INTRODUCTION INTO THE GAME STATES ANALYSIS SYSTEM IN BASKETBALL

In the present study the course of basketball game is observed as a separate and comprehensive system consisting of the succession of characteristic game situations being defi ned as states of the game. Precise identifi cation and follow-up of various game states enables the explanation of game fl ow. In accordance with that, a formal mathematical model of the system “basketball game” has been founded from the aspect of kinematic description. The model enables the recognition of two basic system states which were in the paper defi ned like the set offense/defense and the transition offense/defense. The basic aim of both teams engaged in a match is to maintain balance in their own system of game states. Large number of states in set or positional and transition game have been listed. The system for assessing basketball game states will enable, through its empirical procedures, the computation of transition probability among states. Such an analysis of states and substates in transition and set offense and defense should facilitate understanding of the structure of the game and scientifi c research and evaluation of performance. This new methodological approach, based on the formal mathematical models, can be a prerequisite for research studies on discrete stochastic processes using the Markov chains. The elaborated paradigm of the system analysis of basketball game states can be applied, subject to certain modifi cations, to the other team sports games with the ball.


INTRODUCTION
Basketball is one of the most complex and fastpaced games in sports (Swalgin, 1994(Swalgin, , 1998)).Also, it is a dynamic, atypical and most versatile ball game characterized by continuous fast reactions of basketball players in all phases of game fl ow (Trninić, Perica, & Dizdar, 1999).However, in a scientifi c research procedure of exploring states of the game it is indispensable to determine analytically the requirements of the game of basketball within particular game phases and models of play tactics.
Experience acquired in practice of playing, training and observing basketball, coaching teams through matches and from match analyses, as well as theoretical papers on team sports (Gréhaigne, & Godbout, 1995) indicate uniquiness, wholeness of basketball game (Trninić, 1995(Trninić, , 1996;;Pruden, 1987;Trninić, Perica, & Dizdar, 1999).In order to fi nd out or detect regularities, repeated game situations or game states, and principles in the game of basketball, it is necessary to investigate individual parts of game fl ow.Methodology issues of how to collect data on performance and game states from unbiased measurements performed under actual competition conditions, should undoubtedly be attributed to multi-factorial nature of the game, caused by the infi nitly variable reactions of players on the court adjusting to the ever changing structure of game situations, on the one hand, and players' bodily characteristics, abilities and fi tness, as well as net of skills and knowledge, on the other (Gréhaigne, & Godbout, 1995;Trninić, Perica, & Dizdar, 1999;Trninić, & Dizdar, 2000).Also, cause-effect relationship between changes of game rules and basketball skills or technique and tactics is directly refl ected upon interactions among game states.Therefore, a permanent insight is indispensable into the changes of game rules and technical-tactical novelties they cause in the style and activities of the game (Hernandez, 1987;Javier, 1992;Trninić, & Dizdar, 2000).
From the expert coaches and scientists-practitioners' point of view, comprehensive understanding of offense and defense like a "live", dynamic system is crucial for kinesiology or sport science.In accord with that, effi cient transition offense commences in defense, whereas effi cient transition defense starts from the organized and well-balanced offense followed by precise assignments, roles and responsibilities of each player on the court (Harris, 1993;Trninić, Perica, & Dizdar, 1999;Trninić, Dizdar, & Dežman, 2002;Trninić, Dizdar, & Lukšić, 2002).
Recent research studies on basketball corroborate practical knowledge of experts regarding playing positions and the required respective position-specific anthropological abilities, characteristics, skills, knowledge and habits, thus indirectly determining assignments and responsibilities of each player in play, which manifest themselves as various states of positional/set and transition offense and defense (Trninić, Dizdar, & Dežman, 2000;Dežman, Trninić, & Dizdar, 2001;Trninić, Dizdar, & Dežman, 2002).
Trninić, Perica and Pavičić (1994) and Trninić (1995Trninić ( , 1996Trninić ( , 2006) ) analysed the game of basketball from the structural and functional aspects, defi ned game states and described playing positions and players' roles on the basis of their tasks in the game.Further, Trninić (1995Trninić ( , 1996) ) emphasises the fact that the core nature of basketball game and players' performance cannot be explained by the offi cial game statistics parameters.He also presented, or predicted, based on numerous evidence about previous trends, a probable direction of the development of players in the future in accordance with the presumed changes of the game rules and new concepts of basketball games.Quality of players will be determined by what they can perform and how many jobs they can carry out during a game, not on which position they play (polyvalence in all game phases will be desirable).
Basketball game is a result of infi nite number of interactions among the players of the two opposing teams in their struggle to win.Therefore, the functional structure of the game is defi ned with the relationships of communication, in the centre of which is the ball, cooperation and opposition.Javier (1992) indicates basketball is predominantly a strategic sport or strategic collective play in which each and every player adjust his/her individual technique and tactics with the technique and tactics of his/her team-mates and opponents as well, through the collective tactics of the two antagonistic teams.This strategic behaviour includes all the action unfolding parameters in the game, such as: the game rules, technique, tactics, space, time, and communication.
The aim of the submitted paper is to present a game as a separate and rounded system, which enables a precise description of game fl ow.A succession of characteristic game situations is recognizable in a game.This succession is called game fl ow (Trninić, Perica, & Pavičić, 1994;Trninić, 1995;Trninić, Karalejić, Jakovljević, & Perica, 2010a, 2010b).Within game fl ow one can notice parts or time intervals characterized by some common features, and they are repeated during a game.Such repeating parts of a game are called: game states (Trninić, Perica, & Pavičić, 1994;Trninić, 1995).So, according to this description, the game fl ow can be defi ned as progressing in time through different game states.The aim of the construction of the system "game" is a description of game fl ow which can be more precisely expressed through the identifi cation and follow-up of different game states.General functioning of the system "game" can also be presented formally -by means of a mathematical model.In the beginning, such a mathematical model is, in its fi rst version, very abstract in relation to the contents of basketball.However, the authors regard such a research necessary and worthwhile, thus stepping out into the direction of obtaining the defi nition of one precisely determined model of sport game performance evaluation.McGarry and colleagues (2002) emphasise importance so they propose further research into the complex interactions that occur in sports competition.The authors of the submitted paper assume the future studies in this fi eld will justify the application of the here presented system as a useful polygon, or tool, for scientifi c re-search as well as for its practical implementation in basketball practice.Also, Hughes et al. (1998) investigated, in their advanced analyses of soccer games, the "perturbation effect" and the "goal opportunities in soccer".The concept perturbation was defi ned as an exit from the balanced state of the game.Perše et al. (2009) used player movement trajectory analysis to recognize automatically complex multiplayer behaviour in a basketball game.They applied probabilistic play model to the player-trajectory data to segment the play into game phases.
Sophistication and complexity of the system "basketball game" is based upon game states.Two fundamental game states are differentiated: (1) position, i.e. in the basketball practice vocabulary the position or set offense and position or set defense, and (2) conversion 1) -transition 2) (Knight, & Newell, 1986, 1988, 1994;Knight, 1994, Newell, 1994), the state of converting offense into defense, and vice versa.Conversion -transition is a switch -a link between the game phase of defense and the phase of offense.

STATES OF THE DYNAMIC SYSTEM "BASKETBALL GAME"
Within the context of the structural analysis of knowledge in basketball game, the concept game states has been created (Trninić, Perica, & Pavičić, 1994;Trninić, 1995).On the hierarchical structure of basketball tree it is positioned on the fourth level, bellow tactics and above tasks or jobs in the game (Figure 1).They are structurally recognizable repeating parts of the game.Trninić (1995Trninić ( , 1996) ) and Trninić et al. (2010aTrninić et al. ( , 2010b) ) describe tasks or jobs in the game as specifi c motor activities and motor behaviour of individual players in relation to their playing position, their momentary position on the court, role assigned within a particular tactical model of play and particular game phase.Consequently, each model of game tactics can be described as an arranged, structured sequence of tasks and jobs in the game.Tactics is understood as a system of individual and team actions and decisions made which are motorically realized on the court through the successful performance of jobs in a game (Trninić, 1995(Trninić, , 1996). 1) Conversion -an act or state of converting, Webster's Encyclopedic Unerbridged Dictionary of English Language, 1993, p. 320.
2) Transition -an act, process, or instance of changing, from one state, from, activity, or place to another, Webster's Encyclopedic Unerbridged Dictionay of English Language, 1993, p. 1227.
On the other hand, if the game fl ow is observed as a chain of characteristic, recognizable situations in a game, it is possible to defi ne it as the progression through different game states over the time of a match.Game states, from the aspect of kinematic description, can be observed as a temporally arranged set of pictures (Trninić, Perica, & Pavičić, 1994;Trninić, 1995;Trninić, Trninić, & Jelaska, 2010).Further, system in basketball can be understood as an arranged set of all participants of a basketball match with respective parameters which describe then unambiguously (Trninić, Perica, & Pavičić, 1994).Our consideration can be limited to the ball and players on the court, but in the competition context, we must take into consideration also referees, coaches, substitution players on the benches, even audience (Trninić, Jelaska, & Papić, 2009a, 2009b).
Game system is unambiguously described by a set of information being at our disposal in a certain moment t.Trninić, Perica and Pavičić (1994) indicate three categories of variables by which a game system state can be described.
In the fi rst category is a set of parameters or values describing positions and speed of the constituents of the system.

So, if
) (t i r and ) (t i v are the position and speed of the i constituent (a player or the ball), represented by a material point in the moment t, for i=1,...,n, where n is a number of the constituent of the system, we are able to defi ne the centre of the system by the following relation: where m i -are masses of the individual constituents.In that way the set of n elements was substituted by one point the position of which is, in any selected coordination system, exactly R cm(t) , and its speed is that is, the derivation of position vector in time.The behaviour of the whole system is now represented by means of time evolution of the centre of mass/ system.Such a representation is favourable for the description of the basic system states.Game states, from the mentioned kinematic description point of view, can be observed as the time ordered set of pictures.The picture is obtained if in any moment t the positions and speeds of all the constituents are "recorded".The picture provides the kinematic part of the information on a game state.If a succession of "records" (pictures) is made, separated by just a short time interval t, one representation of one game fl ow will be obtained.The sequence of game fl ow is approximated by that temporal chain of pictures; in relation to play in the match it can be said that these particular pictures register game situations (structure and positions of all the players on the court and the position of the ball) (Pavičić, 1991).A game state is in a particular moment t a set of all information about the position of the ball and positions of all the ten players on the court as well as about ball fl ow pace and players' movement rates ( ). Formally speaking, the mentioned generation of pictures is the discretization of the continuous process of game states transformations.
A crucial question is what is the maximum time interval t that can provide the two adjoing pictures to be non-equivalent in terms of contents and from the aspect of basketball practice?The answer depends on a game situation, so the interval t can assume values from several seconds to several hundredths of a second.The total time sequence of the non-equivalent pictures is completely defi ned by game fl ow, that is, by the dynamics of game states, from the kinematic description point of view.
Trninić, Perica and Pavičić (1994) denoted the second category like the state of anthropological features (anthropometric, motor, cardio-respiratory and energy supplying capacities, cognitive, personality traits) and the state of technical and tactical skills and knowledge, with I ij(t) .Index j assumes values from 1 to m, depending on the fact which internal parameters have been taken into consideration, whereas index i indicates a particular player.Average values of the parameters I ij(t) are formally mathematically described through the time interval T, T < T uk (T uk is a total time of a game duration) by the following relation: The third category consists of the information related to the history of the system.The states through which the system has evolved through time t', t 0 <t'<t (t 0 -the beginning of a match) infl uence implicitly any game state in any arbitrary moment t.

DEFINITION OF THE SET/ POSITIONAL AND TRANSITION STATES
In order to describe the dynamics (time evolution) of system states, we should consider again the kinematic description.From the aspect of that description, the two basic states of the system can be defi ned.In the positional or set state, the covered distance (translation) of the system centre (the players + ball) in vertical direction across the court (the direction determined by the linkage basket -basket) is negligible when compared to the distance covered in the transition state.On the other hand, for horizontal displacing the opposite relation may be valid.Mathematically speaking: where x is a vertical component of the vector, t is time in the set or positional state, t' is time in the transition state, T is duration of the set state, and T' is duration of the transition state.
The set/positional and transition states have their specifi cs also from the aspect of the intrinsic cluster of information; for example, different demands on physiological, motor, cognitive, personality traits and morphological dimensions of players.
In the present paper the determination of game fl ow phases is based upon the ball possession crite-rion and the system centre vertical displacement criterion (linkage basket -basket).
The mentioned criteria can be presented graphically in a simple way. Figure 2 represents the dynamics of average values of the distances covered vertically up and down the court by the system centre during the positional/set (t POZ ) and transition states (t TR ), whereas Figure 3 shows the dynamics of the variable ball possession.

STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BASKETBALL GAME
The game of basketball has its typical structural and functional characteristics, which discriminate it from the other team sports, although it belongs to the same tree of team ball sports games, like soccer, team handball, hockey, rugby, water-polo, the basis of which are relations of cooperation and opposition among the participants.It is primarily a team game composed of technical-tactical elements and organized system of individual and collective assignments and responsibilities players are due to perform within their playing positions and roles in play (Wooden, 1966(Wooden, , 1977(Wooden, , 1994;;Wooden, & Sherman, 1974a, 1974b;Walker, & Donohue, 1988;Winter, 1997).
From the aspect of game structural analysis (Knight, & Newell, 1986), there are three main structural parts: defense, offense and transition.Yet, if the structure of basketball game is perceived as the "live dynamic system", that is, like the not-stop game , it becomes obvious there are four phases in game fl ow (Figure 4).
The criteria used to determine the phases of game fl ow are based on the principles of the ball possession and the distance the centre of system has covered up or down the court, following the vertical linkage basket -basket (Pavičić, 1991  The game of basketball must be observed as a compound phenomenon, composed of many layers.In top-level sport, this multi-layered nature may be observed from the perspective of either players, expert coaches, managers, or researchers, etc. (Trninić, Jelaska, & Papić, 2009a).In the present paper it is perceived as a set, cluster of multi-layered knowledge, called the body of basketball knowledge (Trninić, 1995(Trninić, , 1996)).Therefore, basketball is a team sport where practical and conceptual knowledge of individual players and the whole team is permanently tested.The primary aim of offensive tactics is: to outplay too early or too late reaction of the on-ball defender, "to punish", to counterplay against switching defense, to creating momentary outnumbered situation, or to force the opponent into a personal foul with consistent and coordinated actions of players in offense.On the other hand, the primary aim of defensive tactics is: to prevent open shot and to deny two shots play.Also, the aim is to prevent the opponent's offensive plan to be realized by forcing the opposing attackers into the wrong shoot-pass-drive-selection (Trninić, 1995(Trninić, , 1996(Trninić, , 2006)).To fulfi l tasks or jobs in play means to utilize successfully technical-tactical knowledge and skills by which each player adjust her/his individual technique and tactics with her/ his team-mates through the collective team tactics all in order to achieve individual and common goals (Trninić 1995(Trninić , 1996)).

GAME STATES IN POSITIONAL/ SET AND TRANSITION DEFENSE AND OFFENSE
Due to the empirical fact that the winner in a basketball match is the team which has less intervals of unbalanced system both in the position and transition, the sports preparation primarily aim is to reduce such situations to the minimum in the own team play (Trninić, Perica, Pavičić, 1994;Trninić, 1995).Therefore, the organizational play concept follows basketball principles in order to reduce passive minutes and to improve performance and sports achievements (Trninić, 1995(Trninić, , 1996)).
There is no doubt that the future investigations (Perica, 2011) will analyze the initial states of set defense, consisting of the variables listed in Table 1, then intermediate and fi nal states of set defense (Tables 2 and 3), as well as the initial states of transition defense (Table 4) and intermediate and fi nal states of transition defense (Tables 5 and 6).
The initial states of set or positional defense are defi ned as the initial or starting alignment of players in defense positioned on the back court (Table 1).

1.
Man to man (m~m) defense; press the ball in shooting zone 2.
M~m defense; press the ball on half court line 3.
Triangle and two defense 8.
Inverted triangle and two defense 9.
Box and one defense 10.
Diamond and one defense 11.

Match-up zone
The intermediate states are determined by further defensive technical-tactical activities aimed at obstructing the opposing offensive plan (Table 2).

Table 1. Initial states of set or positional defense
The fi nal states of set or positional defense are defensive actions and manoeuvres aimed at preventing the fi nal or closing actions of the opposing offense to be realized or successful (Table 3).The states of transition defense include also the initial, intermediate and fi nal sequences of the transition into the back court or defense.One must remember that the initial states of transition defense have already been defi ned in the phase of offense by the offensive rebounding plan and the initial defensive alignment over the full court, ¾ of the court or over the half of the court (Table 4).Table 4. Initial states of transition defense 1.
Press the rebounder 2.
No press on the rebounder 3.
Pass denial to point guard 7.
No defensive balance after shot 8.
Full court m~m press after made basket 9.
Full court m~m press after made free throw 10.
¾ m~m press after missed basket 11.
¾ m~m press after missed free throw 12.
Full court m~m press with shadow-man after made basket 13.
Full court m~m press with shadow-man after made free throw 14.
Full court m~m press with denying pass to point guard after made basket 15.
Full court m~m press with denying pass to point guard after made free throw 16.
Pressing m~m; side line out of bound backcourt; press the inbounder 17.
Pressing m~m; side line out of bound backcourt; denying pass to potential reciever 18.
Pressing m~m; side line out of bound backcourt; with shadow man 19.
Retreating defense after side line out of bound backcourt 20.
Match up full court m~m press after made basket 21.
Match up full court m~m press after made free throw 22.
Stop the ball on ¾ court line 2.
Stop the ball on ½ court line 3.
Stop the ball on 3 point line 4.
Allowing penetration on open court 5.
Allowing cutting into the middle 6.
First trailer defender run to 3 point line 7.
First trailer defender run into the paint 8.
First trailer defender was overran 9.
Rebounder defender run below ball line 10.
Rebounder defender run into the paint 11.
Wings run into the paint 14.
Early trap after made basket with inbounder defender 16.
Early trap after made free throw with inbounder defender 17.
Trap after made basket on speed dribble 18.
Trap after made free throw on speed dribble 19.
Run & jump press after made basket 21.
Run & jump press after made free throw 23.
Containment zone press after made basket 25.
Containment zone press after made free throw 26.
Zone press after made basket; Trap in frontcourt 27.
Zone press after made free throw; Trap in frontcourt 28.
Zone press after made basket; Trap in backcourt 29.
Zone press after made free throw; Trap in backcourt 30.
Zone press with reads before trap decisions 31.
Trapping zone/m~m press -incorrect/late rotation after trap Further, the intermediate states of transition defense embraces technical-tactical activities aimed Table 5. Intermediate states of transition defense Finally, the closing states of transition defense primarily include actions aiming at obstructing the opposing closing manoeuvres in the primary and secondary fast-break and early offense (Table 6).
Transition defense vs run-out -no safety man 3.
Allowing trailers to post up 4.
Allowing transition shot of second trailer 5.
Bumping the trailers on the 3 point line 6.
Transition defense vs high-low; bumping duck-in 19.
Transition defense vs high-low; baseline rotation 20.
Transition defense vs high-low -no bump 21.
Transition defense vs swinging the ball; fl y with the ball 22.
Transition defense vs skip pass; fl y with the ball 23.
Transition defense vs swinging the ball -late reaction 24.
Transition defense vs skip pass -late reaction 25.
Transition defense vs drive-kick;incorrect/late help 27.
Transition defense vs transition pick with fi rst trailer; agressive hedge 28.
Transition defense vs transition pick with fi rst trailer; containment 29.
Transition defense vs transition pick with trailer; screener defender too deep 30.
Transition defense vs transition pick with second trailer; agressive hedge 31.
Transition defense vs transition pick with second trailer; containment 32.
Transition defense vs transition pick with trailer; fanning 33.
Transition defense vs transition pick with trailer; push-under 34.
Transition defense vs transition pick with trailer; fl ash 35.
Transition defense vs transition pick-switching 36.
Transition defense vs transition pick-Flat pick; containment 37.
Transition defense vs transition pick -struggling on the screen (ball defender) 38.
Transition defense vs transition pick -allowing penetration opposite of screener defender 39.
Transition defense vs transition pick -incorrect or no help (screener defender) 40.
Transition defense vs transition pick -baseline rotation 41.
Transition defense vs transition pick -incorrect or no rotation Table 6.Final or closing states of transition defense Also, analyses of the initial states of set offense (Table 7), intermediate states of set offense (Table 8) and fi nal states of set offense should be performed (Table 9), as well as analyses of the initial states of transition offense (Table 10), intermediate states of transition offense (Table 11) and fi nal states of transition offense (Table 12), all in the contexts of both the successful and unsuccessful outcomes (Perica, 2011;Jelaska, 2011).
The initial states of positional or set offense are defi ned by the initial alignment of the players (Table 7).

Asimmetrical alignment
The intermediate states of set offense are defi ned by the following offense fl ow (Table 8).Table 7.Initial states of set or positional offense 1.
V and L cut 2.
Give and Go 7.
Reposting Table 8.Intermediate states of set or positional offense The fi nal or closing states of set, positional offense will be assessed on the basis of expert knowledge, experience and intuition as a fi nal, closing Table 9. Final, closing states of set or positional offense The game states analysis system embraces also the initial states of transition offense which are defi ned as the all the fi rst offensive actions immediately after the possession of the ball has been won (Table 10).
On the other hand, the intermediate state of transition offense is defi ned by the way in which the gross movement lanes are fi lled and by the further actions till the half court line (Table 11).
Finally, analyses of closing or fi nal states of transition offense are focused on the situations of outnumbered players and spatial advantage, being realized in the front court during early offense and are usually closed by a throw (Table 12).maneuover 3) with which any kind of advantage has been achieved and, consequently, a scoring chance (Table 9).
3) Maneouver is a complex aggregate of basketball play elements constituting a purposeful tactical unit.
Cut to basket including passes 5.
Drive to basket including passes 7.
Give and go 8.
Post up including passes 11.
Pick and roll including passes 12.
Penetration opposite of pick 13.
Pick and pop including passes 14.
Cut off the screen including passes 16.
Offensive rebounding plan 1-1-3 Outlet pass middle after made basket and/or inbound in backcourt 3.
Outlet pass middle after made free throw 5.
Outlet pass side after rebound 6.
Outlet pass side after made basket 7.
Outlet pass side after made free throw 8.
Outlet pass side -pass middle 9.
Baseball long pass after rebound -run out situation 13.
Baseball long pass after made basket (run out situation) 14.
Baseball long pass after made free throw (run out situation) 15.
Push the ball after steal 16.
Press  Open court penetration 3.
Push to the elbow, two trailers, two wings 4.
Push to the elbow, one trailer, two players side line 5.
Sideline pass in transition 6.
Press offense; weakside wing cut to the middle after inbound pass 9.
Press offense; safety player one step above ball level as trap release 10.
Press offense; fl ash cut to middle big guy as press release 13.
Press offense; backscreen to dribbler as a release against straight m~m press 14.
Big guy helps to the guard Table 12.Final or closing states of transition offense We should point out here that the defi nitions of the initial, intermediate and fi nal states of the positional and transition game are neither absolute nor unique, but the borders between them are created for this paper needs.Namely, from the aspects of functional approach and the theory of dynamic systems, the variables of certain game states could have been interpreted polysemantically.For example, offensive rebounding plans can be observed as both the variables of the initial phase of the transition/ position defense and the closing states of the either transition or positional offense.

CONCLUSION
In the present paper the concept system states of basketball game was defi ned.Basketball game was observed as a characteristic chain of states.Also, the mathematical description is created of the system "basketball game", the achievement of which is the identifi cation of the two basic states of the system from the aspect of kinematic description.These states are: transition and position.In accord with that the system was designed to assess game states in basketball game.The assessment system includes the sample of variables covering the initial states of the positional/set and transition offense, intermediate states of set and transition offense, and fi nal states of set and transition offense, as well as the states of successful and unsuccessful outcomes.The initial states of set and transition defense, intermediate states of set and transition defense, and fi nal states of set and transition defense are also embraced.The whole game states assessment system has thus been elevated to a more sophisticated niveau at which large number of states can be recognized within the framework of the presented kinematic description.The proposed model is founded on the arguments emerging from scientifi c fi ndings, inferences and conclusions, as well as on expert knowledge and experience, and it is a precondition for scientifi c exploration, including application of discrete stochastic processes and the Markov chains, on the system of basketball game.The aim of future research studies would be to establish the exact approach to game states assessment using the proposed system as a tool.In that way a new methodological approach will be verifi ed as well as its formal mathematical models.The proposed system also has the inherent capacity for generalization onto all team sports games with the ball.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Hypothetical model of a hierarchical structure of knowledge in the game of basketball (Trninić, 1995).

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. The difference between the positional/set and transition states.
Legend: <X> T -average value of distance the system centre covered in the vertical direction across the court (up or down the court) in relation to time, t TR -time of transition state duration, t POZ -time of set state duration, X TR -average value of the distance the system centre covered in the vertical direction across the court in relation to the time in transition state, X POZ -average value of distance the system centre covered in the vertical direction across the court in relation to the time in set/positional state(Trninić, 1995).

Figure 3 .
Figure 3.The ball possession dynamics.Legend: <X> T -an average value of the distance the system centre covered in the vertical direction across the court (up or down the court) in relation to time, t TR -time of transition state duration, t POZ -time of set state duration, +1 -the ball in possession of team A, -1 -the ball in possession of team B, τ and τ' -intervals of unclear ball possession; intervals of latency (Trninić, 1995).
140.Defensive fake vs single and staggered screens 141.Defense vs off the ball screens -struggling (cutter defender) 142.Bumping curls 143.Incorrect or no bumping curls 144.Jump to the ball and help vs. curl 145.Extended help vs single and staggered screens 146.Trapping vs single and staggered screens 147.Push toward ball -bump vs backscreens and cross screens 148.Push opposite ball-shadow vs backscreens and cross screens 149.Push high side -bump vs screen for screener 150.Bump -weakside switch vs screen for screener 151.Defense vs off the ball screens -incorrect or no help (screener defender)

Table 10 .
Initial states of transition offense offense after made basket/made free throw; two guards on elbows get open 17.Press offense after made basket/made free throw; guard on elbow gets open 18. Press offense after made basket/made free throw; horizontal cross screen for point guard 19.Press offense after made basket/made free throw; two guards on elbows get open, big guy fl ash to the middle 20.Press offense after made basket/made free throw; three players on elbows get open 21.Side line inbound vs press; two guards get open

Table 11 .
Intermediate states of transition offense