## 2 Materials and Methods
### Assessment  
All the data-collection procedures and measuring tests were conducted on the practice facilities (basketball courts) of the two participating teams (Figure 2). Figure 2: Practice facilities and testing environment. For the height assessment, the participants stood tall barefoot, in a straight position, with their heels touching each other and their eyes looking straight forward to be at the same height with their ears. For the weight assessment, participants had to stand on the scale barefoot and keep steady until their weight was indicated on the scale. The BMI was calculated in accordance with the International System (SI) units with the following formula: Body Mass Index = weight (kg)/height\({}^{2}\) (m\({}^{2}\)), and depending on the result, each participant was categorized as a z-score in three categories: normal/overweight/obese [37; 38; 47]. After recording the anthropometric characteristics, an appropriate warm-up that consisted of basketball-related running drills and movements, lay ups, and shots for 10 min was suggested for the implementation of the dynamic tests. Prior to testing, 5 reflective markers were placed on each participant's dominant leg as reference points (Figure 3). The dominant leg was determined depending on the participant's answer on which leg he/she would use to kick a ball [43; 48]. The anatomical landmarks were the anterior superior iliac spine, the lateral and medial femoral condyle, and the lateral and medial malleolus [43; 48]. Before each test, athletes went through a familiarization process each having 3 trials on the CMJ and SLDJ tests. The CMJ was the test used for the prediction of LLMP. Each participant performed two jumps with a 1 min rest in between. The instructions given were to jump as high as possible and with the hands always on their waist to not be able to use them [49]. A trial was considered valid only if the participant did not lose balance or fall during the test and did not use arm swing [49]. For the prediction of the LLMP, an equation was used, utilizing the participant's jump height and weight [49]. The height of the best performing jump was picked after a 2D kinematic analysis of both trials. This equation showed the highest accuracy rates  
Figure 3: Guide points for placing the five reflective markers and the Frontal Plane Projection Angle (FPPA). and reliability (R = 0.93, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.87) in the existing literature. The equation used was as follows [49]:  
Power [W] = \(-1354.820\) + (jump height \(\times\) 35.455) + (body mass \(\times\) 43.942). For the SLDJ test, each participant stepped up and dropped off a 30 cm box and landed on their dominant leg, immediately performed a direct single leg jump as high as possible, and landed on the same leg again [43; 48]. The instructions given were to remain still on the final landing for at least 2 s [43; 48]. A trial was not considered valid only if the participant jumped instead of dropped off the box, if the non-supporting leg touched the floor throughout the test, and if he/she lost balance or fall on the final landing [43; 48]. For the calculation of the DKV angle, the first three valid trials were selected for the kinematic analysis. Two axes were conducted, with the first axis corresponding to the femur and was considered the line from the anterior superior iliac spine to the middle of the distance between the reflective markers on the knee. The second axis was corresponding to the tibia bone and started from the middle point of the distance between the two markers on the knee to the midpoint of the distance between the two markers on the ankle [43; 48]. The smaller the angle formed by the two axes, which will be referred as the Frontal Plane Projection Angle (FPPA), the bigger the DKV angle. The angle of DKV selected for analysis was when the knee showed the maximum FPPA after contact with the ground.