Influence of Game Indicators on the Ranking of Teams in the Spanish Soccer League

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The last chapter is stark. I recommend expanding this chapter and focusing on other perspectives, e.g. recommendation for managers of soccer teams arising from this research.

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude to reviewer 1 for the time spent in reviewing our manuscript and for providing us with helpful comments to improve manuscript quality. We have answered all concerns (all corrections were marked with change control).

A native translator has revised the manuscript.

--------------------

Reviewer’ note: The last chapter is stark. I recommend expanding this chapter and focusing on other perspectives, e.g. recommendation for managers of soccer teams arising from this research.

Authors’ response: We agree with you. The following recommendations have been indicated: “…soccer coaches are advised to choose a technically sound starting eleven that allows them to have ball possession, i.e., to have few losses per match. In this way, they will be able to stay in the top positions for a season.” In addition, “For managers, it is important when recruiting players to know that these game indicators are fundamental for a team to be in the upper part of the ranking. In addition, the more players with these profiles a team can have, the easier it will be to obtain a better final ranking.” (Lines 323 to 328).

--------------------

Kind regards

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for their willingness to share the results of their research work.
Issues concerning the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sports performance have already received many studies. In the case of this work, the authors decided to study the variability of soccer performance indicators due to the announcement of pandemic COVID-19.
The paper is well written and contains all the required chapters.
However, I have a few comments on the paper:
1) please further describe the methodology for creating the groups (S1: Equaled = 0 - 5 places; Unbalanced = 6 - 10 places; Very unbalanced = 11 - 19 places) and final ranking (S2: Europe position = 1 - 7 places; Middle position = 8 - 17 places; Decline = 18 - 20 places). It's not quite clear if, for example, in group S1 (Equaled analyzed matches played only between teams ranked 6 - 10 places)???? The same question applies to S2
- line 129 p. 3 please correct the word "the" at the very beginning of the sentence;
- line 129 p. The authors wrote that the normality of the distribution was assessed using the K-S test, is it known to the authors that the K-S test is used to detect conformity to a normal distribution, but only for known distribution parameters, i.e. mean and standard deviation? The Liliefors correction should be used!
- table 3 - please explain all abbreviations shown in the table;
- table 4 - in most of the tables in this work the authors use the term "Game indioator", while in this table there is only the expression "Indicator", this should be standardized;
- the results in Table 3 and Table 7 are incomprehensible to me, so I would ask for a thorough explanation in the section on Research Methods or Statistical Analysis for an explanation of the results in these tables.

In my opinion, the work will be suitable for publication after appropriate corrections.

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude to reviewer 2 for the time spent in reviewing our manuscript and for providing us with helpful comments to improve manuscript quality. We have answered all concerns (all corrections were marked with change control).

A native translator has revised the manuscript.

--------------------

Reviewer’ note: 1) please further describe the methodology for creating the groups (S1: Equaled = 0 - 5 places; Unbalanced = 6 - 10 places; Very unbalanced = 11 - 19 places) and final ranking (S2: Europe position = 1 - 7 places; Middle position = 8 - 17 places; Decline = 18 - 20 places). It's not quite clear if, for example, in group S1 (Equaled analyzed matches played only between teams ranked 6 - 10 places)???? The same question applies to S2

Authors’ response: Based on your suggestion, the methodology for creating the groups (S1 and S2) has been described in more detail in the manuscript (Lines 118 to 120).

--------------------

Reviewer’ note: line 129 p. 3 please correct the word "the" at the very beginning of the sentence.

Authors’ response: Thank you for pointing out the mistake, which has been corrected.

--------------------

Reviewer’ note: line 129 p. The authors wrote that the normality of the distribution was assessed using the K-S test, is it known to the authors that the K-S test is used to detect conformity to a normal distribution, but only for known distribution parameters, i.e. mean and standard deviation? The Liliefors correction should be used!

Authors’ response: We agree with you, your assessment is very pertinent. The Lilliefors significance correction was used (the SPSS program tells us), although we forgot to mention it in the manuscript. It has been indicated in the manuscript (Lines 130 to 131).

--------------------

Reviewer’ note: table 3 - please explain all abbreviations shown in the table

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The meaning of the abbreviations is shown in Tables 3 and 4.

--------------------

Reviewer’ note: table 4 - in most of the tables in this work the authors use the term "Game indicator", while in this table there is only the expression "Indicator", this should be standardized.

Authors’ response: We agree with you. The term “game indicator” has been added in Table 4 and 7.

--------------------

Reviewer’ note: the results in Table 3 and Table 7 are incomprehensible to me, so I would ask for a thorough explanation in the section on Research Methods or Statistical Analysis for an explanation of the results in these tables.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for your comment. In the statistical analysis section, more information on the interpretation of the results obtained from the Mixed Linear Model has been inserted (Lines 146 to 150).

--------------------

Kind regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your prominent review. The analyzed manuscript analyzed, for the pre-Covid, Covid, and post-Covid periods, the influence of game indicators on the partial and final rankings of the Spanish LaLiga teams during seven seasons.

The manuscript “applsci-2447640” shows great potential in its empirical application. In addition, the paper is adequate for the special edition entitled "Advances in Sports Performance Analysis and Applied Technologies". On the hand, some adjustments are needed to make it even stronger, as outlined below. The critical points presented in this review are intended to help you enhance the impact and clarity of your work. By addressing these points, you can make significant progress toward realizing the full potential of your research. I look forward to seeing the revisions you make to your manuscript.

 

1. Moderate editing of the English language is required for this paper. However, the primary focus should be on enhancing the text's intelligibility. In its current format, it is challenging to comprehend due to the use of complex contemporary academic English.

 

2. The inclusion of robust statistical analysis, accompanied by the presentation of results in multiple tables, has the potential to complicate the reader's analysis. This complexity becomes particularly apparent when the authors employ a technique that utilizes two distinct tonalities of colors within the cells. Although the intention is to emphasize the most significant findings and assist the reader in comprehension, this approach may inadvertently add to the overall intricacy of the presentation.

 

3. Please provide the names of the four official websites that were compared to the data collected on the LaLiga website.

3.1. In this context, what could be a possible explanation for the Kappa agreement not reaching 100%?

 

4. Some abbreviations, such as BIC and ICC, were not fully presented in the text. It would be helpful to provide their complete expansions for clarity and understanding.

 

5. What was the rationale behind selecting the Bonferroni post-test?

 

Finally, I congratulate the authors on their valuable work. The points raised will enhance the overall clarity and coherence of the manuscript and provide the reader with a comprehensive understanding of the study's outcomes. This will help strengthen the quality and credibility of the review.

Moderate editing of the English language is required for this paper. However, the primary focus should be on enhancing the text's intelligibility. In its current format, it is challenging to comprehend due to the use of complex contemporary academic English.

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude to reviewer 3 for the time spent in reviewing our manuscript and for providing us with helpful comments to improve manuscript quality. We have answered all concerns (all corrections were marked with change control).

A native translator has revised the manuscript.

--------------------

Reviewer’ note: Moderate editing of the English language is required for this paper. However, the primary focus should be on enhancing the text's intelligibility. In its current format, it is challenging to comprehend due to the use of complex contemporary academic English.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. A native translator has revised the manuscript.

--------------------

Reviewer’ note: The inclusion of robust statistical analysis, accompanied by the presentation of results in multiple tables, has the potential to complicate the reader's analysis. This complexity becomes particularly apparent when the authors employ a technique that utilizes two distinct tonalities of colors within the cells. Although the intention is to emphasize the most significant findings and assist the reader in comprehension, this approach may inadvertently add to the overall intricacy of the presentation.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. First, in the statistical analysis section, more information on the interpretation of the results obtained from the Mixed Linear Model has been inserted (Lines 146 to 150). On the other hand, we disagree with you, we believe that using two shades of color in the cells to highlight the most significant results will help the reader to understand them.

--------------------

Reviewer’ note: Please provide the names of the four official websites that were compared to the data collected on the LaLiga website.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. There is an error in the manuscript, which has been corrected (Lines 122 to 124). In this case, two websites were contrasted:

https://www.flashscore.es

https://optaplayerstats.statsperform.com/en_GB/soccer

--------------------

Reviewer’ note: In this context, what could be a possible explanation for the Kappa agreement not reaching 100%?

Authors’ response: Based on your question, one possible explanation could lie in some minor variation (or coding criterion) in the data reported by the three websites.

--------------------

Reviewer’ note: Some abbreviations, such as BIC and ICC, were not fully presented in the text. It would be helpful to provide their complete expansions for clarity and understanding.

Authors’ response: We agree with you. In relation to the Mixed Linear Model, all abbreviations in the text (lines 190 and 233), and in Tables 3 and 7 have been explained.

--------------------

Reviewer’ note: What was the rationale behind selecting the Bonferroni post-test?

Authors’ response: To answer your question, the Bonferroni Post Hoc was selected because the comparison groups did not have the same number of cases. The Bonferroni Post Hoc was performed after finding statistically significant results and we needed to determine where the differences actually came from. This method was used because it is based on Student's t-distribution and Bonferroni's inequality. It controls the error rate by dividing the significance level (a) by the number of comparisons (k) carried out. In addition, it is the statistical test provided by the Jamovi software.

Gallucci, M. GAMLj: General analyses for linear models [jamovi module]. 2019. Retrieved from https://gamlj.github.io/

The jamovi project. Jamovi (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. 2022. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org.

--------------------

Kind regards

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for introducing the corrections I requested. I believe that the current version of the article is suitable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations to the authors for the great work.

I have no further requests or comments.