{"id":139,"date":"2008-02-18T15:19:22","date_gmt":"2008-02-18T15:19:22","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2015-10-24T01:31:39","modified_gmt":"2015-10-24T06:31:39","slug":"the-individual-offensive-strategies-of-taiwanese-collegiate-students-in-basketball","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-individual-offensive-strategies-of-taiwanese-collegiate-students-in-basketball\/","title":{"rendered":"The Individual Offensive Strategies of Taiwanese Collegiate Students in Basketball"},"content":{"rendered":"
Submitted by: Chia-Ming Chang, Cheng-feng Chiu And Steve Chen<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

The
\npurpose of this study was to investigate the preferential
\nindividual offensive strategies of male Taiwanese collegiate
\nstudents. A self-designed questionnaire was utilized to evaluate
\nstudents’ perception on offensive strategies. Subjects were
\nasked to select top-5 preferential strategies from nine choices
\nas they were put at specific spots based on the role of a
\nposition. Among the 185 completed surveys, the number of valid
\nsurveys was 163 that yielded a 78% return-rate. The statistical
\nmethods for analyses included descriptive statistics and Chi-square
\nanalyses. The alpha level was set at .05. Based on the results
\nof Chi-square, there were significant differences existed
\namong subjects’ choices on offensive strategies (p<0.05).
\nNo significant differences (p<0.05) were found when subjects’
\nchoices were compared at different side of blocks. The descriptive
\nanalyses indicated that the number-one offensive choice at
\nthe both sides of low post area for center, power forward,
\nand point guard were “pivoting”, “screening”,
\nand “catching the ball”, respectively. The favorite
\noffensive strategies of small forward and shooting guard were
\n“catching the ball” and “getting open”
\nat the right block, and their choices were simply switched
\nat the other block. At the top of the key, the number-one
\noffensive choice for center, power forward, small forward,
\nshooting guard and point guard were “setting screen”,
\n“pivoting”, “getting open”, “getting
\nopen”, and “catching the ball”, respectively.
\nApparently, subjects’ top-three choices on offensive strategies
\nhad clearly demonstrated the common mentalities that were
\ninstructed by many basketball coaches. However, since “shooting”
\nwas not a top-3 choice at any spot for any role, coaches may
\nneed to encourage students to take more shots.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Purpose
\nof the Study <\/strong>
\nBasketball is one of the most popular sport activities among
\nTaiwanese collegiate students. It is also the most popular
\nsport among all of the PE curriculums at the collegiate level
\nin Taiwan. Basketball involves several basic playing skills
\nsuch as running, jumping, catching, passing, rebounding, shooting,
\ndunking and various combinations of movements. Due to variances
\nin size, fitness level, specific technique, and offensive
\nstrategies, players usually are assigned to different playing
\nroles and positions. Generally their roles can be divided
\ninto the following five different positions: power forward,
\nsmall forward, center, point guard, and shooting guard (Lee,
\n2000; and Huang & Wang, 2002). Based on players’ specific
\nroles on the court, each position usually would demonstrate
\na unique style of play at different spots of the court. For
\nexamples, forward players can be extremely active around the
\nfree-throw line extended area. They should be able to score
\nboth in the paint and perimeter. They are usually the best
\nscorers of the team, and should involve in some rebounding
\nand passing duties. This is why most of forwards need to possess
\ngreat size, speed and leaping ability (Wu, 1998). Most of
\nthe centers work in an area less than 5m away from the basket
\n(Wong, 1999b). They work at an area that is always under heavy
\ntraffic. Since they usually initiate the attack at the low-post
\narea, they must possess skills to catch the ball firmly, seal
\noff the defender, and use all kinds of fake moves to score
\n(Wong, 1999b; Wang & Wang, 2002). Centers must have ability
\nto score one-on-one and secure rebounds. Defensively, they
\nusually provide the best help on penetrations (Wang, 1997b);
\ntherefore, the strength of the center may indicate the success
\nof the team. Guards are usually the “core” of a
\nbasketball team. They are usually the leaders and the organizers
\nof the team offense. They normally operate at the top of the
\nkey and try to create shooting opportunities for other teammates
\nby making good pass and penetration. They should be a good
\nlong and mid-range shooter, and also score in penetrations
\n(Huang & Wang, 2002). In order to fully maximize the playing
\nability of each specific position, coaches would also teach
\nnecessary techniques to elevate players’ individual skills.
\nPossessing strong individual offensive skills is an essential
\nelement to build the team offenses and success. The skills
\nthat players have acquired would naturally become preferential
\nmoves under circumstances.<\/p>\n

Many
\nof the previous researches on offenses had geared toward the
\nanalyses of a team’s offensive patterns (Chao & Chao,
\n1995; Lu, 1996; Pan, 1997; Wong, 1998 and 1999a; and Hsu 2002).
\nThey provided less information on individual offensive skills
\nand teaching tips for collegiate students to learn the individual
\nskills. The authors of the article wish to examine how collegiate
\nstudents perceive a specific situation and formulate their
\noffensive strategies at certain locations. Hopefully, this
\nstudy can provide useful concepts and norms to help students
\nbuild up understanding of the game and acquire proper offensive
\ntechniques.<\/p>\n

This
\nstudy examines the individual offensive strategies of students
\nby observing how they would initiate a movement in a designated
\nsituation without concerning the presence of defenders. Although
\nin reality, the presence of defenders certainly would affect
\na player’s determination on moves, this study would neglect
\nthis factor and directly record the preferential response
\nof players at a particular location. Since there are always
\nsome certain preferential acts that a person may engage based
\non the human behavior, we can all assume that there must be
\nsome types of preferential offensive movements that players
\nmay like to make in certain situations. The purpose of this
\nstudy would attempt to investigate those preferential individual
\noffensive strategies of Taiwanese collegiate players. The
\nresearch questions would focus on how a player initiate the
\ndecision to make a move at various spots based on players’
\nperceptions of playing roles.<\/p>\n

Methods<\/strong><\/p>\n

Subjects
\nand Scope of the Study<\/strong>
\nTwo hundred and seven male students of the Mingchuan University
\nwho have enrolled in the Spring Semester of the year 2001
\nwere invited to participate in this study. They came from
\nseven different basketball classes and were varied in class-levels.
\nResearchers had obtained 185 returned questionnaires, and
\n22 copies were invalid. The number of valid copies was 163
\nthat yielded 78% of return-rate. The average height and weight
\nof subjects were 170.72 + 7.9 cm and 62.57 + 10.02 kg, respectively.<\/p>\n

Research
\nTools<\/strong>
\nThis study utilized a self-designed questionnaire to evaluate
\nstudents’ perception on offensive strategies. The contents
\nof the survey included two parts. The first part contained
\ndemographic information such as height, weight, class-level,
\nvarsity experience, and playing position. The second part
\nof the survey examined players’ offensive strategies. Three
\nspots were designated for the purpose of the study. They were
\nboth right and left low-post blocks, and top of the key. Each
\nstudent had viewed and perceived the question based on the
\nrole of a specific position, such as center, point guard,
\nor small forward, etc. Then he would select the top five preferential
\nchoices as the offensive strategies according to the location
\nand the role that he had perceived. Nine offensive strategies
\nthat were available for chosen included:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. dribbling,<\/li>\n
  2. pivoting,<\/li>\n
  3. catching
    \nthe ball,<\/li>\n
  4. shooting,<\/li>\n
  5. cutting
    \ndown,<\/li>\n
  6. dribble
    \npenetration,<\/li>\n
  7. getting
    \nopen,<\/li>\n
  8. setting
    \na screen, and<\/li>\n
  9. rebounding.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    These
    \nstrategies were common basketball skills that were adapted
    \nby players in different situations (Pan, 1997; Wang, 1998;
    \nHuang & Wang, 2002; and Wang & Wang, 2002).<\/p>\n

    Data
    \nAnalyses<\/strong>
    \nThere were163 valid copies available for data analyses after
    \neliminating 22 copies of invalid questionnaires. The data
    \nwere analyzed by the SPSS for Window 10.0 program. The statistical
    \nmethods for analyses include descriptive statistics and Chi
    \nsquare analyses. The alpha level was set at .05?<\/p>\n

    Results<\/strong><\/p>\n

    General
    \nInformation of Descriptive Analyses<\/strong>
    \nThe general information listed subjects’ class-level, varsity
    \nexperience, and playing position. Basing on the class-level
    \ndistribution, sophomore was the biggest class that consisted
    \n50 subjects (30.5%). Twenty-eight seniors (17.1%) made up
    \nthe smallest class. Most of the subjects (N= 89; 54.3%) had
    \nparticipated for the intramural basketball teams or even high
    \nlevels before; and there were 75 (45.7%) subjects who have
    \nnever played an official basketball game yet. In term of players’
    \nplaying positions, 65 (39.6%) people had played forward position.
    \nThe numbers of players who played at guard and center positions
    \nwere 73 (44.5%) and 26(15.9%) respectively.<\/p>\n

    Preferences
    \non Offensive Moves at Each Designated Spot<\/strong>
    \nThe descriptive analyses concluded the following statements.
    \nAt the right low-post block, the number one offensive choice
    \nfor center, power forward, small forward, shooting guard and
    \npoint guard were “pivoting”, “screening”,
    \n“catching the ball”, “getting open”, and
    \n“catching the ball”, respectively. At the top of
    \nthe key, the number one offensive choice for center, power
    \nforward, small forward, shooting guard and point guard were
    \n“setting screen”, “pivoting”, “getting
    \nopen”, “getting open”, and “catching the
    \nball”, respectively. The favorite offensive strategies
    \nof center, power forward, and point guard at the left low-post
    \nblock were exactly the same as theirs at the right side. The
    \nexceptions were the choices of small forward and shooting
    \nguard. Their choices just simply switched as the side had
    \nchanged. The Table 1. listed the top-3 preferences of subjects
    \nat each different spots.<\/p>\n

    Table
    \n1. The top-3 preferences of subjects at each different spots<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    \n
    Location<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
    		\n
    Preference<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
    		\n
    Role
    \nof Positions <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n<\/td>\nCenter<\/td>\nPower
    \nForward<\/td>\n    		Small
    \nForward<\/td>\n    		Shooting
    \nGuard<\/td>\n    		Point
    \nGuard<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Right
    \nblock<\/td>\n    		1<\/td>\n(2)<\/td>\n(8)<\/td>\n(7)<\/td>\n(3)<\/td>\n(3)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n2<\/td>\n(5)<\/td>\n(7)<\/td>\n(3)<\/td>\n(7)<\/td>\n(1)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n3<\/td>\n(1)<\/td>\n(5)<\/td>\n(6)<\/td>\n(6)<\/td>\n(8)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Top
    \nof the key<\/td>\n    		1<\/td>\n(8)<\/td>\n(2)<\/td>\n(7)<\/td>\n(7)<\/td>\n(3)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n2<\/td>\n(7)<\/td>\n(3)<\/td>\n(3)<\/td>\n(8)<\/td>\n(7)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n3<\/td>\n(9)<\/td>\n(6)<\/td>\n(8)<\/td>\n(3)<\/td>\n(1)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Left
    \nblock<\/td>\n    		1<\/td>\n(2)<\/td>\n(8)<\/td>\n(3)<\/td>\n(7)<\/td>\n(3)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n2<\/td>\n(5)<\/td>\n(6)<\/td>\n(7)<\/td>\n(3)<\/td>\n(7)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n3<\/td>\n(6)<\/td>\n(9)<\/td>\n(8)<\/td>\n(6)<\/td>\n(1)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    *
    \n(1) dribbling, (2) pivoting, (3) catching the ball, (4) shooting,
    \n(5) cutting down, (6) dribble penetration, (7) getting open,
    \n(8) setting a screen, and (9) rebounding<\/p>\n

    Based
    \non the results of Chi-square, there were significant differences
    \nexisted among subjects’ choices on offensive strategies (p<0.05).
    \nThis means that students actually favor certain kind of choices
    \nat each spot in term of viewing themselves through a specific
    \nrole of positions. However no significant difference (p<0.05)
    \nwas found when subjects’ choices were compared for different
    \nside of blocks.<\/p>\n

    Conclusions
    \nand suggestions<\/strong><\/p>\n

    According
    \nto results of the study, there were significant differences
    \nexisted among subjects’ choices (p<0.05) in term of viewing
    \nfrom a specific role of positions. Since each position usually
    \nhas been trained to follow a specific role, the results of
    \nthe study clearly show this phenomenon. Perimeter players
    \nsuch as point guard, shooting guard and small forward would
    \ntry to receive passes or get open for clear passes at the
    \nlow-post block. They are usually taught by the coaches to
    \nget open in order to score an easy basket under the rim or
    \nshoot from outside (Huang & Wang, 2002). Inside players
    \nsuch as center and power forward would demonstrate the fundamental
    \nlow post move by showing “the pivot” move. They
    \nwere also taught to set screens at both high- or low-post
    \n(Lu, 1996; and Wong & Shuei, 1998). Apparently, subjects’
    \ntop-three choices on offensive strategies have demonstrated
    \nthe common mentalities that were instructed by many basketball
    \ncoaches.<\/p>\n

    A
    \ngood sign to notify is that subjects did not perceive their
    \noffensive strategies differently at the opposite side of the
    \nblock, either. This means that players may not decide to do
    \none thing at a particular side, but never intend to do the
    \nsame move at the opposite side. Otherwise, they choice will
    \nbecome very predictable at one spot.
    \nSurprisingly, “shooting” was not a top-3 choice
    \nat any spot according to any role. This may indicate that
    \nplayers are probably too cautious about their move, or they
    \nare afraid of taking shots (perhaps due to lack of confidence).
    \nMost of the coaches in the United States will emphasize the
    \nimportance of power plays. It is probably more appropriate
    \nto see those who play at center and power forward positions
    \nlooking for shots more often (Wong, 1999b). Taiwanese coaches
    \nmay need to point out this fact during classes and practices.<\/p>\n

    References<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Chao,
    \nC.P., & Chao, J.C. (1995). Zone defenses in basketball.
    \nUniversity and College
    \nPhysical Education, 16, 66-74.<\/p>\n

    Hsu,
    \nH.H. (2002). Three-men offense in basketball. University and
    \nCollege
    \nPhysical Education, 60, 39-42.<\/p>\n

    Huang,
    \nH.H., & Wang, L. (2002). Analysis of woman basketball
    \nskills. Journal of Deh
    \nYu College of Nursing and Management, 17, 53-63.<\/p>\n

    Lee,
    \nC.H. (2000). An easy way to learn basketball. Taipei, Taiwan:
    \nEr-chiang Publishing.<\/p>\n

    Lu,
    \nC.S. (1996). A study of male college Secondary Class basketball
    \nplayers in attacked-
    \ndefense skill. Journal of National Art Institute, 59, 376-386.<\/p>\n

    Pan,
    \nY.H. (1997). The analyses of defensive and offensive strategies
    \nin basketball.
    \nUniversity and College Physical Education, 32, 103-108.<\/p>\n

    Wang, T.M. (1997a). The team-offense skills and their instructional
    \ndesigns for post
    \nplayers in basketball. University Taiwan University Physical
    \nEducation, 28, 55-61.<\/p>\n

    Wang,
    \nT.M. (1997b). Both offensive and defensive skills and their
    \ninstructional designs
    \nfor post players in basketball. University Taiwan University
    \nPhysical Education, 28, 63-72.<\/p>\n

    Wang,
    \nY.M., & Wang H.C. (2002). Different types of fakes in
    \nbasketball. Physical
    \nEducation of College and University, 60, 17-21.<\/p>\n

    Wong,
    \nT.L., & Shuei, H.P. (1998). Move without the ball as an
    \noffensive strategy in
    \nbasketball games. National Education, 39(2), 66-70.<\/p>\n

    Wong,
    \nT.L. (1999a). Team offenses. National Education, 39(4), 34-39.<\/p>\n

    Wong,
    \nT.L. (1999b). The offensive strategies of inside moves for
    \nlow post players.
    \nTaiwan Sports, 102, 36-39.<\/p>\n

    Wu,
    \nB.Y. (1998). Developing a forward player. Journal of Tungnan
    \nCollege, 21, 219-224.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Submitted by: Chia-Ming Chang, Cheng-feng Chiu And Steve Chen<\/div>\n

    Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The
    \n purpose of this study was to investigate the preferential
    \n individual offensive strategies of male Taiwanese collegiate
    \n students. A self-designed questionnaire was utilized to evaluate
    \n students’ perception on offensive strategies. Subjects were
    \n asked to select top-5 preferential strategies from nine choices
    \n as they were put at specific spots based on the role of a
    \n position. Among the 185 completed surveys, the number of valid
    \n surveys was 163 that yielded a 78% return-rate. The statistical
    \n methods for analyses included descriptive statistics and Chi-square
    \n analyses. The alpha level was set at .05. Based on the results
    \n of Chi-square, there were significant differences existed
    \n among subjects’ choices on offensive strategies (p<0.05).
    \n No significant differences (p<0.05) were found when subjects’
    \n choices were compared at different side of blocks. The descriptive
    \n analyses indicated that the number-one offensive choice at
    \n the both sides of low post area for center, power forward,
    \n and point guard were "pivoting", "screening",
    \n and "catching the ball", respectively. The favorite
    \n offensive strategies of small forward and shooting guard were
    \n "catching the ball" and "getting open"
    \n at the right block, and their choices were simply switched
    \n at the other block. At the top of the key, the number-one
    \n offensive choice for center, power forward, small forward,
    \n shooting guard and point guard were "setting screen",
    \n "pivoting", "getting open", "getting
    \n open", and "catching the ball", respectively.
    \n Apparently, subjects’ top-three choices on offensive strategies
    \n had clearly demonstrated the common mentalities that were
    \n instructed by many basketball coaches. However, since "shooting"
    \n was not a top-3 choice at any spot for any role, coaches may
    \n need to encourage students to take more shots.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[295,291,296],"tags":[50,49,51,8,31,47,52],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-2f","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":146,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/gender-differential-in-the-goal-setting\/","url_meta":{"origin":139,"position":0},"title":"Gender Differential in the Goal Setting, Motivation, Perceived Ability, and Confidence Sources of Basketball Players","date":"February 18, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Dongfang Chie-der, Steve Chen, Chou Hung-yu and Chi Li-Kang Introduction Self-confidence and sport confidence (SC) have been viewed as some of the most important factors that influence the sport performance. Many studies had shown that athletes with high sport confidence would possess better concentration, game strategies, healthy emotions,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1948,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/perceived-qualifications-necessary-for-black-females-seeking-head-collegiate-basketball-coaching-positions\/","url_meta":{"origin":139,"position":1},"title":"Perceived Qualifications Necessary for Black Females Seeking Head Collegiate Basketball Coaching Positions","date":"July 7, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by Joan Sloan, Ph.D. Dr. Jo Sloan is an Assistant Professor at Lane College teaching in the areas of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, and is also a certified Personal Trainer through the American Council on Exercise. ABSTRACT Surveys were sent to 231 randomly selected athletic administrators from the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"Capture1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/Capture11.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":17,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/describing-sport-management-practitioners-information-technology-it-competence-and-training-needs\/","url_meta":{"origin":139,"position":2},"title":"Describing Sport Management Practitioners\u2019 Information Technology (IT) Competence and Training Needs","date":"January 7, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Gregory J. Letter, Daniel D. Drane, Jaime Orejan **ABSTRACT** This descriptive, exploratory research aimed to describe sport management practitioners\u2019 information technology (IT) competence, usage rates, and training needs. Specifically, the research examined how IT software training affects IT competence and usage rates. In addition, the research examined the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":122,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/marketing-the-triathlete\/","url_meta":{"origin":139,"position":3},"title":"Marketing the Triathlete","date":"February 15, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: \u00a92002 Adam Epstein, J.D.\/M.B.A Article is copyright, please reevaluate","rel":"","context":"In "General"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":118,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/student-fundraising-at-beijing-university-of-physical-education\/","url_meta":{"origin":139,"position":4},"title":"Student Fundraising at Beijing University of Physical Education – A Practical Experience for Chinese Sports Management Students","date":"February 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Reginald F. Overton, Ed.D. ABSTRACT With the dramatic economic changes taking place in China there is a move to promote sports and the sports industry through individual and corporate support. Curriculum must be established on the university level to accommodate these needs. The purpose of this research was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Facilities"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":473,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/intercollegiate-athletics-vs-academics-the-student-athlete-or-the-athlete-student\/","url_meta":{"origin":139,"position":5},"title":"Intercollegiate Athletics vs. Academics: The Student-Athlete or the Athlete-Student","date":"November 19, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"Christopher Saffici, Ed. D, Robert Pellegrino, DBA ABSTRACT Athletic programs at many colleges and universities are inconsistent with the school\u2019s mission statements. The term \u201cstudent-athlete\u201d basically means that they are students first, and then athletes. We have reached a point here it can be argued that they are instead more\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=139"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1172,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139\/revisions\/1172"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}