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