IOWA STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND MECHANIC ARTS AMES, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION ; 3 FOR MEN March 3, 1938 Dr. F. C. Allen Basketball Coach University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas Dear Doe: Here are the statistics on our final home game : l. Taking the ball across the division line after a field goal -- 21 attempts, total time 123 seconds, average 5.7 seconds, per try. 2. Number of held balls: End circle - 6, center circle - 2, end circle - 14. Total -- 22, 3. Baskets scored from held ball -- l. We "fit" the Sooners right down the stretch but couldn't make it. You must have had a tough one with Nebraska. I am glad you won it. Si rely, L. Ev Menze LEM : JH ‘Basketball Coach UNIVERSITY OF MISSOUR! CO. LUM BA March 2, 1938. Dr. F. C. Allen, Coach of Basketball, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kan. Dear Dr. Allens Statistics on the Oklahoma-Missouri game played in Columbia February 28, 1938. Passing into front court following goals and freethrows: Number of trials <---—- 53 Total time ----------- 162-80 seconds. Average time per trial -—- 3-7 seconds. Jump balls End circle ---~ 13 Center circle - 4 End circle ---- 9 ‘steal ——- 26 Number of jump balls moved to a circle: End circle ---- End circle ---= Total ----- 9 Goals scored following jump ball situations: Oklahoma --<<—<= Missouri ------ Total qa<-<-= i Your special delivery letter regarding the location of officials came this morning and was read with interest. When this was discussed several years ago I thought that it was agreed with officials as to how they locate themselves and the plan, as I remember it, followed your suggestions. Early in the season I checked the work of some of the officials in this regard and since they followed it pretty well I dismissed it from my thoughts and have been con- centrating on the numerous errors of our players. Attached is a diagram of the scheme I had in mind. We probably should check with the two men in our game and obtain an understanding. Yours truly, Re a CEs, te, te THE KANSAS BASKETBALL OFFENSIVE EVALUATION CHART ( Ar This study was undertaken in -erder—to 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 exec- ution of sound fundamentals and to winning success. Of course, the objective was the successful scoring of field goals or free throws by the player. The items used in the evaluation chart and their weights are listed below: Ae Positive Items Weight in Evaluation Points ~. Field goals ‘IO 2. Free throws Se Immediate assists 4. Secondary assists 5. 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 teammate's pass Be Negative Items . Tt. Error of omission 2. Held ball obtained by an opponent 3. Fumbles ball and it goes out of bounds 4. Fumbles ball and it is obtained by opponent 5e a ball out of bounds 6. Wild pass out of bounds 7. Wild pass to an opponent 8. Violation of rules 9. Personal offensive foul bh et 9 0D OD CA OT OG” mow Nr In the use of the weighted items the algebraic sum of the positive and negative points is computed. This sum for each game represents the total effectiveness of the team or player. For the purpose of illustration the Kansas chart of @ conference game is shown in Exhibit A with team and individual _ points computed, The data were collected by student assistants, majors in the department of Physical Education. Twelve men students were used in the collection of facts, six for each team. The men worked in pairs, one acting as a recorder and the other as an observer. One pair made a record of all the passes and catches, one pair made a spot record of all the shots taken by players’ | numbers, and the other pair recorded the remaining material. Definition of Terms 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 defined. However, some of the terms have not usually been connected with basketball and for this reason are defined. k. Immediate assist, a pass made to a player who scores a field goal. 2. Secondary assist, the pass directly preceding an immediate assist. 5. Error of omission, a mistake in judgment or observation, such as a failure to pass to a teammate who is in a better position for scoring. 4. Held ball obtained by an opponent, a player having complete control of the ball and by poor ‘Setement er poor technique on his part an opponent is able to "tie him up" to such an extent that an official calls a held ball. Se 5. Team efficiency, team itive evaluation points 5 sai toon positive ‘pius negative evaluation points 6. Player efficiency, player's positive evaluation points | player's positive plus negative eval. points 7. Scoring ability index, number of goals times percent of goals made plus one-half (free throws times per cent of free throws made). 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 games. From this material comparisons were made on the “ansas team using the averages for the four non- conference games and for the five conference games, In the last three home games, the Kansas team was compared with its opponents, Different styles of basketball would undoubtedly yield a different average for the number of shots, passes, etc. The frequency of these occurrences are listed as follows: TABLE I. Nine Game Averages : I. pases’ 1-7 points 2e : attempted 61.5; made 16.5 %26.9 3. Free throws: attempted 16; made 9.56; %59.7 4. Personal fouls: 10.2 361.5 passes; 345 catches Das 3" out of bounds, 2.67; to opponents, 4.9 , Held balis: by opponents, 3.1 12. Fumbles: total 6.1; out of bounds 3.13; to opponents 3 tapped ball: out of bounds 1.3 et Jv pail: tepped and recovered own jump ball .22 15. : vrecovers teammate's jump ball 10.8 16. Ass : total 24; immediate 13; secondary 11 17, Evaluation points: 1103.0 - 73.2 = 1029.8 points per game 18. Evaluation points per player per minute of play: 5.14 points a - ‘ . ear SCC : ad , & It is interesting to note that there are 16.5 more passes than catches. If one adds the fumbles (6.1) and the wild yanane (7.57) the difference is almost erased. When one considers the possibilities for aetenstve mise takes, it would appear that the negative evaluation points (73.2) is +e low, — 3 ; In order ee compare averages of the four non-conference home games and the five conference home games, the data are presented in outline form. TABLE II. Four Non-Corference Games and Five Conference Games: il. Score: non-conference average 42 points conference average, 45.2 points 2, Goals: non-conference average shots attempted 68.75; average made 16.75; % 24.4 conference average shots attempted 55.8; average made 16.43 o 29.24 3. Free throws: non-conference average shots attempted 14.0; averace made 8.5; % 60.7 | 7 conference average shots attempted 17.6; average 4, Personal fouls: non-conference average 10.5 eonference average 10.0 5. Offensive personal fouls: non-conference average 225 conference average 1.2 6. Violations: non-conference average 3 conference average 4.2 7. Rebounds from own backboard: non-conference average 22.0 conference average 20.6 — 8» Rebounds from opponent's backboard: non-conference average 19.0 conference average 25.0 9 sses and good catches: non-conference passes, 374.75; catches zee conference passes 350.63 catehes 351.4 10. ile 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 5. Wild passes: non-conference, 8.5; out of bounds, 2.75; to an opponent, 5.75 conference, 6.8; out of bounds, 2.6; to an opponent, 4.2 — Held balls obtained by opponents: non-conference, 2 conference, 4 Fumbles: non-conference, 6.25; out of bounds, 3.25; obtained by opponent, 3 conference, 6.0; out of bounds, 3.0; obtained by epponent, 3 Tapped ball out of bounds: non-conference, 1.25 conference, 1.4 Tapped and recovered own jump ball: non-conference, .5 times . conference, no times Recovers teammate's jump ball: non-conference, 13.75 | conference, 8.4 Assists: non-conference, 25.25; immediate, 13.5; secondary, 11.75 conference, 25205 immediate » 12.63; secondary, 10.4 Evaluation points: non-conference, 1132.75 - 69 = 1065.75 conference, 1079.2 < 76.6 = 1002.6 Evaluation points per minute of pk y: non-conference, 26.59 | " conference, 25.07 Evaluation points per score: non-conference, 25.36 conference, 23.22 Pligying efficiency: non-conference, 94.3% conference, 93.4% Ball handling error rate: non-conference, 2.2% conference, 2. 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 team took 13 less shots per game. This means that the team's shooting average was considerably better, being 29.4% for the conference games and 24.4% for the non-conference games, From the standpoint of ball handling, there were 24 more passes and 31 more catches per game in the non-conference matches than in the conference games. Both the playing efficiency and ball a. handling error rate were poorer in.the conference games than in the non-conference games. = should also be noted that for each game point scored in the non-conference games, 20.36 evaluation points (25.36 - 5) were earned by some other method, ‘An analysis of the data shows that scoring a field goal pleys a reletively small part in scoring evaluation points, and that ball handling, recovery of vebdeunds, ete. must be considered to a larger extent. oe | In the last three games data were obtained on both the ‘ansas team and its opponents, This material is sumerized in the nneing list. TABLE itl. Cent erence Game Records made by Kansas and Opponents 1. ‘Seores: Opponents Kansas, 1 ie 2. Goals: Opponents took 184 shots, made 39 goals; average % Kansas took 165 shots, made 56 goa 85 average 5329 4 3. Free throws: Opponents took 44 shots, made 243 a % | ‘Kansas took 42 shots, made oT, average 64.3 4. Personal fouls: Opponents 36 Kansas, 27 5, Of 6. Violations: Opponents, 16 eT ey ae %, Rebounds off own backboard: Opponents recovered 45 ar gr aaa jude Kansas recovered 70 | 8. Rebounds off o ent 's a Opponents recovered 40 ; —- Kansas recovered 78 9. Good passes and catches: Gepnainate 607 ea passes; 485 catches Kansas, i043 good passes; 998 catches anil Te 10. Wild passes: Opponents, 20; 6 out of bounds, 14 to an opponent oo ac Kansas, 193 6 out of bounds, is te an opponent ll. Fumbles: Opponents, 20; 9 out of bounds, 11 to an opponent Kansas, 203; 10 out of bounds, to to an opponent 12. Tapped bell out of bounds: Opponents, 4 times : a ca Kansas, 4 times 13. Held balis: Opponents obtained 17 Kansas obtained 16 14, Jump ball: Opponents tapped and recovered ow jump ball 1 time } Kansas tapped and recovered own jump ball no times 15. Jump ball: Opponents recovered teammate's jump ball 32 times 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 secondary 17, Evaluation points: Opponents, 1997 positive; 244 negative Kansas, 3527 positive; 237 negative 18. Evaluation points per minute: Opponents, 14.6 ee Kansas, 25.8 19. Evaluation points per score: Opponents, 14.6 : Kansas, 28.2 Kansas s 93.4% 21. Ball handling error rate: Opponents, 4.9 % (Totals are shown.) 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. However, it should be noted that the home team scored more goals (56 for 33.9%) than the opponents (39 goals for 21.2%). This same thing is true of the free throws with Kansas making 27 free throws for 64.3% and the opponents making 24 free throws for 54.5%. | When one examines the personal fouls Kansas made less (27) than the opposition (36). However, the Kansas fouls yielded the greater number of free throws (44) to the visiting teams (42). It 8. seems that the Kanses personal fouls occurred more often when a man was in the act of shooting than did the fouis of the opponents, by the rate of 8 to 15. In this case the total is somewhat misleading, as ‘the discrepancy oecurred almost entively in one game that Kansas - won by 20 points, The most outstanding difference to be pointea pr occurred in two places; in the recovery of rebounds and in ball hendling. _In the resevery of rebounds, one sees that the Kansas seit recovered 70 rebounds oft their own backboards, while the opponents recovered 45 off their backboards. ‘The same ratio holds when one notes the rebounds of the opponent's backboards - Kansas securing 78 while the visitors were collecting #0 rebounds, The recovery of rebounds seems to be the most outstanding difference in the teams. : The ball one of the teams shows that Kansas 7 and passed 2041 times and the opponents 1092 times, This difference could be entirely due to various styles of play. However : when one considers the errors in ball handling, such as wild passes, fumbles and held balls obtained by eppensnte., we see that Kansas made 55 errors and the eppenente made 57 errors 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 (4.9%) was almost twice that of the home team (2.6%). In considering the total negative evaluation points, both Kansas and the opposition made about the same number of mistakes (287 for Kansas and 244 for the visitors). However, Kansas earned 3527 positive evaluation points as compared to 1997 positive evelua- tion points earned by the opponents. When these figures are reduced to playing efficiency, we find that the home tean hes a playing _ efficiency of 93.4% as compared with 89.41%. The data show that for each score point the visitors earned 17.2 evaluation points and Kansas earned 22.2 evaluation points. By deducting the 5 evaluation points for each score point one sees that 12.2 evaluation points were earned as compared with 17.2 for Kansas. While Kansas had the ball earning the extra eval- uation points it is certain that the opposition was not scoring. However, es pointed out previously, the various styles of play may effect the total number of evaluation points, but the style shoul not have a great deal of effect on errors in ball handling. In making direct comparisons between specific teams, a summary table made up from the evaluation summaries shows much the same facts as the totals between Kansas and the opposition. TABLE IV. Summary from Evaluation Chart: 4 ay ats oh: ee an ‘2 ee eee ee & z cS a 6 a £8 | o a : oa ad ao © 2 Ba ret oH ® Ge | o $ St et 3s Pee 62% 2 sf is fi fy 33 32 itis: a S$ ew & wh an ao ee ao fe he Kansas a IT 38 It #7 IS Ws ces @5 BB 1.3 : School A 35 12 16 9 56 15 18 441 3,9 41 91. | oe ee ee oe ee ee School B 33 15 29 3 60 8 26 3286 7.4 24 86.6 ee ee ee ee ee er ee School C 36 12 20 12 51 13 158 325 3.8 20 89.2 School A played the home team fairly even on most of the comparisons except that they could not hit the goal, making only 16% of their field goals while Kansas was making 53% of their attempts. | School B played the closest game from the score standpoint. Their less can be credited to a poorer shooting percentage than Kansas and possibly the direct cause of the loss was Kensas' ability to recover the rebounds, the control of which cave them additional chances to score and prevented Team B from scoring during the added time that the home team controlled the ball. School C excelled only in the number of free throws while Kansas had ea 63% average in free throwing es compared to a 51% average, Like the total table, this summary table shows that the funtemnttie: of the game - shooting, ball handling and rebound re- covery - are necessary to offensive power and for winning games. Individual Player Rating Duping the season a running tabula tion was kept on each player who played in the home contests, showing the individual's performance in each game and his total endeavors for the season. (Sample record, Exhibit B.) Since the close of the season other items have been devised, such as ball handling error, playing efficiency, and scor- ing ability. These points do not appeer on the original tabulation 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 modification, depending upon the position played and the style of basketball used. Natumilly, the guards will nénés' backboard than the forwards. It also follows that the forwards should recover more rebounds off their own backboard, and certainly the center or “quarterback” man will handle the ball more often than other offensive players. These general trends are apparent as soon as one begins an intensive study m. of the data gathered. , The players have been listed (see Table 7, Evel uation | Point Totals) by the number of minutes played during the home games. By a brief study of this table one can see that there is a high re- lationship between minutes played and the total number of evaluation points. 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 given in the definition of terms (No. 6). This rating is probably the most meaningful in the table, but it does not tell the complete stery. Ball handling is the basis for offensive ability, and for this reason a ball handling table has been tabulated (see Table VI). TABLE V. Ratings Based on Evaluation Point Totals. Player Minutes* Eval. Points Points per Player efficiency ! Earned Minute Percentage A 328.5 =. 2098 ; 6.36 9725 B 266 1307 4.9} 92.2 ¢ 263.5 1300 4.93 96.4 D 221.5 1256 5.67 94.9 E 141.5 560 3.96 | — —- 9065 F 117 628 557 94.1 G 100 460 4.60 94.2 H 74.5 344 4.62 93.0 I 70.5 310 4.39 , 91.7 a 70.0 395 5-64 91.6 K 59.5 297 4.99 94.5 L 34.5 120 3248 84.5 M 22.5 117 5.22 91.5 “Time as recorded by W. A. Dill, compiled or on Dill method of playing time yaeertings | 12. TABLE VI. . Ball Handling ; Goal Shooting | Passing and Catehing a fe 2 22 4 “i * 4 a a o we 8 : s< s pets s ot a rie ® 3 Sh ee é eo get > a Bel AD t1 © @ : ei Saf " : 2 92 ga od eu & 83 ES Ss 4 A & i é 29 .& +3 D9 of eT. 16 : , / ee 8 £48 & 27-1 20 66.7 845 26 2.9 7 cc $$ B.. Bes 5 71.4 1004 17) sole? 3 a 10 3025 5 71.4 372 18 4.6 iz. y-8 wf 12 17.9 8 57.1 341 7 2.0 5 @ f,¢% 4 9.0 2 50.0 348 § 4618 1 = ££ | 13 30.2 4 66.7 166 il 6.2 13 . £ @ 7 21.2 2 335.5 192 os 4.0 il 7 ¢. 3 16.7 2 40,0 346 il Sel ss 2 g 13 = = 116 4 3.3 9 M 12 1 53505 2 66.7. 85 3 34 10 # guard, forward, center. In. this tabulation of the percentage of goals made (see Table VI), one.cm see that player C and player M have both the same score, SS eFhe However, player C was the most valuable on the basis of other items. Player A with 32.6% 1s undoubtedly more aa: le than either. ‘This method must be tempered with judgment. In. order to arrive at an index number for rating scoring ability an arbitrary formula was used (see definition of terms, No. 7). This gives a rather high index number which when reduced to a one-twoethree basis — rating gives a logical. order. Errors in ball handling include the total number of wild passes, fumbles, and held balls obtained by an opponent. In order to arrive at a ball handling error vate, the total number of passes and catches was assumed to be an accurate index as to the relative — eet 13. number of times chances for errors were present. By using the formula given in definition of terms, No. 8, an indes was established, The guards handled the ball more often than did the forwards, and the two players with the lowest ball handling error rate (players A and G) are guards. However , player G also played as a forward, ‘The lowest error rate for a forward was 2,0 for player F. | 3 In order to find further ratings for the purpose of analysis, the scores from the evaluation chart were computed on a point per minute basis and a rating from 1 bal 13 given the various pleyers. The material in this chart ( Table. VII) is of value until a one reaches the players with only a few minutes of playing time. Here the chart breaks down because these players did not perform all : of the items mentioned, and are rated too highly, This material is dteqenesd somewhat in the summaries dealing with the individual players. TABLE VII. Rating on Act vite eR Minute* +i Z 3c a g ° : é 5 E +. ho . ge Sab baad Fenbc ds qasaea > Ss ih og 3a8 bide aa oR CSE baa aa se ° 8a 3 mH © th Chek @ fe iO het Mh SERUEUE aesu 3 S 38 £28 ZAS8 FRGSRGER SARZAZA BETS so ee ee ee ee ee 2 fx oS =a w oe a 2s Sh ae eee ger a ir as eS ie he Se CE ake 2 & fF & F 8 7 10 #8¢§ & 6&6 869 S.6::3. 3%. 4.23% ..9 2. :'.% 13 S -@€°.2.°-@: € 8: rp é€é&¢ FF Fe hUve!lUD 9 > @& 2 Ff 2 = 2 .f.542@ @ § § 22:9 & 8 11 12 -7 . 965 10 - ££ €.4¢ 3 6 Be OS 7 1 2 WwW ££ & SS G £6730 11 10 33 .7..,3 12 Ss F¥ @ © 2 F re. a2 & @& ££ ee 10 4 i838 i3.38 68 fT +t £m 42 OB: §-8 3° 2 . 7 Wii & 7 & J £10 310 7 3.5 18.5 6 3 mifet 2? «as hlUwe K esi O28 32%. 7 3h. oh 8 6 82 4510.8 4 L 121313 13 3.5 12.5 §& 6 & &@ €& hs OM uM a .8£08 13 28-2. 2: &. ww 6 46 6 23 @& # A panking of 1 is the best performance. 14. TABLE VIII. Offensive Ability Rankings | + b bop ¢ eg bP BR ud #& Me = a we SM bo. ay aa ¢ 2 rf @ ‘s 3 2 Hw 6h “Ss @: & fe & =2° 25 ft. ry _f- os ey B f,e¢ ; 2 2 2 ? ; JS is. 2 3 5 3 2 Ow ie ook Oe ee ef -€ se. &s 6 12 12 Sf: pies BC oe EO OS e -€ ts % 9 _ +4 1 5 1. we. se ee 5. 8 7 . 2. ¥' 8 8 8 1 9 K B90 12 10 —)6lUeS 6 4 at li 11 so &@..8 13 ¥ 13 15 iz. «oie 10 12 ® guard, forward, center. — At the close of the season a letter was sent to the 16 letter men of the varsity and the 17 numeral men on the freshman squad. (Sample letter and rating blenk, Exhibits C and D) These 33 boys were asked to rate the 13 varsity players on their offensive playing ability. The 13 players included in the study were ranked by 21 players | and the coach. On the basis of offensive: playing ability, these rankings plus. other significant rankings from 1 the evaluation data are shown in Table VIII. : | 3 of particular interest is the sintiiarity of the rankings that were given by the varsity, the freshmen and the coach. There — only 3 players where the disagreement is more than 2 rankings apart. AlL are unanimous, on 5 players. It should be remembered that in spite of the apparent discrepancies between the Judgment ae and the — ratings, the latter are ‘pullt up of , 15. isolated abilities. As pointed out earlier, the guards and center have a better chance of making a higher score in ball handling due to their positions and the style of basketball used in this school. No attempt was made in this study to give any of the players a composite enki, but it should be noted that player A was a guard known nationally as an All-American player. On the basis of the individual evaluation tables certain. facts are brought out that can best be shown in individual analyses, For that reason, the abilities of the Hayes are discussed as single units. | Sommery of Individual Player Analysis — . - ae Player A. Guard. el, | This player was in 9 home games for 328.5 minutes and or a player efficiency rating of 97.3%. He was the number one man in - almost any way that he. could be rated. He earned 2098 evaluation points and 122 score points, He made 47 goals. (32.6%) and 28 free throws (59.6%) and had a ball handling error rate of 117%. In earn- ing the high scorer pesitien on the squad he made more passes than catches, ‘This is partly due to his willingness to cooperate and to his position es a guard. ‘There were three men on the squad that took more shots per minute of playing time. Of the men who took more shots per minute of playing time none had as good an average of made shots. During his long playing time he made only 15 personal fouls; two of his teammates with less playing time exceeded his total 3 number of fouls and five teammates made more fouls per minute of playing time. He was an excellent ball handler, a dandy shot and a team player. The coach, his fellow players : the freshman avin. and the statistics were in complete agreement on his offensive ability, _ and listed him as the number one player on the squad. — Player B. Forward and Center. ee aoa | ‘From the standpoint of time, this player played more minutes (266) than ‘any other player except player A. He was also second high scorer, earning 66 points by making 23 goals (27,1%) and 30 free throws (66.7%). From the standpoint of evaluation points, he was also second earning 1307 points, and had a playing efficiency of 92.2%. In ball handling errors he rated 2.9%. Six of his team- mates rated poorer in this department. However, in spite of his errors in ball handling he made more passes at the opportune time to players who scored than any other individual, Even on immediate assists per minute he rated second to only one other player, and this player playéd only 22,5 minutes during the season. : There were four — on the squad that took more shots per minute. He was the only forward on the team to make more passes than eatches who played ‘more then 22.5 minutes, He had only 8 personal fouls and was the only player with over 200 playing minutes to have so few fouls. was rated third by his fellow players, anh aeend ty nse coach and the freshmen players. Player C. Guard. Player ¢ played 263.5 ainutes, earning 1300 evaluation points and 21 score points, scoring 13 goals (33.2%) and 5 free throws (71.4%). He handled the ball on passes and catches 1004 times which is the second greatest number on the squad and had a ball handl- ing error rate of 1.7% which 1s next to that of players / and G. Ls However, player C played over 24 times as many minutes as player G. —_ player took a total of 39 shots and this is the smallest number of shots for any of the players that had over ae minutes of playing tine. As a oo he was in position ‘to recover vebounie from off the 17. opponent's backboard. He recovered 48 tines, as compared to player A's 50 times, and on a basis = recoveries per mimte of pAayies time he is the leader fer the team. This player passed the ball 128 bines more than he caught it. On the basis ef the data gath- ered this player is. & good ball passer and rebound recoverer, which is a great asset to the team. On ball handling he has a very low pareentage of ervess and has a playing efficiency eof 96.4% which makes him the number two man on the squad. His teammates rated him second on effensive ability, and his coach and the freshmen rated him third. — Player D. Center. | , x : Player D was the fourth man on the squad to play ever 200 minutes with a total time of 221.5 minutes. He earned 33 score points and 1256 evaluation points, which was fourth high for the squad. While playing he scored 14 goals (28%) and made 5 free throws — (62.5%). In bell handling errers he had a low score of 1.9% and was one of the four men to score less than 2% errors. His alle, Around playing efficiency was 94.9%, which was also fourth for the squad. As far as ball handling was concerned, he was third in the total number of passes and catches. He made 17 more passes than catches. There were only four men on the squad that took fewer — shots per minute. The data show that this player handled the ball many times fer a lew error rate of 1.870. He was second on the squad in evaluation points per minute and that shows he did not shoot too often. On playing efficiency he was the best center on on the squad, and the players, the coach and the freshmen all rated. him as the number four man. | Player E. Forward. 18. - his player was a forward and had 141.5 minutes of play- ing time to his credit. He earned 560 evaluation points and 25 score points. He scored 10 goals (50.3%) and made 5 free throws (71.4%). In ball handling he had an error rate of 4.6 which was second highest on the squad. From the standpoint of player effic- iency he was twelfth. There was only one ott player on the squad that hed a lower rate of personal fouls. Player E played 141.5 minutes er over 33 games of 40 minutes each and made only 3 personal fouls. He is the first player in the list to catch the ball more then he passed {t by 4 catches. He also is the first man on the list to — listed as a forward only. Player B played both forward and center during the season. It seems to be a characteristic of the forward position to demand more catching than passing. The date indicate a low personal foul rate, a poor efficiency rating as com- pared .to the players who played 200 minutes and an error rate in ball handling 4 times as high as that of players A and G. He was rated as sixth by his fellow players and the freshmen, and seventh by the coach. Player F. Forward This player was listed as a forwerd und he played 117 minutes, making 12 goals (17.9%), and 8 free throws (57.1%). He earned 628 evaluation points and 52 score points. On the player efficiency bhart he rated sixth with a percentage of 94-1. His rate of error in ball handling was 2.070, which placed him in fifth _ place. Like the preceding player, he had more catches than passes in ball handling. Only one other player (H) had more attempted shots per mimite of play and only two squed members made a smaller per= centage of their shots. On balls recovered eff his own backboard 19. he rates as the No. 1 man. This is aise true for the recovery of his teammate's jump balls. On the basis of personal fouls per minute, this player ranked eleventh for the squad only two making more than he did. The data indicate that the player was fairly efficient, — but that his shooting average was far too low. He makes a first | class man on handbing rebounds off his own backboard and getting the ball after a teammate!s jump, but he committed tee many pers: mal fouls. — His teammates, freshmen and coach rated him fifth. _ Elayer G. Forward and Guard This player was listed as beth a forward ‘and a guard. He playea 100 minutes, made 460 evaluation peints and ten score points , | 4 goals (20.0%), and shot 2 free throws for 50.0%. He earned ss. rating on player efficiency of 94.2%, which places t him in ‘fifth place for the squad. In errors for pall handling, he rated first with a rate of 1.13%. As a guard he had an epportunity to recover re- - off the opponent's backboard to such an extent that he rated No. 2 for the squad on a basis of rebounds per mimite. He passed the ball more than he caught it, and on the basis of shots per mimte there are only 5 players who took less shots. This player is twelfth on the basis of personal fouls committed por mimte. The date indicate that he was an excellent ball handler, and a good rebound recoverer, but he did not shoot enough. On the basis of efficiency his coach, teammates and freshmen rated him ninth. a Player He Forward. — | ‘Player H was a forward with 74.5 mimtes of playing time to his credit. He earned 344 evaluation points and 30 score points, 206 made 13 baskets (30.2%) and 4 free throws (66.7%). This player alse had the highest number of shots attempted per mimte ef play. On the basis of player efficiency he rated 95.0%. But on his ball handling ability he had an error rating ef 6.2%, or 5 times that of players A and G. He was the eighth player on the basis of time played and he ranked eighth on the basis ef personal fouls, When it came to passing and catching the ball, he made 22 more catches than passes » This player was a | good scorer but he shot more than any other player per minute of play. He made teo many errors in ball handling and in this department he ranked thirteenth. He ranked seventh on his playing efficiency, and the players rated him tenth, the coach eleventh, and the freshmen twelfth. Player I. Forward. : 7 Player I was in the games for 70.5 mimtes as a forward. He earned 395 evaluation points and 16 score points, and made 7 goals for 21.2% and threw 2 fouls for 33.3%. On the basis of personal fouls per minute he was number one man with less than any other | member of the squad. He had a ball handling error rating of 4.0% and a playing efficiency of 91.7%. As a forward he recovered enough palls from the opponent's backboard per minute to rank as the No. 2 man of the squad. He also was the No. 3 man in recovering the ball eff his own backboard, and he ranked third on the basis ef tetal pecevertos per minute. In the amount of playing time this player ranked ninth and on the basis of playing efficiency he also ranked ninth. Like the other forwards, he also caught the ball more than he passed it and ranked third in the attempted geals per minute of playing time. This player was good at recovering rebounds, not too good a shot, and among the 3 players to have an error rating over 21. 4%. He did not compit many personal fouls. He was rated seventh by the players, and eighth by the coach and freshmen. Pleyer J. Forward. 3 This man had a playing time of 40 mimtes. During this time he made 8 score points, 5 goals (16.7%), 2 free throws (40%) and earned 395 evaluation points. His erver rating in ball handling was 3.1% and his playing efficiency rated at 91.6%. He was tenth in the amount of time in home games and rarked tenth in playing efficiency, As a forward he recovered the ball off his own back- beard to rank third on the per minute basis, and caught the ball more than he passed it. As a forward he was not a good shot as only one boy on the squad had a lower rank and the player who was lower did not make a basket in his five attempts. He was ranked eighth by his teammates, sixth by the coach and seventh by the Player K, Guard and Center. With a playing time of 59.5 minutes this player made 297 evaluation points, 5 score points, 2 goals (25%) and 1 free throw (50.%). His error rate in ball handling was 2.4% and of the 5 players with a better rating 3 were guards, one was a forward, and ene was a center. His playing efficiency was 74.3, and of the three players who ranked better than he, two were guards and one was @ center. In rebounds off the opponent's backboard, he rated eleventh end in goals made per minute he ranked twelfth. This player had Some excellent men to compete with and on a team wittheut an all- American guard he might have had more opportunity to play. Like the other guards and centers, he passed more than he caught the ball. On rebounds off his own backboard per minute he ranked eighth and 226 he ranked sixth on the recovery per minute of a teammate's jump ball. The data indicate that this player was a geod ball handler and an efficient player, but that he did not shoet enough in pro- portion to his playing time. He was rated twelfth by his teammates, and tenth by the coach and the freshmen. Player L. Guard. | This boy had a total time of 54-5 minutes, 120 evaluation points, and ne score points. He is the only player of the 13 in the study that did net seore during the home season. He attempted 5 goals and 2 free throws. His error rate in ball handling was 5.3% and this was better than four of his teammates, who played longer. From the standpoint of playing efficiency he made a scere of 84.5%, the lowest on the squad. The point most in favor of this boy was his rank in free throws attempted per mimte (not making any) in which he was tied with player J for third place. This player ranked the lowest of the guaras and was the only one to cateh the ball more than he passed it. He was rated eleventh by the Yarsity and fresh- men, and twelfth by the coach. Player M. Forward. This player ranked thirteenth in mimtes of play (22.5), earned 117 evaluation points and 4 score points. He made one goal (33.3%) and 2 free throws (66.7%). He ranked tenth both in player efficiency (91.5%) and in error rate 3.4%. He had the highest rate ef personal fouls per minute of any of the 135 boys. This player had a very définite height disadvantage as he was by far the short- est man on the squad and can be considered small in stature even in comparison with boys not playing college basketball. He was ranked thirteenth by all his fellow players and thirteenth by his coach. 256 The summaries have been presented and discussed in the body of the paper. In addition some general conclusions seem to be warranted; 1. The study is of value in that a record was made of the number of times various activities are performed in college basketball. 2. An aceurate record of the offensive abilities of players was» made available independent of the score book. 3. By examination of the material after a geme a coach can see which men were performing their duties and which fundamentals need extra work. = 4. The players have a definite interest in the charts and watch their improvement in deficient abilities. 5. There remains ample room for additional studies.