## 4 Discussion
The first is that we presented player-based data analysis in our research, and the second is that the above research included data from elite players in international competitions. Our study participants were not players competing in international tournaments, which may have affected the performance metrics. However, the main purpose of this research was not to determine the 3 \(\times\) 3 basketball game demands; our main purpose was to investigate the acute effects of different protocols used in warm-up on the 3 \(\times\) 3 basketball game demands. In addition, to standardize the acute effect in the game after all protocols, we limited the game time to 10 min, without using game pauses and not performing foil shots. These manipulations may have affected the total distance and the ACC and DEC counts during game pauses. On the other hand, it is a remarkable finding that the total distance after the FCM in the 3 \(\times\) 3 basketball game was significantly higher than that of the PAP. The highest maximum velocity was in the baseline protocol (average 15.8 \(\pm\) 1.4 km/h), followed by the PAP (average 15.3 \(\pm\) 1.3 km/h) and the FCM (average 15.2 \(\pm\) 1.9 km/h), respectively. [PERSON] et al. [27] reported that the maximum velocity of a 3 \(\times\) 3 basketball game for male players was 17.7 km/h. In fact, considering that the maximum sprint time was increased by 6.36% in the repeated sprint test performed 4 minutes after a half squat at 5 RM, similar to the PAP, in male basketball players [61], it can be seen that these interventions can be used to improve performance, but according to the results of our research, it should not be neglected that strength training interventions aimed at improving performance in warm-up, such as FCM and PAP, reduce the maximum speed. However, it is also important to consider whether there is a similar or different effect on other demands in the game. After the baseline protocol, the players reached the highest distance in the lowest velocity band, band 1 (distance covered at 0\(\sim\)-20% of the maximum velocity), and after the FCM, the players reached the highest distance in the highest velocity band, band 6. In band 2 (distance covered at 20\(\sim\)-40% of the maximum velocity), the distance after the baseline protocol and FCM was significantly higher than that after the PAP. The velocity band with the greatest distance covered was band 2 in all games, and the highest RHIE was after the baseline protocol, followed by the PAP and FCM, respectively. The majority of 3 \(\times\) 3 basketball games (43-75% of playing time) involve low-intensity activity [7, 27, 62, 63]. In our research, the greatest distance covered was in band 2, confirming previous research. In addition, the fact that a higher distance was reached after the FCM compared with the baseline protocol in band 6, which is the distance covered at 100% of the maximum velocity, and that the PAP reached lower data than the baseline protocol in this band may be an important indicator for preferring the FCM. We obtained a higher CMJ height after the FCM and PAP compared with the baseline value. Although the highest increase was observed after the PAP (+1.4 cm), this increase was not significantly different. Previous studies have reported that FCM significantly increases the CMJ height both acutely [38] and chronically [33, 35, 64]. Post-PAP jump height findings are contradictory. It can be seen that the jump height increased significantly after the PAP [24, 37] and there was no significant effect [65, 66, 67]. Therefore, further research is needed to confirm our findings. We reached the highest jump count in the high band (>40 cm) in the game after the FCM. Interestingly, these data accompanied the acute effect of the FCM, which reached its highest value in total distance and band 6. In the game following the PAP, the lowest total jump count and the lowest high band jump count were obtained.