Looks like I'm not gonna convince you that mileage is not only useless for a basketball player, but may even be slightly detrimental... but hopefully you will listen to a bit of evidence that might make you change slightly your opinions on aerobic activity.
You didn't really understand my 400m example, but it's a pretty complicated example and I did a poor job explaining... I will clear up a few things for you.
If you look at NBA players within the first 5 minutes of the game, all the starters are sweating heavily. What does that tell us? They are sweating because....... ? It's aerobix.. right?
No! In February I saw Galen Rupp break the american 2 mile indoor record in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Amazing. The guy ran 8:09. Not a bead of sweat. He was cool as cucumbers. Guess that means long distance running is not aerobic?
Seriously, sweating has absolutely nothing to do with aerobic vs anerobic. Nothing at all!
Taking your sprinting example, the basketball player is constantly switching between these energy systems, even more violently than the 400m sprinter you described. He has to go from rest to full speed, and everywhere in between during games. So a player who plays a full game better be able to sustain ~1hr of running effortlessly since that's expected of all the athletes on the court. You don't get to slow down since that will cost you games. Yes there are breaks inbetween, but that's balanced out with having to exert full effort so often that it probably helps to stay aerobic 91% rather than 88% (just to use your numbers).
You are making the mistake every basketball coach who doesn't understand how the body works makes. A very very very small break changes everything!!! EVERYTHING. You don't need long commercial breaks to cause basketball to be primarily anerobic.
We have done this drill over and over again in practice. Read closely. Take those two athletes again. Athlete A is a quarter miler who runs 47.x, 23.low, 11.high, in the (400,200,100m). Athlete B is a 60m specialist who runs approximately 53, 22.high, 10.high in the (400,200,100m).
In the 400m Athlete A wins everytime. But if instead you make the athletes run a high intensity 300m (say 38 seconds) and then you stop them and have them take a 2 minute break and race the last 100m. Athlete B KILLS athlete A. Reduce that break to 1 minute, athlete B still wins. Even at 30 seconds athlete B will win. Practically any rest at all and athlete B will still muster the strength to blast out ahead and beat athlete A.
What this demonstration is shows is that a very short break in intensity changes everything. Basketball requires high levels acceleration and changes in direction (which the aerobic pathways cannot provide) and provides the necessary periods of low intensity for the anerobic system to recover to the extent necessary for it to provide energy for them.
It just seems to me that as a sprinter you have a very strong bias for anaerobic activities, which I understand and respect but this is clouding your judgement that basketball requires a solid aerobic base. I'm willing to bet every decent player at higher levels has a great aerobic base, and if they didn't they'd not be very competitive. It's probably taken for granted that someone who plays D1 like you mentioned earlier, has got the aerobic base already, and over the years of playing basketball has adapted to the aerobic demands of the game. I've read in several places that basketball is a mainly aerobic game, and even though I don't have the studies, i'm betting those who claimed it must have seen them.
Actually, as a sprinter I have a strong appreciation for middle and long distance running events which are actually aerobic activities unlike basketball. I also am part of an actual measurable sport where everything can be tested unlike a game like basketball. I will give you that many D1 basketball players may have some decent milage times but it's likely because poor coaching and the incorrect information that you read has encouraged coaches to force them to do unnecessary aerobic conditioning.
You've read something in several places so you take for granted that studies have been done which support what you read? I've actually done the studies! I got my PhD doing the studies! The best estimates have basketball at 20% aerobic (and that still doesn't mean the best way to train for that 20% is by doing mileage!)
Read: FOX, E.L. et al. (1993) The Physiological Basis for Exercise and Sport. 5th ed. Madison: Brown & Benchmark
As far as your randomised intervals go, i bet they will help someone with a good aerobic base from becoming better conditioned for basketball. Definitely. But if they didn't have a good aerobic base, they'd quickly find themselves running slow and the intervals wouldn't be as useful as running for 25-30 minutes at aerobic effort.
You are free to think that but completely wrong. The necessity to acquire an "aerobic base" is one of the most pervasive myths in sport and completely false. If the do 30 minutes and get this base they will STILL puke the first time they have to run fast. And they won't be able to run as fast because they got slower acquiring this base.
Btw can I ask you to comment on sprinters coming back from a season break, and building up an aerobic base first by running longer distances before they go on to train the specific max effort sprints? I read that's how Charlie Franscis trained his sprinters.
Yes it's an old myth that it's necessary to start with mileage. Charlie was actually one of the first coaches to not do this. Charlie was a huge proponent of short to long training (which is the dominant method now and is producing world record times) and advocated short to long training, with the addition of large amounts of tempo especially if fat loss is required.
