A Dual-Tech Approach to Measuring Defensive Physical Demands in Basketball Pick-and-Rolls During Official Games: Inertial Sensors and Video Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article titled " A Dual-Tech Approach to Measuring Defensive Physical De2 mands in Basketball Pick-and-Rolls During Official Games: In- 3 ertial Sensors and Video Analysis " quantifies the physical load of defensive pick-and-roll (PnR) actions in formal basketball games by combining video analysis and inertial measurement unit (IMUs) technology, and analyzes it according to the court position (center and sideline), defensive strategy (switching, sinking/freezing, double teaming) and defensive effectiveness (successful and unsuccessful). The study found that the court position and defensive strategy had no significant effect on physical load, but unsuccessful defense significantly increased the duration, PlayerLoad (PL), and PlayerLoad per minute (PL min⁻¹) compared with successful defense. These results provide an important reference for coaches to optimize defensive strategies and manage player rotations in training and competitions and also emphasize that unsuccessful defense not only affects the outcome of the game but also increases the physical load of the defensive players. The article also points out the limitations of the study and suggests that future research should focus on the PnR load of higher-level athletes in offense and defense. Specific comments are shown below:
- This article analyzes the higher physical loads when defending a failed pick-and-roll but does not address the specific effects of fatigue on ACL loads during defensive actions.
- Can the authors further analyze the impact of these defensive strategies on landing patterns and evaluate their potential risk of lower limb injuries (such as ACL tears or ankle sprain)? The study: New insights optimize landing strategies to reduce lower limb injury risk (https://doi.org/10.34133/cbsystems.0126) provides new insights into optimizing landing strategies to reduce the risk of lower limb injuries. Defending pick-and-roll actions (such as trap or switch) may require different landing patterns (such as single-leg support or quick change of direction).
- The article indicates that defensive failure actions lead to higher physical loads (such as duration, PL, and PL min⁻¹). However, defensive failure may also be accompanied by greater biomechanical stress on the lower limbs (such as higher knee flexion angle or ankle torque). Can the authors further explore the changes in lower limb biomechanical characteristics during defensive failure and how these changes affect players' fatigue accumulation and injury risk?
- Although the article found that field position (center vs. sideline) had no significant effect on overall physical load, different positions may have different distributions of load on the lower extremities. For example, sideline defense may require more lateral movement and quick stops, which may put additional stress on the hip and ankle joints. Do the authors plan to include a detailed analysis of lower extremity load distribution in future studies?
Author Response
The article titled " A Dual-Tech Approach to Measuring Defensive Physical De2 mands in Basketball Pick-and-Rolls During Official Games: In- 3 ertial Sensors and Video Analysis " quantifies the physical load of defensive pick-and-roll (PnR) actions in formal basketball games by combining video analysis and inertial measurement unit (IMUs) technology, and analyzes it according to the court position (center and sideline), defensive strategy (switching, sinking/freezing, double teaming) and defensive effectiveness (successful and unsuccessful). The study found that the court position and defensive strategy had no significant effect on physical load, but unsuccessful defense significantly increased the duration, PlayerLoad (PL), and PlayerLoad per minute (PL min⁻¹) compared with successful defense. These results provide an important reference for coaches to optimize defensive strategies and manage player rotations in training and competitions and also emphasize that unsuccessful defense not only affects the outcome of the game but also increases the physical load of the defensive players. The article also points out the limitations of the study and suggests that future research should focus on the PnR load of higher-level athletes in offense and defense. Specific comments are shown below:
ANSWER: We thank reviewer1 for the positive comment.
This article analyzes the higher physical loads when defending a failed pick-and-roll but does not address the specific effects of fatigue on ACL loads during defensive actions.
ANSWER: As mentioned by reviewer1, we did not provide any analysis of the effect of fatigue on ACL since it is beyond the scope of this study. However, it is a very interesting aspect we will consider for further studies.
Can the authors further analyze the impact of these defensive strategies on landing patterns and evaluate their potential risk of lower limb injuries (such as ACL tears or ankle sprain)? The study: New insights optimize landing strategies to reduce lower limb injury risk (https://doi.org/10.34133/cbsystems.0126) provides new insights into optimizing landing strategies to reduce the risk of lower limb injuries. Defending pick-and-roll actions (such as trap or switch) may require different landing patterns (such as single-leg support or quick change of direction).
ANSWER: As mentioned in the previous comment, this further analysis, although very interesting, it is out of the scope of this paper and would require a completely different design, procedure, type of analysis, basically a new paper. Therefore, it is not possible to implement it in this revision process. We will consider it for our further studies anyway.
The article indicates that defensive failure actions lead to higher physical loads (such as duration, PL, and PL min⁻¹). However, defensive failure may also be accompanied by greater biomechanical stress on the lower limbs (such as higher knee flexion angle or ankle torque). Can the authors further explore the changes in lower limb biomechanical characteristics during defensive failure and how these changes affect players' fatigue accumulation and injury risk?
ANSWER: Please see the reply to the previous comment.
Although the article found that field position (center vs. sideline) had no significant effect on overall physical load, different positions may have different distributions of load on the lower extremities. For example, sideline defense may require more lateral movement and quick stops, which may put additional stress on the hip and ankle joints. Do the authors plan to include a detailed analysis of lower extremity load distribution in future studies?
ANSWER: Please see the reply to the previous comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Considering that we are discussing an article with novel elements: To date, only one study [14] has combined TMA and IMU approaches to describe the physical load of activities recorded during official basketball games, focusing on high-intensity specific movements, sprints and jumps, the recommendation is to emphasize these novel elements in the introduction.
- The recommendation is that the paper should also include sample size calculation, statistical power calculation, or both.
- The first sentence of the conclusions can be introduced and expanded in the discussion part: this study provides novel insights into the physical loads (i.e., duration, PL and 300 PL·min−1) of defensive PnR actions during official basketball games.
- The article is a valuable one, with many novel elements, and I would like to congratulate the authors for the work done in developing this scientific material.
Author Response
Considering that we are discussing an article with novel elements: To date, only one study [14] has combined TMA and IMU approaches to describe the physical load of activities recorded during official basketball games, focusing on high-intensity specific movements, sprints and jumps, the recommendation is to emphasize these novel elements in the introduction.
ANSWER: Thank you for your suggestions. We have extended in the introduction presenting the main findings of the study cited.
The recommendation is that the paper should also include sample size calculation, statistical power calculation, or both.
ANSWER: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree that, since we deal with p-values, sample and power analysis should be considered. However, at this stage, post-hoc power analysis has several limitations which we cannot overcome (please see: doi: 10.1002/gepi.22464). Therefore, we feel that we cannot include these calculations at this stage. Nevertheless, we are confident that this is not a main limitation, since the statistical procedure implemented (linear mixed model) is correct, considering the distribution of data across the fixed and random effects selected, thus being a solid and trustable procedure.
The first sentence of the conclusions can be introduced and expanded in the discussion part: this study provides novel insights into the physical loads (i.e., duration, PL and 300 PL·min−1) of defensive PnR actions during official basketball games.
ANSWER: Thank you for your suggestion. These aspects are already extensively presented in the discussions: specifically, at L212-221, L247-254, and L268-275. Therefore, no change was applied.
The article is a valuable one, with many novel elements, and I would like to congratulate the authors for the work done in developing this scientific material.
ANSWER: We thank review2 for the positive comments, which allowed us to increase the quality of our manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank the authors for their efforts in improving the quality of their papers. The quality of the article has already improved a bit with the revisions. It is suggested that the conclusions be further condensed to provide some substantive comments and recommendations. Lines 155-167: It is recommended that it be presented in plain text, the current version is not very formal in the manuscript. Lines 42-45: “basketball games include high-intensity actions such as sprints, jumps…”, Among these, quantifying and assessing their status is also critical to improving performance and preventing injuries. It is necessary to refer to the latest relevant research on the importance of injury prevention (New insights optimize landing strategies to reduce lower limb injury risk). Please consider. Lack of fully credible results. Could the authors provide more and relevant results, including more detailed data, in addition to suggesting that the results be presented in the form of figures to improve the readability of the results?
Author Response
Thank the authors for their efforts in improving the quality of their papers. The quality of the article has already improved a bit with the revisions.
ANSWER: We thank reviewer1 for the positive comment.
It is suggested that the conclusions be further condensed to provide some substantive comments and recommendations.
ANSWER: We thank reviewer1 for the positive comment. Nevertheless, we consider our conclusion in line with our results, correctly dealing with our main findings. Therefore, we did not include any change.
Lines 155-167: It is recommended that it be presented in plain text, the current version is not very formal in the manuscript.
ANSWER: We think the current version provides enough information for the reader to fully understand what it is referred to. We think this figure represents a strength of our manuscript considering its applied nature. Therefore, we considered keeping it as it stands.
Lines 42-45: “basketball games include high-intensity actions such as sprints, jumps…”, Among these, quantifying and assessing their status is also critical to improving performance and preventing injuries. It is necessary to refer to the latest relevant research on the importance of injury prevention (New insights optimize landing strategies to reduce lower limb injury risk). Please consider.
ANSWER: as underlined in the first round of revision, our manuscript is focusing only on sport performance and not injury prevention. Unfortunately, we cannot consider including the suggested publication in our paper since it is completely unrelated to our study. Therefore, no changes were provided.
Lack of fully credible results. Could the authors provide more and relevant results, including more detailed data, in addition to suggesting that the results be presented in the form of figures to improve the readability of the results?
ANSWER: We think our results are credible and we consider that we synthetized them properly in our result section including easy-to-read tables. Therefore, no changes were applied.
