le

In the 1938=39 study the evaluation teehnique has been extended to in-
clude a defensive rating system for both the team and the individual player. The
itoms and their cvaluation woights, as used in this study, are shown in Table Ie

Data were collected during all the home games on both the Kansas team
and the visiting teams. The teehnique used in the collection of these data is the
same as described in the first evaluation studye

In the 1937=38 scason nine home games were played, and this soason eight
home games were played, thus making a total of 17 games on which averages of certain
activities were availablee These averages are shown in Table IIIe The 17-game
averages seem to be reliable as there was no great variation in the figures computed
for the two seasons, The team this yoar took more shots than did last season's
team, but averaged one less goal per gamce The number of free throws awarded in
both seasons was practicall y identical, but the mumber made was slightly reduced
this seasone

This year the total number of positive offensive evaluation points is
lower than last ycarts total, This is duc to two roasons, First, theroc wis a
change in the technique of tabulating immediate assists. In last year's study credit
was given the players for both passes and catches, which gave them double credit in
evaluation points. In this year's study a player receives evaluation points only
oncee The second reason for the lower total is that the recovery of rebounds off
the opponent's backboard was computed with the defensive play instead of offensive
play, as was the case in last year's studye

The drop in negative offensive evaluation points indicates that the
team made fewer mistakes during this season than last seasone It is possible that
the team summary posted in the team dressing room the day following each game made
the individual players more conscious of their mistakes with the end result that
fewer were madée

The defensive evaluation yoints as shown in Table I do not accumulate
as rapidly as do the offensive pointse However, this is not true of the negative
defensive pointse During the season the negative defensive points were accunulated
almost exactly twice as fast as were the negative offensive pointse The penalty
for fouling should be high because if a player committed a foul he inmediately gave
the opponents a chance to make 5 or 10 positive offensive pointse In games where
a player was forced out by fouls his total negative points cxcceded his positive
pointse

The team summaries (sce Table IV) were made from the data gathered
during the last hone seasone Kansas did not lose a home contest this season and
lost only one last seasons Because no data were available on the opposition at
the time of the loss it is not possible to show the effect of losing ® game on the
statistics gathered. Due to its style of play, Kansas does more passing than most
teamse This is well shown wider total passes and catches, Table III. fHven in a
loss it is possible Kansas would show a higher evaluation point total due to the
factor just mentioned. It would be interesting to collect data for games played
away from homee However, this has been considered impractical to datee

Included in the tean summary, Table ITI, a new term (defensive cffi-
ciency) is listed. This term is the result of the formula: cc

total positive defensive evaluation points
sum of positive and negative defensive points