fa THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA ee tad LINCOLN eee DEPARTMENT OF INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR February 17, 1938 Dr. Forrest 0. Allen Director of Athletics University of Kansas Lawrence, Kans. Dear Dr. Allen: Enclosed is the information you asked for in your letter of February 14th. I hope it will aid you in compiling the statistics you desire. These figures were gathered by students and the accuracy is not vouched for but believe will serve the purpose. Many thanks, Dr. Allen, for the copksof your radio program on physical education for health. I surely appreciated receiving these copies and have gotten many good ideas from their use. You have done ‘a fine piece of work on this program and certainly deserve congratulations. If extra copies are available on the remainder of the praowey4™4l will appreciate them. Your basketball team is getting stronger and I know will finish in a manner that will make you very proud. s very truly Basketball Coach WHB: JS Ene Kansas State | BQ ee) foe) iS Missoa' lo ae 3] = SPAY 0K Oklahame | 3K eo) 7 | S08.) 3.10 Jawa Sshebe |! Ct D6 2 4 : “Netal oe 1 Kansas - Nebr at lines! \ EXHIBIT A [840], weoy, usupeddey . gun pueang uosuyor FP TAYOS Burtag Leton TletoTa PTeY OT Tedd drei STTZO9 *gga snd Ha, 4a *TeAg ¥6 e pess Evaluation Pts. on ens tion Pts o o ; i i t i ; i i i | { 2 @ le | — | B £ ad he | | 8 i © w | ie | s 2 a | x eS |@ Oo © & » 1 | Be 2 | ; ar @ we 3 ia | | | @ | ‘£6 @ G o Me | 2 | oo gas = , G : Oo | | 0 : : s ifs ' i backb ° backboard ps = recovers ball ecovers team- mate's ce e Oe os Eyal. Pte Error 9 omissio Held bell ob-e ' teined b e es and goe out-of-bounds 99 ve " a obte ined ep 9 : pesses ute-of-bound to 0 8 o FPonl offensive Ble Pte ote! nege Evale Pt. 0 Vv “353 | -lZ - = EXHIBIT C DIRECTIONS Consider the following items of the player's offensive ability. 1. His Ze His Se His 4. His 5- His 6. Fis After considering scoring ability. ability to recover rebounds. ability to pass accurately. ability to receive the bell on pesses. ebility to recover jump balls. ability to avoid held bells. the above points, rate the players in the alphabeticel List from 1 to 15. The pleyer you con- sider best should be rated number 1, and the poorest should be numbered 13. Rating of "offensive" NAMES ability Corlis Dura nd Boling Piorell Goleay Herp Hunt Johnson Keappelman Pralle Reid — Sehmi dt Sullivan aad EXHIBIT D UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS Lewrence Department of Physicel Educstion Mey 10, 1938 76 THE BASKETBALL SQUAD: oo Ir ¢onnection with the besketball resesrch that we have been doing this winter we need your opinion. You have worked with your group of boys and know them better than en outsider, and hence your opinion is better than mine. _ ‘Rech member of the Versity and Freshmen squad is being esked to rate e group of this year's Varsity players. 2 Wi11 you please read the directions on the enclosed sheet care- fully, and in the seclusion of your room give us a csreful opinion? If your name is in the list, give yourself an honest — retinge Please note thet you are not being asked to sign these sheets and we have no method of identifying them. It is hoped that you will eooperete in this matter. Very truly yours Ve FW. Lapp ae! eu Key <= RATING BASKETBALL PLAYERS & STERBLE BATTING ARD FIELDING AVERAGES COMPUTED ' PLAYING SEASONS OF 1937=38 and 1938«39 Dre Forrest C. Allen Dre Ee Re Elbel Dre Ve We Lapp Department of Physical Education, University of Kansas EVALUA' TIC ON STUDY FOR 1938-3 9 SEAS ON ae ¢ In the 1938639 study the evaluation technique has been extended to inelude a defensive rating system for both the team and the individual playere The items and their evaluation 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 evaluation study. In the 1937-38 season nine home games were played, and this season eight home games were played, thus making a totel of 17 games on which averages 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 seasons. The team this year took more shots than did last season's team, but averaged one less goal per game. The number of free throws awarded in both seasons was practically identical, but the number made was slightly reduced this seasone This year the total number of positive offensive evaluation points is lower than last year's total. This is due to tw reasonse First, there was & change in the technique of tabulating immediate assists. In last year's study credit was given the players for both passes aiid catches, which gave them double credit in evaluation points. In this year's study a player receives evaluation points only once. 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 year'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 ream the day following each game made the individual players more conscious of their mistakes with the end result that fewer were madee aQe The defensive evaluation points as sh@éwn in Table I do not accumulate as rapidly as do the offensive points. However, this is not true of the negative defensive points. During a negative defensive points were accumulated almost exactly twice as fast as were the negative offensive points, The penalty 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 & player was forced out by fouls his total negative points exceeded his positive points. The team summaries (see Table IV) were made from the data Be Low? gathered during last season abekeme. Kansas did not lose a home 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 than most teams. This is well shown under total passes and catches, Table IIIe Even in a loss it is possible Kansas would show a higher evaluation point total due to the factor just mentiéned. It would be interesting to collect data for games played away fram home. However, this has been considered impractical to date. Included in the team summary, Table III, a new term (defensive efficiency) is listed. This term is the result of the formula: total positive defensive evaluation points sum of positive and negative defensive points Due to the ease with which negative defense points ean be accumulated the efficiencies for defense are low. The composite efficiency, like last year's efficiency, is based on the net positive points and negative points that are earned during the entire gamee The composite efficiency rating seems to parallel the game score more closely than some of the other items. | A close examination of the statistics of the game with Team D will lead one to wonder just how the Kansas team won the game. The story is told in goals made where the home team made two more than the opposition. The remaining statistics are largely in favor of Team De a In the middle of the season there was some question about the number of violations. It seemed that the number of violations was too low and it was the opinion that our observers were missing a few violations. Without discussing the matter with the observers, a check was made during the game with Team F and both sets of observers had nine violations on the Kansas team charged against the same boyse We realize the data cannot be more accurate than our observers and this check on the violations indicate that our boys were noticing _ the game rather closely. Table IV shows the player analysis for twelve playerse A few more players were used in the home contests, but all had less than 20 minutes of playing time to their credit and were not included in the present table. The number (see Table IV) preceding the dash in the various columns represents the individual's rank in relation to the other members of the squade The scoring ability index as shown in column 2 is based upon goals and free throws made and is canputed as shown in the first study under definition of terms. If two boys each made 25 goals, the one with the highest per- centage of made shots will have the highest scoring ability indexe By changing the order of seme of the data it is possible to make some player comparison between the two seasons play on the same basise Player 1937-38 season 1938839 season Offensive Bell handl- Offensive Ball handle efficiency ing error efficiency ing error A 90.5 4.6% 95.7 1.4% B 96 4 le7 9769 05 F 9262 209 97 02 lel + 94.1 220 76 4 2e4% L 94435 204 97 6 125 This rating shows that all the players, with the exception of Player I who did not finish the season, did make improvement. =ie The evaluation points per minute (see Table IV) earned during the playing season show how Seay the indi vidual was, while the canposite effieiency shows how well the individual performed or taske. 5 — ee The oppenentts- players, were rated on few items and=these are shown in Table Ve The table is limited to players who played at least 15 minutes during the gamee The table (V) divides itself naturally into three groups: le Above 90% playing efficiency 2 Between 80% and 90% playing efficiency 3. Below 80% playing efficiency. Mn thes Grorfe The group above 90% consisted of 13 players, the two highest of whem, were forwards, Cor~-hered I he tan einai’ the Lat “huree centers and eight guards, The next group consisted of 22 players, four of whom were centers, seven were guards, and eleven were forwards, The group below 80% con- tained 11 players, three centers, four forwards and four guards. It should be pointed out that out of the high eight players from the standpoint of playing efficiency, four of these players belong to Sehool ‘Dy and that the players ranked one and two in evaluation points earned per minute also wnpsrts alot Rewer ts Bhs Gptnk a Attn e, Also, it should be noted that two phyers of school D were ranked among those that were listed with zero ball handling errors. tit tel he aud On the basis of the data presented in Table V i as an Le Reta? all-opposition team .that—would_be_hard—to—beat,. h NZ ge, - 4a/ , tt tt2.@ causieyre otteoqune sit efile ame Laubly thes ond ape wy et Ry k ets Ee, Bi othe ae BRS gp Sal E eee 3 & ought orf srevale ‘oF hed oe erin’ ont off ¥ ius wnt saqifere eotis odin itemise _ £ seb os ; sored eid antush oe f Z wee oppenta. 390, srpv8.. smeeprie.! rt. aula aka MOC bere “OS meowked «S roky Bonne ee és ite sivel OS wolet so . a3 aes chimeric auch ein aoult wet Z if i ¥ wall a. erovela” vila Le id edd to goo ¢. duo boduket ed biwode si «a foosian 4+ gabfee enieqetdmteads + fear vba axrenn swsascesenate di pickles cafe eduaim teq sigiog moivaulave gi ows pire — bedasi evevelq ent calt bas etew C Ioorioe to sievad ond iz bedor 5 One f nd ol. ont “Bi begsoled. ae estore gniffae’ [led ores déiw betall eter evolt gnomes bediaet ae fete bEroe~ome V elidel at bedaeseta atab edt le efead edt | 7 : etaot-od brad od bivow dadd.saet gobt teoc gee £18 a ammmnermen Gre AS phy F5t—)D / In this-year's study the evaluation technique has been extended to include a defensive rating system for both the team and the individual player. The items and their evaluation weights, as used in this study, are shown in Table I. Data were collected during abl the home games on both the Kansas team and the visiting einer The technique used in the collection of these data is the same as described in the first evaluation studye | In the 1937-38 season nine home games were played and this season eight home games were played, thus making a total of 17 games on which averages of certain sath Vities were available. These averages are shown in Table IIe The 17 game averages seem to be reliable as there was no great variation in the figures computed for the two seasons. The team this year took more shots than did last season's team, but averaged one less goal per game. The number of free throws awarded - both seasons was practically identical, but the number made ‘took ar entre * “total number of offensive ae a ln Ah a foul he immediately g@ved the opponents a chance to make 5 Jor 10 positive offen- oe Sive points, andthe penalty for ‘fouling should ‘be e high} In games where a player was forced out by fouls his total negative points exceeded his positive points. The team summaries (see Table IN) were made from the a gathered during last season at homee Kansas did not —_ a | home contest this season and lost only one last seasone Because no data was hbase on the opposition at "the time of the loss it is not possible to show the effect of losing @ game on the statistics gatherede Due to its style of play, Kansas does more passing than most teams. This is well showm wnder total passes and catehes, Table III. Even in @ loss it is possible Kansas would show a higher omarion point 7. ” oe, . at tal Bava #-~H , to the factor just mentioned. It woud be interesting to ‘Poxow © temmon-the We A -~ r > sie However, aad eee. tale. are -O S6-4-t tO fete df 41+? ¢ BloLe available it is- (iaganthatl Sn ance 12-14 men oxtra_for research purposes. t Poa gfe a. the team summary, Table III, a new term (defensive efficiency) toe Lust C4 ApPPears e A whe term is the result of the formula: total positive defensive evaluation points Sum of positive and negative defensive points Le Due to the ease with which ome can, accumulate negative defense points) the efficiencies for defense are lowd The “eamposite efficiency" deci‘ to parallel i the game score more closely than some of the other items. The ounpisatied efficiency, like last year's efficiency jis based on the net positive points and negative points that are earned during the entire gamee a A close examination of the statistics of the game with Team D will lead one to wonder just how the Kansas team won the game. The story is told in ig = way goals made where the home team made two more than the opposition. The remain- ik pa ag “7 ae od ing statistics Team De aX In the middle of the season there was some question about the number of violations. It seemed tiat the number of violations was too low and it seemed to thelieuion, the Maienntra Wheat : the etrnn bog, Ws emt 2, tz = Sires _ the ot ah line nahin ly ES ans ts teen a pa. . SP eaginag Fama Ae ees ootahet oH wn inet acalgle sem chr ponent Aakle , the —recculond (on thy TB) fotance thas enc rin, Zs, arose Cobaemaen, réfortrste, Ths —emsclarinn a computed as alan xin lia oned rut oodles dif rore {om tive Fey. tach ihe 06 po Pea Phoyays 193 5-3F —— ines an Wear lt A oe Wb % 6G - ney 57 Nxt 9 oor" ere 97.9 a gC RPI ow Le TIA eas bP AR DS Zo aa, i 7s a 4 70 776 1. F %o ‘ : ; “we wi Porvoo Ac Groyh Bk es 6675 Revlon steven tngrer; Thao trnlin, fon fareenle wb Wome LhLerd 4 fouled od Bt ah fe Legh sight Pon che atndfot f Papin Hm four 7 Lo 2bed A. vl OO ae 4 key Pelowers A ceebeef 0. Bas it heotd be nelid that tive layne of eebonl Batre Ader Sapo : } eae a On hy hanes phar niles Porrrvctich ini, Abel - Cue vary GTk< pe aes ah0 if i PLAYER ANALYSIS © 2 f S a Playing efficiencies 8 ss 4 3 > red p 8 5 2 % 8 Ry : my | g os A, ot ort ort 2, fe ort 2 ae a9 %@ us @ a o 2 ® “ik PO 2 w be 3 eB 2 Pm rt ? ri © 5 5 ri Oo ae Se '.. 3... 3 Zy i Ba = x2 @ GR: @ & ~Q wo Bs A & - =85 2054 628 8 SET 6e95 24% aie 2-92 0% Sa B g 26227 4-503 5827 304 8 2065 3=97 68 3=73 04 5-92 4 5506 C co 38226.5 7-331 4831 3.9 8 1-025 3=97 8 9=41 1 6-90 04 2=6 oS D ff 4187.5 1-1383 1-73 9.1 8 T1e8 9n05e4 473. e006 0 E ff 58150 3-769 3-47 7.8 6 9n}e9 8=9405 1035762 9=83 94 9=465 F £ Gal40e5 6-386 6926 303 8 4elel 369768 845402 4490.9 Thudted G § TH105 88268 15 265 6 112.9 7-946 5-67 od 888.65 Take 9 H o,f 8891.5 58426 7-20 209 T7 30.9 1-99 0 1-82 24 1=96 «4 405 »9 I ff 986705 9-207 8817 465 4 GeBot 10-90.8 1162922 10-74.6 10=3e1 J g $0-48.5 10-81 10-6 165 4 1082.6 1189.6 1262662 ll#74.1 112.6 K ff 11-33.5 12-7 Ll=#2 0&4 = =— 5128942) 127904 6=57.9 1287366 L292 L coc 1282165 11-25 12=2 eo 4 68145 597 05 7-55 06 7=89 67 l=7el *Player renk in squade **This includes the players who had a playing time of more than 12 minutes on the home courte RESEARCHES IN BASKETBALL Department of Physical Education, University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas Forrest. C. Allon, Director of Physical Education and Head Baskctball Coach Ee Re Elbcl, Assistant Professor of Physical Education Ve We Lapp, Assistant Professor of Physical Education BIG SIX CONFERENCE RESEARCH With tho olfmitintion of the eonter junp the desire was to ascertain certain facts concerning the soedalled fast broak that tho new rulos night encouragee The Big Six Conference coaches agreed in a preescason committee mooting to gather and send in certain facts from all of their conference contostse All held balls or jump balls were tossed up at the nearest 6=foot circles The possibility of scoring from this position was considered an important find= ing. Thirty Confcronce games wore playeds Thore is complete data from 18 gones, incomplete data from 6 games, ond no data was received from 6 ganese Three schools were especially diligent in sonding statistics following each game, while the other three sehools sent partial but not complote data on some of their gamcs,. Some rather interesting findings were rovealed in that for Big Six Confore ence play the average time for each individual movenent across the division line was 4657 sccondse The number of held balls during an entire game in our cone ferenee was ascertained, and lastly the possibility of scoring ficld goals after the toss-up, when the held ball was brought to the circlo, was also determinede The study is summarized as follows : le Length of timo consumed in bringing the ball across the division line after a goal or free throw had been made; complete information from 18 ganes shows that: (a) the act was porformed 586 tines for an average of 31e4 times per gano (b) a total time of 2527.1 scconds was used for an average of 1404 seconds per game, or 2 ning 34 scce {c) the average time for each individuel movement across the line was 4037 seconds. . 2e Number and location of held balls during games; complete information from 24 games shows that: (a) held balls oceurred 220 times in one end cirele for an averago of Gel per gamc 3 Big Six Conference = conte (b) held balls occurred in the opposite ond circle 163 times for an average of 6.8 per games (c) held balls occurred 52 tines in the center circle for an average of Zee por games (a) held balls occurred for a total of 435 times for ana verago of 181 times during each gamce 3 Number of goals made by the toam securing possession of a jump ball before control of it was lost to the opposition; complete information from 24 games shows that: (a) goals were made 32 times for an average of 1933 por gamce Lawrenee, Kansas [ Ure He Ve Porter, 11 So» LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois. : Dear lire Porters fem backboard. How is your experiment progressing? I will also be glad to inow wat you think of on I have made in the enclosed letter which of the Research Comittee Sincerely yours, FUAsAH Chaiyman, Research Causittees