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 <pears A

—etioorsthat this year S@0ie1 is lowe Thies: due to a change an ‘the technique

of — immediate and secondary assists)

the glhayer f,,
given toda nine, as passes and catches, which gave the,pimyer- double credit in

In last year's study credit was

evaluation points. In this year's study a player received evaluation points only
oncee Another reason for the lewer total in positive offensive evaluation points
is that the recovery of rebounds off the opponent's backboard was computed with
the defensive play instead of offensive play as in last year's study.

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 teem summary posted in the team dressing room the day following each game

made the individual player more conscious of his mistakes with the end result that

 

‘