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