 6 & 152 & 0.010 & 0.019 \\ TP/MIN & 20.802 & 6 & 147 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.124 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. Results of the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to identify significant differences among traditional positions, with a significance criterion of \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 6: One-way ANOVA results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**POS** & **BR/MIN** & **TP/MIN** \\ \hline C & 0.0309 \(\pm\) 0.0165 & 0.0251 \(\pm\) 0.0174 \\ F & 0.0371 \(\pm\) 0.0176 & 0.0149 \(\pm\) 0.0169 \\ G & 0.0436 \(\pm\) 0.0200 & 0.00788 \(\pm\) 0.0105 \\ PF & 0.0337 \(\pm\) 0.0202 & 0.0139 \(\pm\) 0.0138 \\ PG & 0.0417 \(\pm\) 0.0253 & 0.00372 \(\pm\) 0.00723 \\ SF & 0.0390 \(\pm\) 0.0177 & 0.00655 \(\pm\) 0.00928 \\ SG & 0.0385 \(\pm\) 0.0200 & 0.00396 \(\pm\) 0.00531 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. Description of the game variables used in the statistical analysis of player performance in the Women’s Euroleague. In columns labeled with percentage (%), the numerical value is expressed as a fraction (out of 1). C: Center. PF: power forward. SF: small forward. SG: shooting guard. PG: point guard. F: forward (power forward/small forward). G: guard (point guard/shooting guard).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: _Cont._On the other hand, players listed as shooting guards and small forwards showed significantly higher three-point attempt and conversion rates (T3 Pa/MIN and T3 Pi/MIN) compared to centers and power forwards (\(p\) < 0.001). These findings reflect expected role specializations, where perimeter players emphasize long-range shooting, and frontcourt players dominate in close-range scoring. In terms of rebounding, significant differences were found across positions. Centers obtained the highest number of offensive rebounds per minute (RO/MIN), significantly surpassing all perimeter roles (\(p\) < 0.001). A similar trend was observed for defensive rebounds (RD/MIN), with centers and power forwards collecting more rebounds than guards. The total rebounding metric (RT/MIN) confirmed this pattern, with centers outperforming all other roles, particularly compared to point guards and shooting guards (\(p\) < 0.001). These results align with the physical positioning and tactical responsibilities assigned to frontcourt players. Regarding assists per minute (AS/MIN), point guards registered significantly higher values than all other positions (\(p\) < 0.001), confirming their central role in game orchestration. The most notable differences were found between point guards and centers (mean difference = \(-\)0.07, \(p\) < 0.001) and between point guards and shooting guards (mean difference = \(-\)0.035, \(p\) < 0.001). Small forwards and power forwards recorded intermediate values, while centers had the lowest assist rates.