LAMARWAY DRYING PATENT PENDING for FOOTBALL AND BASEBALL EQUIPMENT THE LAMARWAY DRYING HANGER Construction Features THE LAMARWAY DryING HANGER is of steel construction throughout, for sturdy, hard usage. A heavy coat of black enamel makes the hanger rust-resisting. O perating Features THE LAMARWAY DRYING HANGER is easy to use. It takes less than one minute to hang a complete football or baseball suit. PANTS are suspended upside down, flared as though blown up. This method of hanging permits air to circulate throughout the garment, drying quickly and thoroughly. SHOULDER Paps rest securely on top of the LAMARWAY DRYING HANGER which insures the best ventilation for quick dry- ing. JERSEYS, SWEATSHIRTS, SUPPORTERS, SOX and HEADGEARS may be hung on the sides of the LAMARWAY DRYING HANG- ER by means of hooks especially con- structed on the hanger for this purpose. Methods of Hanging Only a few lengths of pipe are required to suspend the hangers. NUMBERS can be stenciled on the hangers to correspond with any NUMERICAL arrangement worked out by the Sports Manager. Each LAMARWAY DRYING HANGER is also equipped with an individual slot into which an IDENTIFICATION CarD can be inserted. Time Saving EQUIPMENT MANAGERS can quickly change the LAMARWaAY DRYING HANG- ERS from practice to playing equipment before a game. No time is lost in getting the equipment because it is all together ‘on one hanger. Send Your Order in Before June 15th for Fall Delivery Specify Delivery Date Photo shows Coach Alonzo Stagg, America’s Dean of Football, inspecting the LAMARWAY DRYING HANGER, together with Emil Lamar, inventor, and Herb Dana. “The Lamarway Dryin g Han ger seems to me an excellent device from a sani- tary and health stand point to use for drying football suits.” (Signed) AMOS ALONZO STAGG - ATLAST 7 A DRYING HANGER FOR FOOTBALL AND BASEBALL EQUIPMENT THE LAMARWAY DRYING HANGER A SANITARY METHOD OF HANGING AND DRYING .. . players receive dry equipment daily. soggy uniforms. 2 PREVENTS INFECTIONS . . . no damp, ELIMINATES WARPED THIGH PADS . . . preventing bad ‘“‘Charley-horses.” longs the life of football or baseball uni- forms. — 4 A REAL EQUIPMENT SAVER .. . pro- ‘30 PER SET OF ONE DOZEN F.O.B. Oakland, California w SOLD EXCLUSIVELY BY THE LAMARWAY, INC. 519 Central Bank Building OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA Sixth Annual. Convention of the Central District Physical Education Association SIOUX CITY, IOWA, MARCH 29, 30, 31, APRIL 1, 1939 Headquarters --- Hotel Martin CONDENSED PROGRAM WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 1939 8:30 A.M. Registration 9:00 A.M. Visiting Schools 4:00 P.M. Women’s Athletic Section 8:00 OPENING GENERAL SESSION Presiding: Alfred O. Anderson, St. Louis Honorable David A. Loepp, Mayor of Sioux City L. W. Feik, Superintendent of Schools Elizabeth Halsey, President, Central District 9:00 P. M. Reception and Dancing THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1939 7:30 A.M. City Directors’ Breakfast Meeting P. E. Mickelson, Fargo, Chairman 9:00-10:15 A.M. Section Meetings Health Chairman: Dr. Malvin J. Nydahl, Minneapolis Dr. M. J. Shapiro, Minneapolis Dr. Roy E. Crowder, Sioux City Recreation Chairman: Clarence A. Nelson, Litchfield Dr. Edwin L. Haislet, Minneapolis Ferdinand A. Bahr, Sioux City Christine A. Me Phearson, Minneapolis Teacher Training Chairman: Monica, Wild, Iowa State Teachers College 10:15-12:15 A.M. GENERAL SESSION Presiding: Willard N. Greim, Denver “What Direction Physical Educaticn’, Forum Gertrude Baker, Minneapolis Laurentine Collins, Detroit C. H. MeCloy, Iowa City J. B. Nash, New York City 12:15 P. M. Reunion Luncheons 2:00-4:00 P. M. Section Meetings Camping Men’s Physical Education and Athletics Chairman: Paul F. Bender, Iowa State Teachers College Panel Discussion; Problems in Athletics Leader: George F. Veenker, Iowa State College Public Schools Chairman: Hugo Fischer, Minneapolis Group Discussion; : Leader; Thomas Pfaender, New Ulm, Minn. Research Chairman: Dr. V. W. Lapp, Lawrence, Kansas Ralph A. Piper, Minneapolis Donald D. Gates, Fargo Alieen Carpenter, Kansas City Dr. W. W. Tuttle, Iowa City L. E. Moorhouse, Iowa City James H. Raport, Lawrence, Kansas Dr. E. R. Elbell, Lawrence, Kansas Dr. C. R. Green, Kirksville, Mo. Ralph Ballin, St. Louis Ray Singer, St. Louis Therapeutics Chairman: Loraine Frost, Iowa City Dr. W. R. Hamsa, Omaha Mary A. Ross, Kansas City Women’s Athletics Chairman: Edna Willis, Boulder Demonstration Meeting 4:00 P. M. Dance Chairman: Janet Cumming, Iowa City Lecture-Demonstration: Doris Humphrey and Group Western Workshop Group of the Progressive Associa- tion Report Leader: Laurentine Collins, Detroit 7:00 P.M. BANQUET Presiding: District Toastmaster: J- I. Godfring, Sioux City Speaker: Harold Benjamin, Boulder, Colorado Elizabeth Halsey, President Central FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 1939 9:00-10:30 A. M. Section Meetings Dance Chairman: Janet Cumming, Iowa City Dorothy Falk, Minneapolis Gertrude Baker, Minneapolis Health and Therapeutics Speaker: Dr. Maud Slye, University of Chicago Recreation and Men’s Athletics Chairman: Clarence Nelson, Litchfield Dr. Carl Nordly, Minneapolis Ferdinand Bahr, Sioux City Ralph A. Piper, Minneapolis Paul F. Bender, Iowa 10:30-12:15 A. M. GENERAL SESSION SPECIAL INTEREST FOR THE UNSPECIALIZED TEACHER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION Presiding: Mabel Lee, Lincoln Jessie Parker, Des Moines Dr. Knute O. Broady, Lincoln 12:15 P. M. STATE LUNCHEONS Presiding: Clare Small, Boulder 2:00 P. M. Section Meetings Rural Schools ' Chairman: Arthur L. Lampe, St. Louis County, Minn. Public Schools (PLANNED FOR THE CLASSROOM TEACHER) Chairman: Hugo Fiseher, Minneapolis Jane Harris, Sioux City Harold Benjamin, Boulder Women’s Athletics (PLANNED FOR THE UNSPECIALIZED TEACHER) Chairman: Edna Willis, Boulder Girls’ physical education problems discussed Men’s Physical Education and Athletics. Chairman: Paul Bender, Iowa State Teachers College Boys’ Physical Education Problems Discussed (PROGRAM PLANNED FOR THE UNSPECIALIZED TEACHER) Martin Brandes, Sac City Clarence Nelson, Litchfield Fred Cameron, Vinton Teacher Training Chairman: Monica Wild, Icwa State Teachers College Research Chairman: Dr. V. W. Lapp, Lawrence, Kansas J. K. Kennedy, Kansas City Florence Hinton, Wichita Ralph A. Piper, Minneapolis Dr. Forrest C. Allen, Lawrence, Kansas James D. Kenny, St. Louis Dr. C. H. McCloy, Iowa City Les L. Warren, Kansas City 3:30 P. M. Demonstration, Chairman: Doris White, Iowa State Teachers College (PLANNED FOR THE UNSPECIALIZED TEACHER) 6:30 P. M. City Directors Dinner Meeting Chairman: P. E.Mickelson, Fargo 8:00 P. M. Humphrey-Weidman Dance Recital White Horse Mounted Patrol, Courtesy of Sioux City Shrine SATURDAY, APRIL 1, 1939 9:00 A- M. GENERAL SESSION Presiding: Elizabeth Halsey, President Central District Dr. Maud Slye, University of Chicago Dr. Geo. D. Stoddard, University of Iowa 10:30 A. M. General Session for Students Topic for discussion, “Are We Ready to Teach?” REGISTRATION Register upon arrival and secure detailed printed program Registration Fees: Members A.A-H.P.E. and R. $1.00 Non-members 2.00 Students 50 Teachers of other subjects 1.00 Single admission 50 President Elizabeth Halsey Secretary-Treasurer J. H. Morrison President-elect Willard N. Greim Past President Alfred O. Anderson Vice President Gertrude Baker Member-at-Large P. E. Mickelson RESEARCH SECTION Thursday, March 30, 1959 2 $ OO PeMe Chairman: Dre Ve We Lapp, Asst. Professor, Department of Physical Education, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KansaSe Summarizer: Mre Ralph A. Piper, Asst. Professor, Depart- ment of Physical Education, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. ce iw ae «ow a ae ne wee ere ir eer ni rr lO rr er OC ere hlUc rc rr oO re US eS FB OT er U.S hh ShUme le TESTS OF CHANGE OF DIRECTION AS MEASUREMENTS OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF MOTOR ABILITY. Donald De Gates, Instructor of Physical Education, Horace Mann Junior High School, Fargo, North Dakotas 2. TESTS OF MOTOR EDUCABILITY FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD GRADES. Aileen Carpenter, Instructor ef Physical Education, Teacher's College of Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri. 3. THE RESPONSE’ OF THE HEART TO VARIOUS TYPES OF EXERCISE. Dre We We Tuttle or Le Es Morehouse, Department of Physiol- ogy, College of Medicine, State University of Iowa, Lowa City, Iow.. 4, THE RECREATIONAL METHOD OF TEACHING. James He Raport, Instructor, Department of Physical Education, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansase 5. A FURTHER STUDY OF DIURNAL VARIATION IN REACTION TIME. Drse Ee Re Elbel and V. We. Lapp, Asst. Professors, Department of Physical Education, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansase 6. POSTURE IN A NEW LIGHT. Dr. C. Re Green, Northeast Missouri State Teachers College, Kirksville, Missouri. 7. TIME ELEMENT IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PHYSICAL EDUCATION. Ralph Ballin and Ray B. Singer, Instructors of Physical. Education, St. Louis Public Schools, Ste Louis, Missouri. HATING BAGESSCRALS PLAYERS so ESL R SBATTIAISG ARD FPITBLOtHS AVERAGES COMPUT ED PLAYING SEASONS OF 1937=38 AND 1938-39 Dre Forrest Ce Allen Dre Be Re Elbel Dre Ve We Lapp Department of Physical Education, University of Kansas March, 1939. 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 importance insofar as it contributed to the execution of sound fundamentals and to winning success. Of course, the obe 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 10 2 Free throws Se Immediate assists 4, Secondary assists 5e Recovers ball off opponent's backboard 6. Recovers ball off own backboard 72 Taps and recovers own jump ball 8. Recovers teammate's jump ball 9. Makes a good pass to a teammate 10. Catches a teammate's pass RPrREFRN ON A PO Be Negative Items 1. Error of omission _@@ Held ball obtained by an opponent 3» Fumbles ball and it goes out of bounds &» Fumbles ball ond it is obtained by — 5e Taps ball out of bounds 62 Wild pass out of bounds 7e Wild pass to an #pponent 8e Violation of rules 9- Personal offensive foul omPann ve EH In the use of the weighted items the algebraic sum of the positive and negative péints is computed, This sum for each game represents the total effect iveness of the team or players For the purpose of illustration the Kansas chart of a conference game is shown in “Exhibit A" with team and individual points computeds The data were collected by student assistants, majors in the Department of Physical Education, Twelve men students were used in the collection of facts, six for each team. The men worked in pairs, one acting as 4 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 Terms The terms used in the evaluation chart study are, for the most part, in common usage in the game of baskotball and need not be defined, However, some of the terms have not usually been connected. with basketball and for this reason are definede Ce 1. Immodiate assist, a pass ma de to a playor who scores a field goale 2. Secondary assist, the pass directly preecding an immediate assist. 3. Brror of omission, 2 mistake in judgment or observation, such as a failure to pass to a tearmate who is in a better position for scoring» 4. Held ball obtained by an opponent, a playor having complete control of the ball and by poor judgment or poor technique on his part an opponent is able to "tie him up" to such an extent thas an official calls a heid ball. 5e Team efficiency, team positive ovaiuation points team positive plus negative evaluation points 6. Player efficiency, player's positive ovaluation points be player's positive pilus nogative evaluation points 7e Scoring ability index, number of goals times por cont of goals made plus one= half (free throws times per cont of free throws mado) 8. Ball hondling error rate, ball handling errors good catches plus good passes plus ball handling errors Team Analysis By using the technique outlined, data were collected on the Kansas tcam 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 fivo conference gamese In the last three home games, the Kansas team was compared with its opponentse Different styles of basketball would umdoubtedly yield a different average for the number of shots, passes, ctce The frequency of these occurrences are listed as follows: TABLE le Nine Game Averages le Scores 4257 points 2. Goals: attompted 61.5; made 16.5; %26e9 3e Free throws: attempted 16; made 9056; %59e7 4. Personal fouls: 1042 5e Offensive personal fouls: .78 6. Violations: 3 of 7 Rebounds from own backboard: 2145 8. Rebounds from opponent's backboard: 2265 9. Passes and good catches: 361.65 passes; 345 eatchos 10. Wild passos: total 7.57; out of bounds, 267; to opponents, 49 lle Held balis: obtained by opponents, 3el 12. Fumbles: total 6.1; out of bounds, 3el; to opponents, 3 13- Tapped ball: out of bounds, led 14. Jump ball: tapped and recovered ovm jump ball, 22 15. Juap ball: recovers teammateo's jump ball, 10.8 16. Assists: total, 24; immediate, 13; secondary, ll 17. Evaluation points: 1103.0 - 7352 = 1029.8 points per game 18. Evaluation points per player per minute of play: 5.14 points 19. Evaluation points per score: 24.1 points 20. Team cfficioncy: 95.8% It is interesting to note that there are 16.3 more passes than catchese If one adds the fumbles (6.1) and the wild passes (7e57), the difference is al~ most erasede When one considers the possibilitics for offensive mistakes, it would appear that the negative evaluation points (732) is relatively lowe Se In order to compare averages of the four noneconfcronee home games and the five conference home games, the data are presented in outline form, TABLE II. Four Non-Conference Games and Five Conference Games: le Score: noneconforence average, 42 points conference averages 43.2 points 2. Goals: mnon=conference average shots attempted, 68275; average made, 16.75; %244 conference gvorage shots attempted, 55.8; average made, 1664; %2944 Se Free throws: non-conference average shots attenpted, 14.0; average made, 8e53;%60e7 conference average shots attempted, 176; average made, 10.43 %59.9 4, Personal fouls: non-confcrence average, 1025 conference average, 10.0 5. Offensive personal fouls: noneconfcrence average, e25 conference average, 12 8» Violations: non-conference average, 3 conference average, 402 7e Rebounds from own backboard: non=conforence average, 22.0 conference average, 2096 8. Rebounds from opponont's backboard; noneeonfercnees average, 190 conference average, 25,0 9. Basses and good eatches: noneconfocrence passcs, 374-75; atehes, 366. conferonee passes, 550,63 ontehes, 33144 . 10. Wild passos: noneconfcronce, 895; out of boumds, 2475; to an opponent, 5e75 eonfcoronce, 668; out of bounds, 2,6; to an opponont, 402 11. Held balls obtained by opponents: noneconference, 2 | conference, 4 12. Fumbles: noneconference, 60253 out of bounds, 325; obtained by oppenent, 5 . conPercnec, 6.0; out of bounds, 3.0; obtained by opponent, ‘3 136 Tapped ball out of bounds; noneconferonec, 1e25- conferonec, 1.4 14. Tapped and rocovored own juap ball: non-nonferonec, 25 timos eonference, no times 15. Reeovers tcamato's jump ball; nonesouferenve, 13275. : conference, 84 16, Assists; noneconference, 25428; immediate, 15.5; sccondary, lLs?78 conforenae, 23.0; irmediate, 12.63; acgondary, 10e4 4e 17. Evaluation points: non-conference, 1132¢6753;=- 69 m= 1063.75 conference, 107962 = 7606 = 1002.46 18. Evaluation points per minute of play: non-conference, 26.59 conference, 25.07 19. Evaluations points per score: non-conference, 25.36 conference, 23422 20. Playing efficiency: non«conference, 943% conference, 934% 21. Ball handling error rate: non=conference, 22% conference, 25% It is interesting to note that the scores arc almost identical and that the number of goals are about the samee However, in the conference games, the team took 13 less shots por gamee This means that the team's shooting average was cone siderably bettor, being 29.4% for the conference games and 2464% for the non-confer- ence gamese From the standpoint of ball handling, there were 24 more passes and 51 more catches per game in the noneconference matches than in the conference gamose Both the playing efficiency and ball handling orror 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, 20.36 cvaluation points (25.36 = 5) were carned by some other methods An analysis of the data shows that scoring a field goal plays a 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 IIT. Conference Game Records Made by Kansas and Opponents: 1. Scores: Opponents, 102 Kansas, 139 2. Goals: Opponents took 184 shots, mde 39 goals; average %2le2 Kansas took 165 shots, made 56 goals; average %33 9 3e Free throws: Opponents took 44 shots, made 243; average %545 Kansas took 42 shots, mado 27, a verage %64e3 4. Personal fouls: Oppo nents, 56 Kansas, 27 5. Offensive personal fouls: Both teams made 3 personal fouls while they had the ball and called offensive foulse 6. Violations: Opponents, 16 Kansas, 15 7» Rebounds off own backboard: Opponents recovered 45; Kansas recovered 70 5~e 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 catchos 10. Wild passes: Opponents, 20; 6 out of bounds, 14 to an opponent Kansas, 193 6 out of bounds, 13 to an opponent 11. Fumbles: Opponents, 203; 9 out of bounds, 11 to an opponent Kansas, 203; 10 out of bowds, 10 to an opponent 12. Tapped ball out of bounds: Opponents, 4 times; Kansas, 4 times 13. Held balls: Opponents obtained 17; Kansas obtained 16 14. Jump ball: Opponents tapped and recovered ow juap ball 1 tine Kansas tapped and recovered own jump ball no tincs 15. Jump ball: Opponents recovered tcarmate's jump ball 52 tines Kansas recovered teammate's jump ball 23 times 16. Assists: Opponents made 54 assists; 29 immediate, 25 secondary Hi Kansas made 82 assists; 46 imnediate, 56 sccondary 17, Evaluation points: Opponents, 1997 positive; 244 negative Kansas, 5327 positive; 237 negative 18. Evaluation points por minute: Opponents, 14.6 Kansas y 2508 19. Evaluation points per scoro: Opponents, 14.6 Kansas, 2202 20. Playing efficiency: Opponents, 89.1% _ Kansas, 934% 21. Ball handling error rate: Opponents, 449% 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 tee te Howevor, it should be noted that the home team scored more goals (56 for 33.9) than the opponents (39 goals for 2122%).e This same thing is true of the free throws with Kansas making 27 free throws for 64.3% and the opponents making 24 freo throws for 54e5%e When one examines the personal fouls Kansas made less (27) than the oppo= sition (36). However, the Kansas fouls yielded the greater number of free throws (44) to the visiting teams (42). It seems that the Kansas personal fouls occurred more often when a man was in the act of shooting than did the fouls of the opponents, by the rate of 8 to 15, In this case the total is somewhat misleading, as the dise crepancy occurred almost entirely in one game that Kansas won by 20 pointse The most outstanding difference to be pointed out occurred in two places; in the recov-= ery 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 seems to be the most outstanding difforence in the teanse The ball handling of the teams shows that Kansas caught and passed 2041 times and the opponents 1092 timese This difference could be ontirely due to various styles of plays However, when one considers the errors in ball handling, such as wild passes, fumbles and held balls obtained by opponents, we see that Kansas made 55 errors and the opponents made 57 orrors in ball handling.e While the number of errors remained about the same, it should be pointed out that the opponont's ball handling error rate (4.9%) was almost twice that of the home team (246%). 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 earned 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 934% as compared with 89.1%. The data show that for cach score point the visitors carned 17e2 evaluation points and Kansas earned 2262 evaluation pointse By deducting the 5 evalua tion points for each score point one secs that 12.2 evaluation points were carned as com= pared with 1742 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 offect the total number of evaluation points, but the style should not have a great deal of effect on errors in ball hand- linge In making direct comparisons between specific teans, & summary table made up from the cvaluation summaries shows much the same facts as the totals between Kansas and the oppositions TABLE IV, Summary from Evaluation Chart: 2s | Sm = ¢ = “n 4 & = & ef f= ™~ >» & vis 5 3 , €3 2. $5 ke am OB ‘< Pa ys ¥ ~—> *, 2. = Ss E> ke we ~~ ¥ 5s ££: 42 3 “S& us ie Q VY; Se S ic VQ Sy Ut _ = SS « $2. & os > SS“ OS RY . 2 se s + (22% *% Sea ze 2 Fw & OS VY SFSE oF OesSe — = 9 SF wet sy BWELVys —— aw ew YT C6 LC C6 URS hl le School A $3 12 16 9 56 15 18 441 Bo9 41 91 44% Kansas 35 16 35 3 37 5 27 738 345 ° 438 9149 School B 33 15 29 3 60 8 26 326 74 24 86 66 Kansas so fe @.a a0 63 9 10 680 let 66 96 26 Senool C a6 iz 80 iz 51 13 13 325 5_8 20 89el Te School A played the hane team fairly even on most of the comparisons cx- 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 the direct cause of the loss was Kansas' ability to recover the rebounds, the control of which gave them additional chances to score and prevented Toam B from scoring during the added tiné that the home team controlled the ball. School C excelled only in the number of free throws while Kansas had a 63% average in free throwing as compared to a 51% average. Like the total table, this summary table shows that the fundamentals of the game = shooting, ball handling and rebound recovery = are necessary to offone sive power and for winning gomese 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 game and his total ondeavors for the soason. (Sample record, Exhibit Be) Since the close of the season other items have been devised, such as ball handling error, playing efficioncy, and scoring ability. These points do not appear on the original tabulation shcetse _ In rating an individual basketball player's offensive ability, many points should be taken into consideration, and the method 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 oertainly the center or "quarterback" man will handle the ball more often than other offensive playerse These general trends are apparent as soon aS one begins a n intensive study of the data gntherede The players have been listed (sce Table V, Evaluation Point Totals) by the number of minutes played during the home gamese By a brief study of this table one can sce that there is a high relationship between minutes played and the total number of evaluation points, The next column should have more moaning in that points are considered in relationship to the total number of minutes played. The column on playing cfficicency was arrivod at by the formula givon in the definition of terms (noe 6)e This rating is probably the most meaningful in tho table, but it does not tell the complete storye Ball handling is the basis for offensive ability, and for this roason a ball handling table has been tabulated (sec Table VI). Be TABLE V, Ratings Based on Evaluation Point Totals Player Minutes * Eval. Points Points per Player efficioncy Earned Mee Pereontage A 32605 2098 6.38 ae B 266 1307 4.91 — 9202 C 26309 1300 4995 96 o4 D 2215 1256 5e67 9449 E 14145 560 5096 90.5 F 117 628 5057 94.1 G 100 460 4.60 942 H 7405 344 4.62 $30 I 700d 310 4959 91.67 J 70.0 395 5 964 91.6 K 599d 297 4099 9465 L 5405 120 5048 84.5 M 2260 117 Deke 9165 *Time as recorded by We Ae Dill, compiled by the Dill method of playing time re- cordinge TABLE VI. Ball Handling - Goal Shooting Passing and Catching & ._ 3 z Wy — s 4:4 -S : * . z _ = = >= Ww < = “ = ie - - “ > < & & a > = 3 v 5 3 = S S s x v “ < . * a = = = \ “ “Lk Ow x. & = NS = ~~ \ Son = Vx + > c n _- aie Qu " SS =. 2. = 5 » SS ~ : SK ~ £ . g & wy SU ~ oe Ball off owm back- board Taps & rec. own ball Recovers own teame mates jum Good sses Good catches Total No. possible Evaluation points Error of omission e oO by opponent Fumbles and gocs out-of-bounds Fumbles and ob- tained OpPe Taps ball oute of-bounds Wild pass out-of -bounds Wild ss to o Violation Foul- Offensive Evaluation Total Negative Evolustion pts. r oft ed a | s made Ss made ows att. ows Free e e rs 8 s e Pts. Assists Assists Secon oO © s Cc Ball off own back. board ps-recovers own ball O10 Recovers teammate's O O ss Good catches Total No» Positive 12 oO Held ball obtained O Oo Fumbles and goes O Fumbles, and ob- Wild passes out of bounds Wild 0 sses to onde ons offensive Total Negative / O1O0lClolo|o -3 |-121-15|-101-251 O To Southwestern Exhibst .. Vv gz ¢ Wir — x on = ; = 9 £ 10 97 109142 [151 |22 “21210 |-4\0 0|;01|0/;90;0 tained opponent O -4 f O -4 0 ds : O -2 “2 -2 ~4 Oo -3/ 0 |-3)-3 |-6)0 td - O/OLSOLOLOlO;ALa}O;O] Oo 25-15 © |47}-19)|-66 OKLAHOMA 4Ai2igiol/6i21e/e O10/0/212;912 10 O;1ol;olrsy¢yy {aif (73) 36 |2 -2 |-1 |-3'0 (05 Lowa -3 |-43|-4 13) Nebraska -3 10 |-3 10 O }-2 |-2 | O |-2 1-2 1-410 410 |-4 (0 |-4)0 |-4 10 ~4101+4 10 |-4|-2}-6)0 -6|-6}-12)-3 |-151 0 +1510 NMisseuri Kansas STATE ~ o> & uson to TAL a {(611B/24)2 |26114] 40 O12Z10i2ZIi0;2 Z1013}1 141216 é 64 1509} 117 }626 Glas “410 ~4\-4 -b -4 “(51 O -4 ~6 —_ “15 lve Exhibit C¢ DIRECTIONS Consider the following items of the player's offensive ability; l. His scoring abilitye 2 His ability to 36 His ability to 44 His ability to 5. His ability to 66 His ability to recover rebounds. pass accuratelye receive the ball on passes, recover jump balls. avoid held ballse After considering the above points, rate the players in the alphabetical list from 1 to 15. The player you consider best should be rated number 1, and the poorest should be numbered 13.6 Rating of "offensive ability" Nanes Corlis Durand Ebling Florell Golay Harp Hun’ Johnson Kappelman Pralle ERE ee Reid Schmidt Sulliven 18.6 Exhibit D University of Kansas Lawrence Department of Physical Education May 10, 1938. TO THE BASKETBALL SQUAD: In connection with the basketball rosearch that we have been doing this winter we need your opiniones You have worked with your group of boys and know them better than an outsider, and henee your opinion is bettor than mince Each member of the Varsity and Freshman squad is being asked to rate a group of this year's varsity players. Will you please read the directions on the enclosed sheet carefully, and in the seclusion of your room give us a careful opinion? If your name is in the list, give your= self an honest ratinge Please note that you arc not being asked to sign these sheets and we have no method of identifying theme It is hoped that you will co-= operate in this mattere Very truly yours, Ve We Lappe BASKETBALL EVALUATION STUDY FOR 1938839 SEASON Dre Forrest Ce. Allen Drs Ve We Lapp Department of Physical Education, University of Kansas March, 1939 le In the 1938=39 study the evaluation toehnique has been extended to ine clude a defensive rating system for both the team and the individual player, The items and their cvaluation weights, 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 technique used in the collection of these data is the same as described in the first cvaluation studye In the 1937@38 scason ninc home games were played, and this season eight home games were played, thus making a total of 17 games on which averagos of certain activities were available. 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 secasonse The team this ycar took more shots than did last season's team, but averaged one less goal per games The number of free throws awarded in both scasons was practicall y identical, but the number made was slightly reduced this seasone This yoar the total number of positive offensive evaluation points is lower than last year's total, This is due to two roasonse First, there wis a change in the technique of tabulating immediate assists. In last yoar's study crodit was givon 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 yoar'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 madeée The defensive evaluation points as shown in Table I do not accumulate as rapidly as do the offensive pointse Howover, this is not true of the negative defensive points. During the season the negative defensive points were accumulated almost exactly twice as fast as were the negative offensive pointse The ponalty for fouling should be high because if a player camitted a foul he immediately 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 oxcceded his positive points. The team summaries (sce Table IV) were made fron the data gathered during the last hame scason. Kansas did not lose a home contest this season and lost only one last seasone Because no data were available on the opposition at the time of the loss it is not possible to show the effect of losing a game on the statistics gathored. Due to its style of play, Kansas does more passing thon most teams, This is well shown wider total passes and catches, Table III. Even ina 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 dates Included in the tear. summary, Table ITI, a new term (defensive cffi- ciency) is listed. This term is the result of the formula: total vositive defensive evaluation points a ee oe mee ae sum of positive and nogative defensive points