THE UNIVERSITY O* KANSAS Lawrence February 2C, 1940 Dear Coach; I am enclosing herewith the aaruvas questionnaire of the National Basketbali Committee of the United States and Canada. If properly used these questionnaires can be an educative medium of some values We should regard them as more than a means of securing senti-~ ment on various phases of the rules. They should serve as a means of checking up on experimental work which has been promoted through the season, & means of enabling basketball leaders of the country to ex- press opinions and thus have a voice in final legislation, and as an incentive for the holding of discussion groups in connection with the final tournaments or similar events in the colleges. Will you kindly give these questions your very careful thought and consideratioh? Only signed questionnaires will be included in the report sent to the secretary of the Committee. I would apprec- late it if you will return your questionnaire to me not later than March lst, so that I may have oppertumity to prepare my summary and report for Mre He Ve Porter, secretary of the Committee, Thanking you for your cooperation, I am Sinceyely yours, f ‘ \ % 4 pe F ‘ 2 oe ee > ; \ €- c-¢€a} i 4 (eee oe A oS hairman, Fifth Di ee = ~~"National Basketball Commit}ée. - see OO eer a —— oe NATIONAL COLLEGIATE A. A. - NATIONAL FEDERATION H. S. A. A. Y. M. C. A. - CANADIAN |. A. U. - CANADIAN A. B. A. NATIONAL BASKETBALL COMMITTEE of the UNITED STATES AND CANADA ET SEEGERS 1940 ANNUAL QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire is sent annually to representative basketball men in order that their views may be presented at the annual meeting of the National Committee. The Committee will be grateful if you will check these answers and University of Kansas, lawrence, Kansas. The Committee Member or State Athletic Officer whose name appears above will send all replies received up to March 16th to the Secretary of the Committee, 11 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois. PART I. Concerning rule changes made last spring: Any player may request a time-out. Is present rule satisfactory? Yes............ Meccecs After a technical foul, the throwing team keeps possession at mid-court. Is present rule satis- factory? Yes............ Pics A captain may waive the free throw and take the ball at mid-court after a personal foul. Is present rule satisfactory? Yes............ Gs es When a player in the act of throwing is fouled from behind, two free throws are always awarded. (a) Has this rule been properly enforced? MOR cei ON Oy. 5052.2 (b) Has it tended to eliminate the deliberate push in the back? Yes..._....... Bees (c) Is present rule satisfactory? VGA 235: GOS Sse s On a free throw for personal foul, it is a viola- tion when the ball does not go through or touch the ring before touching a player. Is present rule satisfactory? Yes............ Wicks Is the present rule on the four-foot end space satisfactory? Yes............ ING eka PART II. Concerning general trend of game: (c) Free throw lanes 8 feet wide? Thin Pcs PART III: Concerning rules for 1940-1: 11. Assuming that proper safeguards would be made against any sudden compulsory use of equipment whose use would involve considerable expense, do you favor permitting the optional use of: (a) A flat surfaced backboard with several inches removed from the borders and with upper edge circular? Yes............ Pe isieteinanh (b) A convex surfaced board with shape as in (3) OVC NOs 12. (Check this only if you are connected with Col- lege or Independent games). College and Independent games should be played in 10-minute quarters. Yes............ Pe aisidccrcns 18. Should the number of jump balls be reduced by: (a) Awarding ball to the offensive team, if it is in the air on a try at the end of a quarter and is not successful. Yes............ ees (b) By awarding ball to the team on defense, if they cause a held ball outside the lane or center restraining circle? Yes........ eee 14. (Check only one) (a) For games played in quarters, remove re- striction on number of times a player may enter during first three quarters and permit only one re-entry during the fourth quarter and during each overtime period. Yes........... 7. Molded Type Ball: : (a) As compared with the ball with sewed hy Ge GORe ES © Dene Fe Seon seams, the molded type ball is (1) More three times. Yes............. satisfactory pe kisi (2) Equally as satisfac- (c) Retain present rule on re-entering. a eee (3) Less satisfactory............. YOS....-an (b) The best bouncing reaction of a ball is: 15. on a successful field goal or successful ast free throw for personal foul: (1) Minimum 49”.......... Maximum 54”.......... (a) Start watch as soon as goal is made. Median 51” to 52”.......... = Pehdce re = 8. What percentage of the courts on which you (b) Remove right of either team to take play have: (1). Poor lighting............ % (2) Less charged time-out. Yes............ PRtasiinn, than four-foot space behind backboard............ %. (c) Permit substitution after any goal. 9. (a) Is the present game as interesting and sci- Vos oi 25: Wee se entific as it was with the center jump? 16. Consider any foul (not flagrant) against a ee o_.. a ag who is in his back court as a technical (b) Are criticisms vali aed: tu Rapiaes dean, oul. (Note that penalty for technical foul is sideration of reinstatement of the center more severe than formerly). Yes.......... BIB scinenit jump with restrictions such as having play- 17. Reduce bouncing tolerance of a ball from the ers rotate for the jump? Yes......... - Wiis. present 5 inches to 3 inches. Yes.......... ge 10. a favor encouragement of experimentation 18. If any section of the rules needs to be clarified with: or amplified state which. (a) Baskets without a backboard? Use reverse side for additional comments. Five scons No.. Sorecrneesses UESTIONNAIRE COMMITTEE (b) Baskets 11 or 12 feet high? ¥ F. C. Allen - J. Mark Good - A. F. Jefferess @S......-...- BOG rssccscpicse H. G. Olsen - Oswald Tower - Hz. V. Porter, Chr. Signed: eee ) (Official...) (Administrator... } foie... ) Institution Represented: College... ie a TO Gis i UA ae nis City State To Mexbers, National Basketball] Committee; The basketball questi onmaires are now being printed and a supply will be sent to each committee member in the mxt couple of days. I¢ properly used, these questianmaires oan be an educative medium of some value. We should regard them as more then a means of securing sentiment om various phases of the rules. They should serve as a means of checking up on experinental work which has been promoted through the season, a means of enabling basketball leaders of the cowmtry to express opinions and thus have a voice in final legislation, and as an incentive fa the holding of discussion groups in connecti with the final tourmpents or similar events in the colleges, Y,¥,C.Ae's and other organizations. The distribution and actual use to which they will be put depends upon the activity of each member of the committee. They will be distributed only through committee members and through state high school executive officers. In ader that there will not be too mch overlapping, I suggest that a plan some-— what similar to that followed last year be in effect. In brief this is: Each College representative should mils an attempt te seoure distribution among the colleges in his N,C,A.“. distriet; Eech Yel, CoA. representative will take care of the Y.M,C.a, and similar organiza- tions in his section of the coumtry; Tae Cenadien representatives will secure distribution in their own groups; and The hi gh school representatives will take care of distribution among the high schools in the group of states outlined in the map which is being supplied | those representatives. If these questionnaires are to be of maximum use, the returns to any given member will be inspeeted by him to give him an inkling of sentiment in his territory. He should summeri ze results, imoluding o anmemts, and then send the summary of the filled questionnaires (preferably both) to the Seoretary so that a complete recapi- tulation may be made ready for each member at the annual meeting. zation and haste are essential. Returns must be in thé office of the * not rec any vote wmless you have a signed questim- Special Note if you desire to mv» any special topic included in the agenda far the smual Meeting, send it along. There will be provision for general disoussicn but it is best if most of ths topics to be discuss ed are listed and organized. ML Hvp/J Febrmary 17, 19406. ‘M's He Ve Porter, 1l Soe LaSalle Stay Chicago, Tllinoise Dear He Ves As soon as the questiomaire arrives we will mil i out to all of the basketball coaches in this district. Thiskas been our usunl procedures | I wondering what distribution is made to the officialas. I think the officials should hve une of these questiommirve so thoy could offer their suggestions. I am endeavoring to have tho National College Basket~ ball Officials Association meet in Kansas City at the time of the Rules mestinge Of course, the hich federation is handled in its om organization by the various state exesutive secretaries. In the cast they have the Basketball officials Assosiation, and we are endeavoring to hnve them meet in Kansas City this springs ‘They have en organization in this district, } them assemble so their recomendations could come into the Rules Body the same as it was handled in the a FOAAH Chairmen, Sth District, NeCeAcile THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS Lawrence, Kansas February 28, 1939 Dear Coach: I am enclosing herewith the annual questionnaire of the National Basketball Committee, These questionnaires are being sent by the Cemmittee to the coaches of. colleges and universities. The high schools and Y,i,C,As groups are being taken care of by their various organizations. Will you kindly give these cabin your very cares ful thought and ¢onsideration, and return the questionnaire to me at your early donvenience as I have to make my report at an early date to Mr. Hs. V. Porter, secretary of the Ceme mittee, Your coeperation will be greatly appreciated, Very singbrely yours, hairmany’Fifth District, ‘Natiowal Basketball Comm RATZIEG@ BASKETBALL PLAYER Ge ZEST HR PATITLEG ASP PISLSTRS AVERAGES COMPUTED PLAYING SEASONS OF 1937=38 AND 1938-39 Dre Forrest Ce Allen Dre Ee Re Elbel Dre Va 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 obey jective was the successful scoring of field goals or free thrijws 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 5a Recovers ball off opponent's backboard 6- Recovers ball off own backboard 7» Taps and recovers own jump ball 8. Recovers teammate's jump ball 9. Makes a good pass to a teammate 10. Catches a teammates pass RMR rm NN A PO Be Negative Items le Error of omission 2¢ Held ball obtained by an opponent Se. Fumbles ball and it goes out of bounds & Fumbles ball and it is obtained by oppenent 5e 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 aOOPWNNH ND NH FH In the use of the weighted items the algebraic sum of the positive and negative peints is computed. This sum for each game represents the total effect- iveness of the team or playere 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 Educations Twelve men students were used in the collection of facts, six for each teams The men worked in pairs, one acting as a recorder and the other as an observers Onc pair made a record of all the passes and catches, one pair made a spot record of all the shots taken by playors' numbers, and the other pair recorded the remaining materiale Definition of Terns The terms used in the evaluation chart study are, for the most part, in common usage in the game of basketball and need not be definede However, some of the terms have not usually been connected with basketball and for this reason are definede Ze le Immediate assist, a pass ma de to a player who scores a field goal. 2. Secondary assist, the pass dircctly preceeding an immediate assist. 3. Error of omission, 4 mistake in judgncnt or observation, such as a failure to poss to a toammaite vho is in a better position for scoring. 4, Hold ball obtained by an opponent, a player having complete control of the pall and by voor judgmont or poor technique on his part an opponent is able to "tie him up" to such an extent that an official calls a held balle 5 Team efficiency, toam positive evaluation points team positive plus negative cvaluation points 6. Player cfficiency, player's positive ovaluation points es plaver's positive pius nogative evaluation points 7. Scoring ability index, number of goals times por cont sf goals made plus one-= halt (free throws times por cent of free throws made) 8. Ball handling error rate, ball hondling crrors ee good catches plus good passos 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 goamoSe From this material comparisons were made on the Kansas team using the averages for the four nonsconference games and for the five conference gamese In the last three home games, the Kansas team was compared with its opponents. Differont styles of basketball would undoubtedly yicld a differont average for the number of shots, passes, otc. The frequency of these occurrenccs are listed as follows: TABLE le Nine Game Averages le Score: 42.7 points 2. Goals: attempted 61.5; mode 16.5; %26.9 3. Freo throws: attempted 16; made 9656; %59e7 4. Personal fouls: 10.2 5e Offensive personal fouls: 78 6. Violations: de7 7. Rebounds from own backboard: 2163 8. Rebowuids from opvonent’s backboard: 22¢3 9, Passes and Good covchos: 54,6 passos; 345 catches 10. Wiid posses: total 7,67; out of bounds, 267; to opponents, 409 lle Hold balis: obtaincd by oppcenents, 3el 12. Fumbles: total 6.1; out of bounds, 3613 to opponents, 3 13. Tavped ball: out of bounds, 1.3 14. Jump ball: tapped and recovered ovm jump ball, e22 15~.Jump ball: recovers teammato's jump ball, 10.8 16. Assists: total, 24; immediate, 133 secondary, 11 17. Evaluation points: 1103.0 - 73.2 = 1029.8 points per game 18. Evaiuation points per player per minute of play: 5.14 points 19. Evaluation points pex score: 24.1 points 20. Toam officioncy: 95.8% It is interesting to note that there arc 1643 moro passes than catchose If one adds the fumbles (6.1) and the wild passes (7057), the difference is al~ most eraseds When one considers the possibilitics for offonsive mistakes, it would appear that tho nogative evaluntion points (732) is relatively lowe Se In order to compare averages of the four noneconference home games and the five confcrence home games, the data are presented in outline for, | TABLE IIe Four Non=Conferenee Games and Five Conference Games: le Score: mnoneconfcrence average, 42 points conference average, 4362 points 2e Goals; noneconference average shots attempted, 68.75; average made, 1675; %24 a4 conference gverage shots attompted, 55,48; average made, 16043 %29e04 3e Free throws: noneconference average shots attempted, 1403 average made, 8e53%6067 conference average shots attempted, 17.63 avorage made, 10043 75949 4, Personal fouls: non-conference average, 1005 conference average, 10.6 5, Offensive personal fouls: nonsconfcrence average, 25 conferenee average, lee 6 Violations; non-conference average, 3 conference average, 4e2 7e Rebounds from own backboard: non-conference average, 22.8 conference average, 2006 8. Rebounds from opponont ts backboard: noneeonferonee average, 1920 conference average, 25.0 9. Masses and good entches: nonetonforonce passcs, 374,75; entshes, 366 ! conferonec passes, 550.63 oatehes, S3le4 10. Wild passes: noneconforenca, 86; out of howids, 2e75; to on opponent, 5,73 eonferonce, 608; out of bounds, 2,6; to an opponent, 402 ll. Hold balls obtained by oppononts: noneconforente, 2 conferences, 4 12. Fumbles: noneconferonse, 625; out of bounds, 50253; obtained by oppenent, 5 confercnec, 6.0; out of bounds, 3,0; obtained by opponent, ‘3 13~ Tapped ball out of bounds; noneconfercnec, 1625. oe nee conferonec, Let 44. Tapped and rcecovored own jump ball: noneeonfcronec, -5 tines conference, no times 15. Reeovers toammato's jump ball; nonweonferenee, 13,75 conference, Se4 16. Assiste: noneconference, 25625; inmediate, 13,5; sccondary, lls?S conforyengs, 23.0; immediate, 12.63 sceohdary, 10.4 46 17. Evaluation points: non-conference, 1132.753- 69 = 1063.75 conference, 1079.2 ~ 7606 = 1002.46 18. Evaluation points per minute of play: non-conference, 26.59 conference, 25,07 19. Evaluations points per score; non-conference, 256356 conference, 25022 20. Playing efficiency: non-conference, 94.3% conference, 93.4% 21. Ball handling error rate: non-conference, 242% 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 conference games, the tean took 13 less shots por gamee This means thet the team's shooting average was cone siderebly better, being 29.4% for the sonference games and 24.4% for the non-confer- ence games. From the standpoint of ball handling, there were 24 more passes and Sl more catches per geome in the noneconfercnce matches than in the conference gamcse Both the playing efficioncy and ball. handling error rate were poorer in the confer- ence games thar in the non-conference gamcos, . It should olso be noted thot for each game point scored in the non-confer~ ence games, 20985 cvalu.tion points (25.36 + 5) were earned by some other method. An analysis of the data shows thit scoring a field goal plays a relatively small part in scoring evaluasion points, and that ball handling, rocovery of rebounds, etc, must be considercd to a larger extend. In the last three games data wore obtained on both the Kansas team and its opponentse This ma terial is swmarized in the folloving list. TABLE III. Conference Game Records Made by Kansas and Opponcnts: 1. Scores: Opponents, 102 Kansas, 139 2. Goals: Opponents took 184 shots, mde 39 goals; average %214e2 Kansas took 165 shots, made 56 goals; average 35.9 3. Free throws: Opponents took 44 shots, made 24; average %5465 Kansas took 42 shots, made 27, a verage 76403 4. Personal fouls: Oppo nents, 356 Kansas, 27 5e Offensive personal fouis: Both teams made 3 personal fouls while they had the ball and called offensive fouls. 6. Violations: Opponents, 16 Kansas, 15 7» 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 11. Fumbles: Opponents, 20; 9 out of bounds, 11 to an opponent Kansas, 203; 10 out of bounds, 10 to an opponent 12. Tapped ball out of boumds: Opponents, 4 tines; Kansas, 4 tines 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 own jump ball no tincs 15. Jump ball: Opponents recovered tearmate's jump ball 32 tincs Kansas recovered teammate's jump ball 23 times 16. Assists: Opponents made 54 assists; 29 immediate, 25 secondary Kansas made 82 assists; 46 immediate, 36 sccondary 17. Evaluation points: Opponents, 1997 positives; 244 negative Kansas, 3327 positive; 237 negative 18. Evaluation points per minute: Opponents, 1406 Kansas, 2568 19. Evaluation points per score: Opponents, 146 Kansas, 2202 20. Playing efficiency: Oppononts, 89.1% Kansas, 93.4% 21. Ball handling error rate: Opponents, 409% Kansas, 26% (Totals are showne) In comparing the totals one can see that the opponents made more attempts at both field goals and free throws than did the Kansas team, Howevor, it should be noted that the home team scored more goals (56 for 38<0%) than the opponents (39 goals for 21.62%). This same thing is true of the free throws with Kansas making 27 free throws for 643% and the opponents making 24 free throws for 54e5%. When one examines the personal fouls Kansas made less (27) than tho oppo-= sition (36). However, the Kansas fouls yielded the greater number of free throws (44) to the visiting tcams (42). It scoms that the Kansas personal fouls occurred © more often when 4 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 recove 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 holdé when one notes the rebounds of the opponent's be backboards = Kansas securing 78 while tho visitors were collecting 40 reboundse The recovery of rebounds seems 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 timese This difference could be ontirely due to various styles of playe However, when one considers the errors in ball hindling, such as wild passes, fumbles and held balls obtained by opponents, we see that Kansas made 55 errors and the opponents mado 57 orrors in ball handling. While the number of errors remained about the same, it should be pointed out that the opponent's ball handling error rate (4e9%) was almost twice that of the hame team (266%). 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 opponents. 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 each score point the visitors earnod 17.2 evaluation points and Kansas earned 22.2 evaluation pointse By deducting the 5 evalua tion points for each score point one seos that 12.2 evaluation points were carned.as come pared with 17.2 for Kansas. While Kansas had the ball earning the extra evaluation points it is certain that the opposition was not scoringe However, as pointed out previously, the various styles of play my effect 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 teams, 8 summary table made up from the evaluation summaries shows much the same facts as the totals botweon Kansas and the oppositione TABIE IV. Summary from Evaluation Chart: ; | a >» | -= oR as a soo WS 6B oS 9 2 ¥.¥ i s. f ae es: - aah i-€& 2 O25 ks sh aN cs “ = “Son is ONS ee ee a as as Ss oc Ls ® WY) om ~ S Sa "8 Q. xy UO ‘s eS “se oy - os sy o~ 32 x2 im 3 3 o 2 wo Fs ot © ASE es use oe ron «CURE BH DHSS QO Clas mene = =«40 iT oO Uk 7 ie) ~«(le. Gee Cg OO Ce Selieolh A SS 72 16 9 66 1G 6 6 CBee Mees. 86 16 86 0S «8tlCUClC tt Cte Oe OSs Geheol B SS 18 26 S$ GO 8 26 S26 TA 24 6646 Kansas 56 25 31 10 63 9 10 680 1e4 66 96.6 fete 0 oO i Sl 1S «(18 OSE. 868+ 20 = 89,2 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 standpoint. 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 Team B from scoring during the added timé 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% averagee Like the total table, this summary table shows that the fundamentals of the gome - shooting, ball handling and rebound recovery = are necessary to offone 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 coach game and his total ondeavors for the season. (Sample record, Exhibit B.) Since ~ Sen of the season other items have been devised, such as ball handling error, efficiency, and scoring abilitye These points do not appear on the : Pe bulation sheets. 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 basketball used. WNatur-~ ally, the guards will recover more rebounds from the opponents! backboard than the forwardse It also follows that the forvards 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 gatherede The players have been listed (sce Table V, Evaluation Point Totals) by the - number of minutes played during the home gamese By | brief study of this table one can see that there is a high relationship between minutes played and the total number of evaluation pointse The next column should have more meaning in that points are considered in relationship to the total number of minutes played. The column on playing efficiency was arrived at by the formula givon in the definition of terms (noe 6)~ This rating is probably the most — in the 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). 7 8. TABLE V. Ratings Based on Evaluation Point Totals Player Minutes * Eval. Points Points per Player efficiency Larned idinuto Perecntage a 326eD 2098 6608 9703 B 266 1307 4691 9202 C 26365 1300 £093 96 4 D 221e5 1256 5067 949 E 14165 560 3696 9065 F ant 628 5 edT 9461 G 100 460 4460 942 H 7405 544 4462 9340 I 70¢5 310 439 9167 . J 70.0 395 - 6664 91.46 K 59 ed 297 499 9463 L 5445 120 35048 845 M 2205 117 Deke 9145 *Time as recorded by We Ae Dill, compiled by the Dill method of playing time ro- cordinge TABLE VIe Ball Handling Goal Shooting Passing and Catching wv Y > = 4 ‘§ g *~ § XS s = > + ~ vu _ S$ “S&S = + <= = v < = «2 xX = S <= . - — / & & = .2 > ~ Y sn © ust y s+ = = 9 v 2 ~ _— *, o 2 ‘ S % 9g ew . > SS = _ FF FF SS. SS -- “se k&. & Ag 1 4, Seat 28 69.6 Levs 15 Lent 2 > 4 63 23 27 el 20 66 «7 845 26 2e9 7 GC fs 3 13 3300 5 7164 1004 a7 le7 3 D6 4 14 28.0 5 625 961 18 1.8 4 Ss fF 6 10 3005 5 71 et 372 18 46 Le , Ff 7 de 17.9 8 5761 341 7 200 5 oe £,28 9 -." - 2 2 5020 348 4 1.13 2 Ef 5 13 30.2 4 6667 166 aa 62 13 . @ 8 7 oan - = 530d 192 8 4.0 aa oe ££ 10 3 16.7 2 40.0 346 11 Sel 8 tne it 2 25.40 i 2 244 6 204 6 2. 2 0 0 0 0 116 4 303 9 Mf i2 1 3303 2 6667 85 3 3 et 10 *xeuard, forward, center 9e 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, 353%. However, play~ er C was the most valuable on the basis of other items. 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, Nos 7)» This gives a rather high index number which when reduced to a one=two-three basis rating gives a logical ordere Errors in ball handling include the total number of wild passes, fumbles, and held balls obtained by an opponente 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, an index was established. The guards handled the ball more often than did the forwards, and the two playors with tho low= est ball handling error rate (playors A and G) arc guards. However, player G also played as a forward. -The lowest error rate for a forward was 2,0 for player F's In order to find further ratings for the purpose of analysis, the scores fran the cvaluation chart were computed on a point per minute basis anda rating from 1 to 13 given the various players. Tho material in this chart (Table VII) is of value until one reaches the playors with only a fow minutes of playing timee Here the chart breaks down: because these players did not perform all of the items mentioned, and are rated too highly. This mtcrial is discussed somewhat in the summaries dealing with the individual playcerse TABLE Vile Rating on Activitics por Minute* : ai c © Ss =, | beg ~ ww i ~ i i I . = -_o 4: Yi a =. = S ™ S ac ce 8 . £ ae & : A = MAS X . & a A Areas ee ee i .% «8 Bee ia § ~ va ye tuk ys = g & ¢ Q. & > i. oS +. Fe 2G tw ~S Yow Oo mEq Fo es bh = ££ 2 eweeS SS at ES OE Ue S CUDP <- ~~ = 2 os: ~~ 2 2 3 % fy .> \ -3 a» SRES We SS. 9 BG Se ‘ : : re pe: = ‘ a ae 2 we eRe tin kak §. BY ey a > 2 = 65 © SO stv SBS SS v= & B@ ~~ m— 8 os ©. FP Lessee 2S .e 2 3.3 3 , Ye ry OUP SIGe GI5H GEE S 7 2 ££ 2 ew nan ee lh hmeDUlUmDmlmD”DUhlUDDUCUUCUCUECCULUm UCD B ; e 8 5 3 5 2 8 7 10 9 9 6 Yan" 9 C g 3 7 S id 7 4s i 13 ag 4, 7 4 6 3) D CG 4 2 7 9.10 3 LO 9 9 3 2 9 3 3 gE. Ff S ie 6 Ss: FF 9 “ Se ke Le 7. 925 10 F f 6 4 3 a 2a 6 7 1 i 10 10 5 5 6 G f.6: 9 Fete 10 ae 7 2 12 3 7 8 2 4 o ee 8 9 1 5 8 4 Le 10 4 13 13 12 8 7 2 z > wa 4 8 s 9 3 2 7 ls 11 3 7 8 7:2 a OS $e5° 1265-6 3 a2 . 1 13 12 Le K ©6353 GS ae Ae 7 ae 8 6 2 4.5 10° 2 4 L g as hae Ue ae Bed «5 § 6 5 8 6 ia ae 13 x 6 13 5 9 a. a : ee 5 13 6 4.5 8 13 11 *A ranking of 1 is the best performance. L0e TABLE VIII. Offensive Ability Rankings | i. 5] “ oe Py eG | | | 7 | | 8 as : LH Us . S. & 3 Os sa AS OSA BY ot \ ~ * wei Ns -* i Sy ~~ 2 & Oo vx