LATE RESEARCHES IN BASKETBALL by Dr. ‘Forrest C. Allen, “~" Director of Physical Education, Varsity Basketball Coach, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansase- (Presented to the Men's Athletic Section of the American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation at their national meeting in San Francisco, California, April 3-6, 1939.) For years the generally accepted method of choosing a team has been upon the judgment of the coach, reinforced by the performance of stellar players. who were outstanding in scoring field goals on the offense and by superior guards smothering the scoring cpposition. Many times a coach removes a player from the game merely on the coach's own judgments’ By the same token other players do not get an opportunity to play because this particular individual did not attract the coachts attention. Baseball has had its batting and fielding averages computed for years, thereby making it easy to weigh the ability of the dominant players in this sport. Using the same procedure in basketball, it is the opinion of the speaker ‘that g relative rating of basketball players can be hade We call this the “batting and fielding averages" because this terminology elicits the interest of these competing players on account of their previous experiences in baseballs Most every able-bodied boy in America has played either hard ball or soft ball. ~Lthink this is also true in basketball. The problem was to link up the inter- est of those boys and get them to enter into a schome that indicated their prowesses definitely in basketball as has been done in baseball. The development of a list of offensive cloments was the first stcpe With that idea in mind a list of offensive clements was made and cach activity or play was weighed subjectively. Tho weight of the item ws carcfully consider- ed ag it related to an important part of .ffonsive tactics and also insofar as it d@outeibutod to the execution of sound fundamentals ond to winning successe Of course, the objective was to stimulate the Icarncr to make as few mistakes as possible. Experience has shown that it is the repotition of mistakes that de= feats a player or a teams The same mistake made too many times always proves disastrous e Under the heading, "The Kansas Basketball Evaluation Study", is shown the positive items as opposed to the negative items, Every play of importance, both in the pesitive and the negative offensive study, has been weighed in evaluation points. The old kindergarten theory of a good reward for a good deed and a poor reward for a bad deed has been carricd oute In the above offensive study the data were collected by former varsity players well versed in the meaning of these evaluation points, by mature majors in the Department of Physical Education, and by some other woll qualified student assistants. Twelve men students wore used in the collection of facts, six fer mow each teame The men worked in pairs, one acting as a recorder and the other as an observer. One pair made a record of all the passes and catches, one pair mode a spot record of oll the shets taken by players' numbers, and the other pair ree cerded the remaining matoriale. Data were collected during all the home games on both the Kansas team and the visiting teamse The technique used in the collection of these data is the same as described in the first evaluation studye It will be observed that in the first year only the offensive evaluation chart was used. In the socond year of the study, 1938-'39, the evaluation tech= nique was extended to include a defensive rating systen'for both the team and the individual playerse A new term, "defensive efficiency", is used in the defensivo rating which is canparable to the first study on the offensive rating, You will please note that in Table III the term "defensive efficiency" is the result of the formula: - total positive defensive evaluation points sum of positive and negative defensive points We now have a form of study which incorporates the offcnsive and the defensive rating comparable to the batting and fielding averages in bascballe It is the convietion of the speaker that research of this type is worth whilee The accuracy of this study depends upon the efficiency of the recorderse As stated heretofore, the selcotions were carefully made and the same individuals performed their tasks in all games, Thorefore, there is evory reason to believe that the results were very nearly correct, The great benefit accruing to a coach from this type ef study is that the mistakes made during the game are pointed out, thus causing the players to be more conscious of theme This chart will enable the coach to link up the practice period value of executing proper fundamentals with matched game or competitive situationse For instance, we teach our players before recciving the ball when going. down the court never to got closer to the sideline than 8 feet because should that player fumble the ball when very near the sideline it will go out of bounds and the player will lose evaluations points; whereas the same ball thrown to him when he is within 8 feot of the sidcline can properly be recovered for no loss of evaluation points to the player and to the toame . Again, in our offensive set up we insist that our offensive players do not retreat tweward the division line nearer than 8 or 10 feet, because when the offensive team is forced back collectively by a defensive team, the player on the offensive team having the ball is in danger of getting "ticd up" if he were closer to the division line than 8 foot. Innumerable instances such as the two outlined above are always pre» senting themselves to the coach, enabling him to forcably teach better funda-— mentals to his protegese The coach can say « By overcoming certain self-evident faults you can increase your batting and fielding averagese And in the discussions that always follow when the players and their coach are huddled around the batting and fielding average chart in the dressing room the following day these abeve mentioned points always come out during the "bullfest". Further, it stresses the additional importance of game fundamentals and it also provides an itemized history of the contest which is intensely interesting to the players in the upper bracketsg It stimulates those in the lower brackets to better their fundamentals. And too, it makes it possible for & soach to select his men on a more accurate basiss His judgment is reinforced by the itemized history of the contests The speaker is indebted to Dr. Es Re Elbol and Dre Ve We Lapp, of the Departmont of Physical Education, for their aid in working out the rating of the basketball playerse To Drs Elbol for his invaluable assistance in an a dvisory capacity in weighing the offonsive and defensive cloments and in the careful seloction of the recorders, To Dr. Lapp for his painstaking work in compiling the statistics and presenting the results in readable forme Dre Lapp initiated the thought of writing to each player on the varsity squad, asking them to evaluate cach of their teammatos according to their individual playing efficiency. It is through Dr. Lapp's untiring devotion and indefatigable patience that this rescarch is possible.s PRT SOG PACE TT RPALL PLAYERS « THEIR BATTING AND FIELDING AVERAGES COMPU TED PLAYING SEASONS OF 1937@38 AND 1938-39 Dre Forrest Ce Allen Tvs Ba Re Elbel Dre Ve We Lapp Department of Physical Education, University of Kansas March, 1939.6 THE KANSAS BASKETBALL OFFENSIVE EVALUATION CHART This study was undertaken in an attempt to find a means of evaluating offensive basketball. For years the generally accepted method of evaluating a basketball team or an individual has been on the number of scores that were made by the team or by the player. The development of a list of offensive elements was the first step. With that idea in mind a list of offensive elements was made and each activity or play was weighed subjectively. The weight of the item was given due consideration concerning its importan¢e insofar as it contributed to the execution of sound fundamentals and to wirming success. Of course, the obs jective was the successful scoring of field goals or free thraws by the playere The items used in the evaluation chart and their weights are listed below: Ae Positive Items Weight in Evaluation Points le. Field goals LO 2, Free throws Se Immediate assists 4,.. Secondary assists 5.. Recovers ball off ieee backboard 6. Recovers ball off own backboard 7» Taps and recovers own jump ball 8. Recovers teammate's jump ball 9e Makes a good pass to a teammate 10¢ Catches a teammate's pass Hew wp oO Be Negative Items le Error of omission | 2e Held ball obtained by an opponent 36 Fumbles ball and it goes out of bounds &. Fumbles ball and it is obtained by oppénont 5¢ Taps ball out of bounds : 6e Wild pass out of bounds 7« Wild pass to an epponent. 8e Violation of rules 9. Personal offensive foul aooPpann yet In the use of the weighted items the algebraic sum of the positive and negative peints is computed. This sum for each gane represents the total effect~ iveness of the team or player. - For the purpose of illustration the Kansas chart of a conference game is shown in "Exhibit A" with team and individual points computede © The data were collected by student assistants, majors in the Department of Physical Educatione Twelve men students were used in the collection of facts, six for each teame. The men worked in pairs, one acting as a recorder and the other as an observers -One pair made a record of all the passes and catches, one pair made a spot record of all the shots taken by players' numbers, and the other pair recorded the remaining materiale Definition of Torms The terms used in the evaluation chart study are, for the most part, in common usage in the game of basketball ond need not be definede However, some of the terms have not usually been connected with saaiatcaadeaatanaaa and for this reason are defined... Ze 1. Immediate ossist, a pass ma de to a player who scores a field goal. 2e Secondary assist, the pass directly preceding an immediate assist. Se Error of omission, & mistake in judgment or observation, such as a failure to pass to a teammate who is in a better position for scorings 4. Held ball obteined by aon opponent, a player having complete control of the ball and by poor judgment or poor ‘Sechnique on his part an opponent is able to "tie him up" to such on extent thas an official calls a held ball. Se Toam cfficiency, toam positive ovaluation points team positive plus negative evaluation points 6. Player cfficiency, player's positive evaluation points a player's positive plus nogative evaluation points 7e Scoring ability index, number of goals times per cent of goals made plus one» half (free throws times per cent of free throws mado) 8. Ball handling error rate, ball handling errors 7 Good catches plus good passes plus ball handling errors Team Analysis By using the technique outlined, data were collected on the Kansas team during nine home games and on the opponents during the last three home gamoSe From this material comparisons were made on the Kansas team using the averages for the four non-conference games and for the five conference gamese In the last three home games, the Kansas team was compared with its opponentse Differont styles of basketball would undoubtedly yield a different average for the number of shots, passes, etc. The frequency of these occurrences are listed as follows: TABLE le Nine Game Averages i. Score: 42.47 points Ls Goals: attempted 61653 made 1625; %26 oF 3, Free throws: attempted 16; made 9656; %59e7 4. Porsonal fouls: 1002 Se Offensive personal fouls: .78 6« Violations: 3e7 7» Rebounds from ovm backboard: 2163 8. Rebounds from opponent's backboard: 22¢3 9. Passes and good catches: dS6led passes; 545 catchos 10. Wild passos: total 7.57; out of bounds, 2067; ‘to opponents, 429 lle Held balls: obtained by opponents, 3el 12. Fumbles: total 6.1; out of bounds, 3e1; to opponents, 3 154 Tapped ball: out of bounds, 1.3 14. Jump bail: tapped and recovered own jump ball, .22 15. Jump ball: recovers teammate's jump ball, 108 16. Assists: total, 24; immediate, 133; secondary, 11 17, Evaluation points: 1103.0 - 73.62 = 1029.8 points per game 18. Evaluation points per player por minute of play: 5614 points 19. Evaluation points per score: 24.1 points 20. Team efficiency: 95.8% It is interesting to note that there are 16.35 more passes than catchese If one adds the fumbles (641) and the wild passes (70¢57), the difference is al= most erasede When one considers the possibilitics for offensive mistakes, it would appear that tho negative evaluation points (7302) is relatively lowe Se In order to compare averages of the four noneconference home games and the five conference home gamés, the data are presented in outline form, TABLE IIe Four Non=Conference Games and Five Conference Games: le Score: noneconforence averago, 42 points conference avorage, 4562 points 2. Goals: noneconference average shots attempted, 68675; average mde, 16475; %24e4 conference average shots attempted, 55,8; average made, 1643 %29e4 3. Free throws: noneconference average shots attempted, 1400; averago made, 8e53%60e7 conference average shots attempted, 17.6; avorago made, 10043 75909 4, Personal fouls: non-conference average, 10¢5 conference average, 10.0 5, Offensive personal fouls: non-conference average, 25 conferenge average, lee 6, Violations: non-conference average, 3 conference average, 4e2 7. Rebounds from own backboard: nonsconference averngo, 2240 conference average, 20—6 8. Rebounds from opponont's backboard: noneeonference average, 1920 conference average, 25,0 9. @asses and good eatches: noneconfcroence passcs, 374.753 antehes, 364 conforonec passes, 3550.6; antehes, 33164 10, Wild passes: noneconferonce, 84; out of howds, 24753 to an opponent, 5475 eonforonce, 668; out of bounds, 2,6; to an opponont, 42 11. Held balls obtained by opponents: noneconforence, 2 : conference, 4 12. Fumbles: nonwconference, 66253 out of bounds, 3025; obtained by eppencnt, S conforenec, 6.0; out of bounds, 3.0; obtained by opponent, ‘3 13, Tapped ball out of bounds: noneconferonsc, 1e25- | conferonse, let 44. Tapped and recsovored own juwap ball: noneoonfevonec, 5 timos econfcrenee, no times 154 Reeovers tcamato's jump ball: nonweonferenve, 13,75 conference, 844 16, Assists; noneconforence, 25625; immediate, 15,5; scecondary, lle?$ confoyengae, 23203; immediate, 12.9; scyondary, 1004 4e 17. Evaluation points: none conference, 1152e753—- 69 = 1063.75 conference, 107962 = 7606 = 1002.6 — 18. Evaluation points per minute of play: nonsconference, 26.59 conference, 25407 19. Evaluations points per score: noneconference, 25.356 conference, 235422 20. Playing efficiency: non-conference, 94—5% conference, 934% 21. Ball handling error rate: noneconference, 22% conference, 205% It is interesting to note that the scores are almost identical and that the number of goals are about the same. However, in the conferonce games, the team took 13 less shots per games This means that the team's shooting average was cone | siderably better, being 29.4% for the conference games and 24.4% for the non-confer- ence gamese From the standpoint of ball handling, there were 24 more passes and 31 more catches per game in the nonsconference matches than in the conference gZAMCS » Both the playing efficiency and ball handling crror rate were poorer in the confer- ence games than in the noneconference gamcse It should also be noted that for each game point scored in the noneconfer-=— ence games, 20936 evaluation points (25.36 = 5) were carned by some other methods An analysis of the data shows that scoring a field goal plays oa relatively small’ part in scoring evaluation points, and that ball handling, recovery of rebounds, ctce must be considered to a larger extend. In the last three games data were obtained on both the Kansas team and its opponents, This ma terial is summarized in the following list. TABLE IIIs Conference Game Records Made by Kansas and Opponents: 1. Scores: Opponents, 102 Kansas, 139 2. Goals: Opponents took 184 shots, mde 39 goals; avorage %21.e2 Kansas took 165 shots, made 56 goals; average 7235 09 3. Free throws: Opponents took 44 shots, made 24; average 7545 Kansas took 42 shots, made 27, 0 _verage 7646 3 4. Personal fouls: Oppo nents, 36 Kansas, 27 5. Offensive personal fouls: Both teams mado 3 personal fouls while they had the ball and called offensive foulse 6. Violations: Opponents, 16 Kansas, 15 7s Rebounds off own backboard: Opponents recovered 45; Kansas recovered 70 De 8. Rebounds off opponent's backboard: Opponents recovered 40; Kansas recovered 78 9. Good passes and catches: Opponents, 607 good pa sses; 485 catches Kansas, 1043 good passes; 998 catches 10. Wild passes: Opponents, 20; 6 out of bounds, 14 to an opponent Kansas, 193 6 out of bounds, 13 to an opponent ll. Fumbles: Oppononts, 20; 9 out of bounds, 11 to an opponent Kansas, 20; 10 out of boumds, 10 to an opponent 12. Tapped ball out of bounds: Opponents, 4 timcs; Kansas, 4 times 13. Held balls: Opponents obtained 17; Kansas obtained 16 14. Jump ball: Opponents tapped and recovered own jump ball 1 tine Kansas tapped and recovered ow jump ball no timcs 15. Jump ball: Opponents recovered tcammate's jump ball 32 times Kansas recovered teammate's jump ball 235 times 16. Assists: Opponents made 54 assists; 29 immediate, 25 secondary Kansas made 82 assists; 46 immediate, 36 secondary 17. Evaluation points: Opponents, 1997 positives 244 negative Kansas, 3327 positive; 237 negative 18. Evaluation points per minute: Opponents, 1446 Kansas, 258 19. Evaluation points per score: Opponents, 14.6 Kansas, 2202 20. Playing efficicncy: Oppononts, 89.1% Kansas, 934% 21. Ball handling error rate: Opponents, 429% 7 Kansas, 26% (Totals are showne) In comparing the totals one can see that the opponents made more attempts at both field goals and frec throws than did the Kansas tcome Howevor, it should be noted that the home team scored more goals (56 for 3369/) than the opponents (39 goals for 21.62%). This same thing is true of tho free throws with Kansas making 27 frcoe throws for 64.3% and the opponents making 24 free throws for 545% When one examines the personal fouls Kansas made less (27) than the oppoe sition (36). However, the Kansas fouls yielded the greater number of free throws (44) to the visiting teams (42). It scoms that the Kansas personal fouls occurred more often when o man was in tho act of shooting than did the fouls of the opponontsy by the rate of 8 to 15,~ In this case the total is somewhat misleading, as the dis« crepancy occurred almost entirely in one game that Kansas won by 20 pointse The most outstanding difforence to be pointed out occurred in two places; in the recove ory of rebounds and in ball handlinge In the recovery of rebounds, one sees that the Kansas players recovered 70 rebounds off their own backboards, while the opponents recovered 45 off their backboardse The same ratio holds when one notes the rebounds of the opponent's be backboards = Kansas securing 78 while the visitors were collecting 40 reboundse The recovery of rebounds scems to be the most outstanding difference in the teamse The ball handling of the teams shows that Kansas caught and passed 2041 times and the opponents 1092 times. This difference could be entirely duc to various styles of playe However, when one considers the orrors in ball h&ndling, such as wild passes, fumbles and held balls obtained by opponents, we sec that Kansas mode 55 errors and the opponents made 57 orrors in ball handlinge While the number of errors remained about the same, it should be pointed out that the opponent's ball handling error rate (499%) was almost twice that of the home team (2.6%). In considering the total negative evaluation points, both Kansas and the opposition made about the same number of mistakes (237 for Kansas and 244 for the visitors). However, Kansas carned 3327 positive evaluation points as compared to 1997 positive evaluation points earned by the opponentse When these figures are re- duced to playing efficiency, we find that the home team has a playing efficiency of 9344% as compared with 891%. The data show that for each score point the visitors carncd 17.2 evaluation points and Kansas earned 22.62 evaluation pointse By doducting the 5 evalua tion points for each score point one secs that 1202 cvaluation points were carned as com pared with 17,2 for Kansas. While Kansas had the ball earning the extra cvaluation points it is certain that the opposition was not scoringe However, as pointed out previously, the various styles of play may effect the total number of evaluation points, but the style should not have a great deal of cffect on errors in ball hand-~ Linge In making direct comparisons between specific teams, a summary table made up from the cvaluation summaries shows much the same facts as the totals betwoon Kansas and the oppositione TABLE IVe Summary from Evaluation Chart: wf > -S om 2 ¢ we “ WY & = “i is 9 =} 2 | oa 3d | >, S Sh wEQS SE ow ov a a Oe ee ae ~ £as § We SB 7S SE LS » ee £2 bus SS es se @ * a Fe £32. te oo > Oa ik oS : SHE go eF- 8 Ue — = Vee WEE gs BWerry Kansas oo it O te 7. oe lO. Ue OC CS iz Sehool'A 33 12 26 @ &G. 1. 16 244 39°44 G14 oe ee eee ee eee | ee) Shook 3 SH 18 86 = € GO 6S Oe, HR Oe, 84 (YE Kanese =. 66 23 52 300 06 8llC( HO Cg COCO Behoo) C 86 12 WO 1 Gf «3S «(18 | BBS ek 20 (88,2 Te School A played the hane team fairly even on most of the comparisons exe cept that they could not hit the goal, making only 16% of their field goals, while Kansas was making 33% of their attempts. School B played the closest game from the score standpointe Their loss can be credited to a poorer shooting percentage than Kansas and possibly tho direct cause of the loss was Kansas' ability to recover the rebounds, the control of which gave them edditional chances to score and prevonted Team B from scoring during the added tim& that the hae team controlled the ball. School C excelled only in the number of free throws while Kansas had a 63% average in free throwing as canpared to a 51% averages Like the total table, this summary table shows that the fundamentals of the game - shooting, ball handling and rebound recovery = are necessary to offon» sive power and for winning gamese Individual Player Rating During the season a running tabulation was kept on each player who played in the home contests, showing the individual's performance in cach gamo and his total ondeavors for the season, (Sample record, Exhibit B.) Since the close of the season other items have been devised, such as ball handling error, playing efficiency, and scoring ability. These points do not appear on the original tabulation shocts. In rating an individual basketball player’s offensive ability, many points should be taken into consideration, and the mcthod as a whole needs some modifica. tion, depending upon the position played and the style of baskotball used. Natur- ally, the guards will recover more rebounds from the opponents? backboard than the forwardse It also follows that the forwards should recover more rebounds off their own backboard, and certainly the center or "quarterback" man will handle the ball more often than other offensive players. These general trends are apparent &S soon as one begins a n intensive study of the data gathered. The players have been listed (see Table V, Evaluation Point Totals) by the number of minutes played during the home gamese By a brief study of this table one can see that there is a high relationship between minutes played and the total number of cvaluation pointse The next column should have more mcaning in that points are considered in relationship to the total number of minutes played, The colwan on playing cfficiency was arrived at by the formula givon in the definition of terms (noe 6)e This rating is probably the most meaningful in the table, but it does not tell the complete storye Ball handling is the basis for offensive ability, ond for this roason a ball handling table has been tabulated (see Table VI). 8. TABLE V. Ratings Based on Evaluation Point Totals. Player Minutes * Evale Points Points per Player efficioncy Earned Minuto Percentage K 3200 2098 6.38 co ao B 266 1307 491 9202 C 263 6d 1300 40985 96 94 D 22145 1256 5667 94.9 E 14125 560 5096 9065 F iif 628 5437 94.1 G 100 460 4.60 9402 H 7405 344 4.62 930 I 7005 310 459 917 J 70.0 395 5 964 91.6 K 5995 297 4099 9403 L 5405 120 5048 84.5 M 2205 117 Deck 915 *Time as recorded by We Ae Dill, compiled by the Dill method of playing time re- cordinge TABLE Vie Ball Handling | Goal Shooting _ _... Passing and Catching : uy WY uv * ~S ¥ yy % = = = < .& ¥ * S a ~ - ~~. = » a _ << a _ c= = S Ss a & - “ = 1, © “ < = ~ = i. = -“— & ss & = 8 ay ™~ MS \ Sow 2 €e + > e wn : SW. c= ~ [> 6 6S.lU SUSU. US s && *% a oe 3 5 8s Sy Lo - ~ eo XN » = ~ gg & wy jj & ~ a = OQ eS & > hea w= pS a} A ¢é 1 <0 Sea 28 B9g02=—S—sédL:' e's 15 ‘Tett 2 B Ff, S 25 27 el 20 66 67 845 26 29 7 Gc ¢ 3 13 350d 5 71 et 1004 17 lef 3 » & 4 14 28.0 5 6265 961 18 1.8 4 ze Ff 6 10 3003 5 Tlet $72 18 46 Le rf 7 be. L7s9 8 57 el 341 T 200 5 & £,¢ °F 6." B00 2 5020 348 4, 113 i i: oe 5 13 3002 4 6667 166 a 6 ee 13 i = 8 7 Llet z 5500 192 8 440 a: a ¢€ 10 3 1667 aS 40.0 46 aa Sel 8 K «0 : 60 , 2 244 6 264 6 ££ @ 0 0 0 0 116 4 303 9 *guard, forward, center De In this tabulation of the percentage of goals made (see Table VI), one can see that player C and player M have both the same score, 33.5%. However, play- er C was the most valuable on the basis of other itemse Player A with 32.6% is undoubtedly more valuable than either. This method must be tempered with judgmente In order to arrive at an index number for rating scoring ability an arbitrary for- mula was used (see definition of terms, Noe 7)e This gives a rather high index number which when reduced to a one=twoethree basis rating gives a logical ordere Errors in ball handling include the total number of wild passes, fumbles, and held balls obtained by an opponent. In order to arrive at a ball handling error rate, the total number of passes and catches was assumed to be an accurate index as to the relative number of times chances for errors were presente By using the for= mula given in definition of terms, Noe 8, on index was established. The guards handled the ball more often than did the forwards, and the two players with tho low= est ball handling error rate (players A and G) arc guardse However, player G also played as a forward. The lowest error rate for a forward was 2,0 for player Fe In order to find further ratings for the purpose of analysis, the scores from the cvaluation chart were computed on a point por minute basis and a rating from 1 to 13 given the various players. The material in this chart (Table VII) is of walue wmtil one reaches the players with only 2 fow minutes of playing timcee Here the chart breaks dowm bocause those players did not perform 211 of the items mentioned, and aro rated too highlye This mtcrial is discussed somewhat in the summaries dealing with the individual playorse TABLE VIIe Rating on Activitics per Minute* < S : : _2 3 res = 3 2. #1 ta ® : in : iN :. a! , ' Sg : _ ¥ Zs wo Ue "in & & & ¥ Go tO ee a ee ae 8 e S38 SESS CS a oT 3 .™=S US 8 se, 8 wee £€ fn &, SN ee ae s Bei eeisin “th ss § & o § S . .9 SB » © eet Ge CBM YS SORE YY & | eo oe .. o£. 7 Ss S => © 8 8 €ttttutas 32 2 8 ES S ee £ 2 <¢ Lo SEsSs2 HF 5 wt x woud Woda LY HO GO LF S rc: + tees hl Ti _— © + st 8 f » €¢ © O86 8 8 8 8 7 = © 2+ © 38 8 ee € YY OH Ee 13 [ss Ff 4 €& ft So ¢« @€ 8 FF ewe st 9 9 > © 8 & 8 sf 6h 8& ee eS lf 4 ee ee ee & © 48 Oe tC 1 oe ££ & & 46 £4939 6B ww FT 2 12 s © 6 ££ i 2 © @ 8 £ ee 4 10 a wwmm Ss ? * © €e 4 8a 8 Ss 2 mew £ ¢ i ¢ © 3 06: 7 B&R 3 = «© 3 te we ‘-g08% ¢€ te * 2 8 - 8 48%6 2 | t2e« We wD we ae UF 6 > 6£ t«- th 2 @ eft m8 6+ te ie 5 - 6£© tf 6¢ uw 2 *A ranking of 1 is the best performances 10. TABLE VIII. Offensive Ability Rankings eS | Es = te | | | = a bt : | as >. Nm Ug > on Ss SOS ._ ee 2 zy ae \. s6- ‘ae . ~ yo 3.8 v “SN aX : a a ~uN s* § SS v s v4 gi SS S. ie le je WT Oly QA A g 4 a * L 2 1 B ¥,6 3 a 2 2 . 8 C g 2 3 o 3 5 2 D c “ 4 4, 4 S 3 E f 6 6 7 6 L2 12 F - 5 5 5 7 5 6 G £2 9 9 9 9 1 5 H f 10 12 11 5 13 7 I r 7 8 8 8 il 9 J : 8 7 6 10 8 10 K Bye 12 10 10 11 6 4 L g a 11 12 13 9 13 M = 13 13 13 le 10 11 xGuard, forward, contcre At the close of the season a letter was sent to the 16 letter mon of the varsity and the 17 numeral men on the freshman squade (Sample letter and rating blank, Exhibits C and De) These 33 boys were asked to rate the 13 varsity players on their offensive playing ability. The 1s players included in the study were ranked by 21 players and tho coach. On the tasis of offensive playing ability, these rankings plus other significant rankings from the evaluation data are shown in Table VIIIe ‘ of particular interest is the similarity of the rankings that wore given by the varsity, tho freshmen and the coach. Thoro are only 3 playors where the dis- agreoment is more than 2 rankings aparte All are wmAnimous on 5 playcrse It | should bo romombered that in spite of the apparont discrepancics between the judg- ment ratings and the computed ratings, tho latter are built up of isolated abili- tiose As pointed out earlicr, tho guards and conter have a better chance of moking a higher score in ball handling due to their positions and the style of basketball used in this schoole | No attempt was made in this study to give any of the players a composite ranking, but it should be noted that player A was a guard Imown nationally as on All-American playcre | On the basis of the individual cvaluation tables eortain facts are breught out that can best be shown in individual anolysese For that roason, the abilitics of the players are discussed as singlo unitse lle Summary of Individual Player Analysis Player Ae Guarde This playor was in 9 homo games for 328.5 minutes and had a player cfficiency rating ef 97.3%. Ue was the number one man in almost any way that hoe could be ratede He carncd 2098 evaluation points and 122 score pointse He made 47 goals (32.6%) and 28 free throws (59.6%) and had a ball handling error rate of 1.17%. In carning the high scorer position on the squad he made more passes than catchcsSe This is partly duc to his willingness to cooperate and to his position as a guarde There were three men on the squad that took more shots por minute of playing timo. Of these three men none had as good an average of made shotse During his long playing time he made only 13 personal fouls; two of his teammates with less playing time exeecded his total number of fouls and five teanmmtes made more fouls per min- ute of playing timc. He wis an excellent ball handlor, a dandy shot and a team player. The coach, his fellow players, the froshman squad, and tho statistics are in complete agreement on his offensive ability and listed him as the number one player on the squaide ee Playor Be Forward and Contore From the standpoint of timo, this playor played more minutes (266) than any other player except Player Ae Ho was also second high scorer, earning 66 points by making 23 goals (2721%) and 30 free throws (6627%)» From the standpoint of evalue ation points, he was also seeond carning 1307 points, and had a playing cfficiency of 9262%. In ball handling orrors ho rated 209%e Six of his teammates rated poor= er in this department. However, in spite of his errors in ball handling he made more passes at the opportunt time to players who scored than any other individuale Even on immediate assists per minute he rated second to only one other player, and this player played only 22.5 minutes during the scasone Thore were four men on the squad that took more shots per minutee He was the only forward on the team to make more passes than catches who played more than 22.5 minutes. He had only 8 personal fouls and fas the only player with over 200 playing minutos to havo so few foulse He was rated third by his follow players, and second by his coach and the freshmen playerse Player Ce Guarde Player C played 263.5 minutos, earning 1300 ovaluation points and 31 seore points, scoring 13 goals (3303%) and 5 free throws (71e4%)~e He handled the ball on passes and catches 1004 times which is the second greatest nimber on the squad and had a ball handling error rato of 1.7% which is next to that of players A and Ge This player took a total of 39 shots and this is the smallest number of shots for any of the players that had over 200 minutes of playing timoe As a guard he was in position to recover rebounds fron off the oppenont's backboarde He rem covered 48 times, as compared to Playor Ats 50 times, and on a basis of recoverios per minute of playing time he is the leader for the teame This player mssed tho ball 128 timcs more than he caught ite On the basis of the data gathered this player is a good ball passor and rebound recoverer, which is a great assot to tho teame On ball handling he has a very low pereontage of errors and has a playing efficiency of 96.64% which makes him the number two man on tho squade His tcane mates rated him second on offensive ability, and his coach and the froshnen rated him third. 12. Player De Centcre Player D was the fourth man on the squad to play over 200 minutes with a total time of 221.5 minutes. He carned 33 score points and 1256 cvaluation points, which was fourth high for the squade While playing he scored 14 goals (#8%) and made 5 free throws (62.5%). In ball handling crrors he had a low score of 1.9% and was one of the four men to score less thon 2% crrors. His all around playing offi- ciency wos 94.9%, which was also fourth for the squade As far as ball handling was concerned, he was third in the total number of passes and eatchese He ma de 17 moro passes than catches. There were only four men on the squad that took fewer shots per minute. The data show that this player handled the ball many times for a low error rate of 1e870. He was second on the squad in evaluation points per minute and that shows he did not shoot too oftene On ploying efficiency hewas the best center on the squad, and the players, the coaeh and the freshmen all rated him as the number four mone Player Ee Forwards This player was a forward and had 141e5 minutes of playing time to his ercdite He earned 560 cvaluation points and 25 score points, He scored 10 goals (303%) and made 5 free throws (71.4%). In ball handling he had an orror rate of 4.6 which wes second highest on the squad. From the standpoint of player cffieicncy he ws 12the There was only one other player on the squad that had a lower rate of personal foulse Playor E played 141,5 minutes or over 35 games of 40 minutes cach ond made only 3 personal fouls, He is the first player in the list to catch the ball more than he passed it by 4 catches. He also is the first man on the list to be listed as a forward onlye Player B played both forward and center during the season. It. scoms to be a characteristic of the forward position to demand more catching than passinge The data indicate a low personal foul rate, a poor efficiency rating as compared to the players who played 200 minutes and an error rate in ball handling 4 times as high as that of players A and G He wos rated as sixth by his fellow players and the freshmen, and seventh by the coache Player F, Forwarde This player was listed as a forward «nd he played 117 minutes, making 12 goals (17,9%), and 8 free throws (57.1%). He carmed 628 evalwtion points and 32 score points. On the player officioncy chart he rated 6th with a percentage of 94ele His rate of crror in tmll handling was 2.070, which placed him in fifth place. Like the preceding player, he had more catches than passes in ball handlinge Only one other player (H) had more attempted shots per minute of play and only two squad menbers made a smaller percentage of their shotse On balls recovered off his own backboard he rates as the number one man, This is also truc for the recovory of his tcan- mate's jump ballse On the basis of personal fouls por minute, this player ranked 12 th for the squad, only two maling more than he did, The data indicate that the player was fairly efficient, but that his shooting average was far too lowe He makes a first class man on handling rebounds off his oim backboard anf getting the ball after a teammato'’s jump, but he committee too many personal fouls, His tcan- mates, freshmen ond coach rated hin fifthe Player G. Forward and Grarde This playor was listed as both a forward and a guard. He played 100 minutes, made 460 evaluation points and 10 score points, 4 goals (200%), and shot 2 frec throws for 500% Hc carned a rating on player efficiency of 94.2%, which places 136 him in 5th place for the squad. In errors for ball handling, he rated first with a rate of 1.13%. As a guard he had an opportunity to recover rebounds off the opponent's backboard to such an extent that he rated Noe 2 for the squad on a basis of rebounds per minutee He passed the ball more than he caught it, and on the basis of shots por minute there are only 3 players who took less shots, This player is 12th on the basis of personal fouls canmitted per minute. The data indicate that he was an excellent ball ha ndler, and a good robound recoverer, but he did not shoot enoughe On the basis of officiency his coach, teammates and freshmen rated him ninthe Player He Forwarde Pla yer H was a forward with 74.5 minutes of playing time to his credit. He carned 344 evaluation points and 30 score points, made 13 baskets (30.2%) and 4 free throws (66.7%) This player also had the highest number of shots attempted per minute of play. On the ba&is of player oefficioncy he rated 93.0%. But on his ball handling ability he had an error rating of 6.2%, or 5 times that of players A and Ge He was the 8th player on the basis of time played and he ranked 8th on the basis of personal foulse Whon it came to passing and catching the ball, he mado 22 more catches than passese This player was a good scorer but ho shot more than any other player per minute of pla ye He made too many errors in boll handling and in this departmont he ranked 135th. He ranked 7th on his playing cfficioncy, and the players rated him 10th, the coach lith, .and the freshmen 12th. Player I, Forwarde ‘ Player I was in the games for 70,5 minutes as a forward. He earned 395 eval~ vation points and 16 score points, and made 7 goals for 212% and threw 2 fouls for 33e3%.e On the basis of personal fouls per minute he was number one man with less than any other mombor of the squad. He had a ball handling error rating of 420% ond a playing efficiency of 91.7% As a forward he recovered enough balls from the opponent's backboard per minute to rank as the Noe 2 man of the squide He also was the Noe 3 man in recovering the ball off his own backboard, and he ranked 3rd on the basis of total recoveries per minutes In the amount of playing time this player ranked 9th and on the basis of playing efficieney he also ranked 9the Like the other forwards, he also caught the ball more than he passed it and ranked 3rd in the attempted goals per minute of playing times This player was good at recovering re- bounds, not too good a shot, and among the 3 players to have an error rating over 4%, He did not camit many personal foulse He was rated 7th by the players, and 8th by the coach and freshmene Player Je Forwarde This man had a playing time of 40 minutese During this time he made 8 score points, 3 goals (16.7%), 2 free throws (40%), and earned 395 evaluation pointse His error rating in ball handling was 3.1% and his playing efficioncy rated at 916%. He was 10th in the amount of time in home games and ranked 10th in playing efficiency. As a forward he recovered the ball off his own backboard to rank 3rd on the per min» ute basis, and caught the ball more than he passed ite As a forword he was not a good shot as only one boy on the squad had a lower rank and the player who was lower did not make a basket in his five attemptse He was ranked 8th by his tearmates, 6th by the coach and 7th by the freshnens 146 Player Ke Guard and Conter. With a playing time of 59.5 minutes this playcr made 297 evaluation points, 5 score points, 2 goals (25%) and 1 free throw (50%). His crror rate in ball handling was 24% and of the 5 players with a bettcr rating 3 were guards, one was a forward, and one was a center. His playing officioncy was 74.3, and of the three players who ranked better than he, two were guards and one was a center. In re« bounds off the opponent's backboard, he rated llth and in goals per minute he ranked l2the This player had some excellent mon to compete with and on a team without an alleAmerican guard he might have had more opportunity to plays Like the other guards and centers, he passed more than he eaught the ball. On rebounds off his own backboard per minute he ranked 8th and he ranked 6th on the recovery per minute of a teammate's jump balle The data indicate that this player was a good ball handler and an efficient player, but that he did not shoot enough in proportion to his playing timce He was rated 12th by his tearmates, and 10th by the coach and freshmene , Player Le Guarde This boy had a total time of 34.5 minutes, 120 evaluation points, and no score pointse He is the only player of the 13 in the study that did not score during the home seasone Ho attempted 5 goals and 2 free throwse His error rate in ball handl- ing was 3.3% and this was better than four of his tearmates who played longere From the standpoint of playing efficiency he made a score of 84.5%, the lowest on the squade The point most in favor of this boy was his rank in free throws attempted per minute (not mking any) in which he was tied with Player J for Srd placee This player ranked the lowest of the guards and was the only one to catch the ball more than he passed ite He was rated llth by the varsity and freshnen, and 12th by the coache Player Me Forward. This player ranked 13th in minutes of play (22.5), earned 11% ovalusation points and 4 score pointse He made one goal (33.63%) and 2 free throws (6647%)e: He ranked 10th both in player efficioney (915%) and in orror rate 364%« He had the highest rate of personal fouls por minute of any of the 13 boyse This player had a very definite height disadvantage as he tas by far tie shortest man on the squad and can be considered small in stature even in comparison with boys not play~ ing college basketball. He was rankod 13th by all his fellow players and 13th by his coaches The summarics have been presented and discussed in the body of the paper. In addition, some general conclusions secm to be warranted: le The study is of voluc in that a record was made of the number of times various activities are performed in college basketball. 2~ An accurate record of the offensive abilities of players was made available, independent of the score booke 3. By examination of the material after a game a coach can sce which menwre pore forming their duties and which fundamentals need oxtra worke 4. Tho players have a definite intcrest in the charts and vateh their improvement in deficient abiliticse 5, There renains ample roo for additional studicse 15 Exhibit A =~ © e aa rey a - om €¢ — 8 & ae 9 ; £ rs oS. “= 4 oO Gola Ebti cy HITS Hon Eval. - c Ha Vea Weds “Lor Kr i Xea. 4} Durand Noe of player “Nes oO ne playe oO e O r Goals attempted Goals made of Goals made Free throws att. Free throws made oO ows Persona s al Eval. Fe Te Evole ptse Immediate assists Secon assists Bail of backboard as . eo Ball off own back- board Ta & rece own ball Recovers own tean= tes jum Good sscs Good catches Total Noe possible Evaluation ints Error of omission e O by o ent Fumbles and gocs out~-of~-bounds Fumbles and obe tained OPPe Taps ball oute of-bounds Wild pass out-of Wild pass to o Violation Fouls Offensive Evaluation ptse Total Negative 4 o ab 3 ~ oO e “ ~~. s “ “ p XY a a ¢ yn \. to ty — = 2 + - % % ‘s t 2 <= < 3 § yp Wh Q ~~ wv < A x 3 x = < > 1. -. te f é —, ° e Ptse Assists Assists Secon 0 Ss Cc Ball off own back. board ps-