le

In the 1938=39 study the cvaluation teehnique has been extended to in-
elude a defensive rating systema for both the team and the individual player. The
itoms and their ovaluation weights, as used in this study, arc show in Table Te

Data were collected during all the hone games on both the Kansas team
and the visiting tcams. The teehnique used in the collection of these data is the
same as described in the first evaluation studye

In the 1937-38 scason nine home games were played, and this season eight
hone games were played, thus making a total of 17 games on which averages of certain
activities were available, These averages are shown in Table III. The 17-game
averages seem to be reliable as there wos no groat variation in the figures computed
for the two scasonse The team this yoar took more shots than did last season's
team, but averaged one less goal per game. The number of free throws awarded in
both scasons was practicall y identical, but the number made was slightly reduced
this seasone :

This year the total number of positive offensive evaluation points is
lower than last ycar's total, This is due to two roasons, First, there ws a
change in the technique of tabulating immediate assists, In last year's study credit
was given the players for both passes and catches, which gave them double credit in
evaluation pointse In this year's study a player receives evaluation points only
onccse 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 season. It is possible that
the team summary posted in the team dressing room the day following each game made
the individual playors more conscious of their mistakes with the end result that
fewer wore madee

The defensive evaluation points as shown in Table I do not accumulate
as rapidly as do the offensive points. Howover, this is not true of the negative
defensive points. During the season the negative defonsive points were accumulated
almost exactly twice as fast as were the negative offcnsive pointse The ponalty
for fouling should be high because if a player committed a foul he immediately gave
the opponents a chance to make 5 or 10 positive offensive points, In games where
0 player was forced out by fouls his total negative points excceded his positive
points e

The team summaries (sec Table IV) were made from the data gathered
during the last haac scasone Kansas did not lose a heme contest this season and
lost only one last season. 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 gathered. Due to its style of play, Kansas does more passing thon nost
teams. This is woll shown wider total passes and catchos, Table III. Even ina
loss it is possible Kansas would show a highor evaluation point total due to the
factor just mentionede It would be intercsting to collect data for games played
away from home. However, this has been considered impractical to datee

Included in the tean swmary, Table III, a new term (defensive cffi-
ciency) is listed. This term is the result of the formula:

total positive defensive evaluation points
sum of positive and negative defensive points