Bea? 2oUG BASSET BALL PLAYERS « PT RPLP PAL TERS AND FPZTELD ZING AVERAGES COMPUTED PLAYING SEASONS OF 1937838 AND 1938-39 eo ot Dre Forrest Ce. Allen Drs Be Ra Eddbol Dre Ve 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 ob» jective was the successful scoring of field goals or free thraws 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 2e Free throws Se Immediate assists 4. Secondary assists -Se Recovers ball off opponent's backboard 6. Recovers ball off own backboard 7s 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 MPeRMrRNM NN OP OO Be Negative Items -le Error of omission 2¢ Held ball obtained by an opponent ‘8@ Fumbles ball and it goes out of bounds -&« Fumbles ball and it is obtained by oppenent ‘Se Taps ball out of bounds ‘6— Wild pass out of bounds -7, Wild pass to an epponent 8. Violation of rules 9. Personal offensive foul oOmPANNNEHEH 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 players 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 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 observers 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 matcriale Definition of Terms The terms used in the evaluation chart study are, for the most part, in common usage in the game of baskotball and need not be defined. However, some of the terms have not usually been connected with basketball and for this reason are defineds Ze 1. Immediate assist, a pass ma do to a player who scores a field goal. 2. Secondary assist, the pass directly preceding an immediate assist. 3. 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 plaver having complete control of the ball and by poor judgment or poor technique on his part an opponent is able to "tie him up" to such an extent thas an officiai calls a held ball. 5e Tcam efficiency, team positive evaluation points team positive plus negative cvaluation points 6. Playor efficiency, player's positive ovaluation points = =. _ player's positive plus nogative evaluation points 7e Scoring ability index, number of goals times per cont of goals made plus one» half ries throws times por cent of free throws made) 8. Ball handling crror rate, ball h Lag oe good catches plus good passes plus ball handling errors Team Analysis By using the technique outlined, data were collected on the Kansas tcam during nine home games and on the opponents during the last three home gamoSe From this matorial comparisons were made on the Kansas team using the averages for the four non-conference games and for the five conference gamese In the last three home games, the Kansas team was compared with its opponentse Differont styles of basketball would undoubtedly yield oa different average for the number of shots, passes, etce The frequency of these occurrences are listed as follows: TABLE le Nine Game Averages il. Score: 42s7 points 2. Goals: attompted 61.5; made 1665; %2649 3 Free throws: attempted 16; made 90563; %59e7 4. Personal fouls: 1002 5e Offensive personal fouls: .78 6¢ Violations: 3e7 7e Rebounds from own backboard: 21635 8-¢ Rebounds from opponent's backboard: 22.635 9. Passes and good catches: 3S61e5 passes; 345 catches 10. Wild passes: total 7.57; out of bounds, 2.67; ‘to opponents, 49 lle Held balis: obtained by opponents, 3el 12e Fumbles; total 6.1; out of bounds, 3el3 to opponents, 3 13. Tappod ball: out of bods, 1.3 14. Junp ball: tapped and recovered ovm jump ball, 22 15. Jump ball: recovers teammate's jump ball, 1028 16. Assists: total, 24; immediate, 13; secondary, 11 17. Evaluation points: 1103.0 - 7362 = 1029.8 points per game 18. Evaluation points per plaver per minute of play: 5.14 points 19. Evaluation points per score: 24.1 points 20. Team cfficicncy: 95.8% It is interesting to note that there are 16.3 more passes than catchese If one adds the fumbles (661) and the wild passes (7057), tho difference is al~ most erasede When one considers the possibilitics for offensive mistakes, it would appear that tho negative evaluation points (732) is relatively lowe Se in order to compare averages of the four noneconference home games and the five conference hame games, the data are presented in outline forme TABLE II. Four Non=Conferenee Games and Five Conference Ganes: le Score: noneconference average, 42 points conference average, 43.2 points é2e Goals: noneconference average shots attempted, 68275; average mde, 16975; %24e4 conference gverage shots attempted, 55.8; averago made, 164; %29e4 Se Free throws: noneconferonce average shots attempted, 14e03; average made, 8e53;%60e7 ; conferonce average shots attempted, 1763 average madc, 10043 %599 4. Personal fouls: non-conforence average, 10.5 conference average, 100 5 Offensive personal fouls: noneconfcrenee average, 25 conferenee average, 1e2 6 Violations: non-conference average, 3 conference average, 42 7e Rebounds from own backboard: noneconforence average, 22,0 conference average, 2096 8. Rebounds from opponont's backboard: nonetonforcnce average, 1920 conferonee average, 25,0 9s Basses and good eatches; noneconference passes, 374275; antehes, 364 conforonec passes, 550963 aatehes, 33164 10. Wild passes: noneconference, 8 8e5; out of bounds, 2675; to an opponent, 675 eonforence, 608; out of bounds, 2,6; to an opponent, 442 lle Held balls obtained by opponconts: noneconference, 2 conference, 4 12. Fumbles: noneconferense, 66253 out of bounds, 3025; obtained by eppenent, 3 conferonec, 6.0; out of bounds, 3.0; obtained by opponent, ‘5 13. Tapped ball out of bounds; noneconferenec, 1025. conferensc, let 442 Tapped and rccovored own juap ball: non-nonferonee, ao tines conferenee, no times 15, Recovers toomate ts juap ball: nonseonferenee, 13,475 conforonce, 844 16, Assists; nonsconferense, 250283; immediate, 15,5; sccondary, lLls?s conforange, 23,0; immediate, 12.63 scgondary, 10.4 46 17. Evaluation points: non-conference, 1132e75;- 69 = 1063e75 conference, 107962 - 7666 = 1002.6 18. Evaluation points per minute of play: non-conference, 26259 conference, 25207 19. Evaluations points per score; non-conference, 25636 conference, 23422 20. Playing efficiency: non-conference, 943% conference, 934% 21. Ball handling error rate: non=conferonce, 2.2% conference, 25% It is interesting to note that the scores aro almost identical and that the number of goals are about the samee However, in the conference games, the team took 13 less shots per gamce This means that tho team's shooting average was cone — siderably better, being 29.4% for the conference games and 24.4% for the non-confer-~ ence games. From the standpoint of ball handling, there were 24 more passes and 51 more catches per game in the noneconference matches than in the conference gamoSe Both the playing efficiency and ball handling crror rate were poorer in the confer-~ ence games than in the noneconference gamcoSe It should also be noted that for each game point scored in the non-confer- ence games, 20.936 evaluation points (25.36 - 5) were earned by some other methode An analysis of the data shows that scoring a field goal plays a relatively small part in scoring evaluation points, and that ball handling, recovery of rebounds, c%Ce must be considered to a larger extend. In the last three games data were obtained on both the Kansas team and its opponents. This ma terial is summarized in the following list. TABLE III. Conference Game Records Made by Kansas and Opponents: 1. Scores: Opponents, 102 Kansas, 139 2e Goals: Opponents took 184 shots, mde 39 goals; avorage %21le2 Kansas took 165 shots, made 56 goals; average %339 3. Free throws: Opponents took 44 shots, made 24; average %5445 : Kansas took 42 shots, mado 27, a vorage %64e3 4. Personal fouls: Oppo nents, 356 Kansas, 27 5. Offensive personal fouls: Both teams made 3 personal fouls while they had tho ball and called offensive foulse . 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, 203; 9 out of bounds, 11 to an opponent Kansas, 20; 10 out of bounds, 10 to an opponent 12. Tapped ball out of bounds: Opponents, 4 tines; Kansas, 4 times 13. Held balls: Opponents obtained 17; Kansas obtained 16 14. Jump ball: Opponents tapped and recovered own jump ball 1 time Kansas tapped and recovered own jump ball no tines 15. Jump ball: Opponents recovered toarmate's jump ball 32 tines Kansas recovered tcammatets 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 positive; 244 negative Kansas, 3327 positive; 237 negative 18. Evaluation points per minute: Opponents, 146 Kansas, 2548 19.. Evaluation points per score: Opponents, 1466 | Kansas, 222 20. Playing efficiency: Opponents, 89,1% , Kansas, 934% 21..Ball handling error rate: Opponents, 409% mangas, 26h (Totals are showne) In comparing the totals one can see that the opponents made more attempts at both field goals and frec throws than did the Kansas —— Howevor, it shouid be noted that the home team scored more goals (56 for 33¢9/) than the opponents (39 goals for 2162%).e This same thing is true of the free throws with Kansas making 27 free throws for 64.3% and the opponents making 24 freoe throws for 54e5%e - When one examines the personal fouls Kansas made less (27) than the oppo» sition (36). . However, the Kansas fouls yielded the greater number of free throws (44) to the visiting teams (42)e It seoms that the Kansas personal fouls ovcurred © more often when o 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, 28 the dise crepancy occurred almost entirely in one game that Kansas won by 20 points. The most outstanding difference to be pointed out occurred in two places; in the recov» ory of rebounds and in ball handlinge In the recovery of rebounds, one seos that the Kansas players recovered 70 rebounds off their own backboards, while the opponents recovered 45 off their backboardse . The same ratio holds when one notes the rebounds of the opponent's Se backboards = Kansas securing 78 while the visitors wore collecting 40 reboundse The recovery of rebounds scens 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 entirely due to various styles of playe However, when one considers the orrors in ball hkndling, such as wild passes, fumbles and hold balls obtained by opponents, we see that Kansas made 55 errors and the opponents made 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 (409%) was almost twice that of the home team (246%). In considering the total negative evaluation points, both Kansas and the opposition made about the same numbor of mistakes (237 for Kansas and 244 for the visitors). However, Kansas earned 3327 positive evaluation points as compared to 1997 positive evaluation points carned by the opponentse When these figures are re- duced to playing efficiency, we find that tho home toam has a playing efficiency of 93e4% as compared with 89el%e The data show that for each score point the visitors earncod 1722 cvaluation points and Kansas earned 22.62 evaluation pointse By deducting the 5 evalua tion points for each score point one seos that 12.2 evaluation points were carned as com= pared with 17.2 for Kansas, While Kansas had the ball earning the extra evaluation points it is certain that tho opposition was not scoringe However, as pointed out previously, the various styles of play may 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, a summary table made up from the cvaluation summaries shows much the same facts as the totals between Kansas and the oppositione TABLE IV. Summary from Evaluation Chart: — ~ -3 oO a ¢ =~ “ YW & — o at i= @ —. | = ee SD ' 2a ets ee we 2 _ ™ = OA oy a aN, "2 s 2 Ste 62 &e-¥S ~~ = » x£ “iS q 9 = vs i yo NY . i vw aN ._ &. S's SS 2 CS ou. ae WU 5. - » oe = Fy ~— eS _ 2 & we BE a SSE oo eee a m © Ric Ee ! luk g BR ELA [—-. )6h6UhhhChUhUlU ll CU lh hd heh Uo Ll CU ee ee ee ee ee Kansas 46«s«3H—CiaS:CSCSC? a School B 33 15 29 3 60 a i eee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Te School A played the hane team fairly even on most of the comparisons cx-= cept that they could not hit the gonl, 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 tim’ that the home team controlled the balle School C excelled only in the number of free throws whilo Kansas had a 63% average in free throwing as compared to a 51% AVCTALCe™ Like the total table, this summary table shows that the fundamentals of the game « shooting, ball handling and rebound recovery = are necessary to offone sive power and for winning games. 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 soason. (Sample record, Exhibit Be) Since the close of the scason other items have been devised, such as ball handling error, playing efficioncy, and scoring abilitye These points do not appear on the original tabulation shects. 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 baskotball used. Natur- ally, the guards will recover more rebounds from the opponents't 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 a n intensive study of tho 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 sce that there is a high relationship between minutes played and the total number of cvaluation pointse The next column should have moro meaning in that points are considored in relationshiy to the total number of minutes played. The column on playing cfficicncy was arrived at by the formula given in the definition of terms (noe 6)- This rating is probably the most meaningful in the table, but it does not tell the complete storys Ball handling is the basis for offensive ability, and for this roason a ball handling table has been tabulated (see Table VI). 8. TABLE Ve. Ratings Based on Evaluation Point Totals Player Minutes * Eval. Points Points per Player efficicncy Earned Liinute Pereontage A 52865 2098 6.358 eet f* B 266 1307 4-91 9202 C 263 05 1300 4093 96 4 D 2eled 1256 567 949 E 141.5 560 5096 9025 F 117 623 Deol 941 G 100 460 4.60 9402 H 7405 344 462 $30 I 7095 310 4959 9167 J 7020 395 5 64 9126 K 5965 297 4099 | 9463 L 3465 120 5et8 84.5 M 2200 117 beck 915 *Time as recorded by We jie Dill, compiled by the Dill method of playing time ro- cordinge TABLE VIe Ball Handling Goal Shooting Passing and Catching w Ww U ~ * ~~ ¥ Vi 3 - $s = s < -& ; =~ > Y ~ ~ &® ‘ = S we = es Ww -S SN ‘2 & es = — = — = v ’ 33 = 8 Rw ™ NG yo Sow = Vs > \. ~*~ g A “4. QLv oe << _. = = & & NF = &% % “c. * s % _s.-2s.25 se alta OQ =< << i SC wc sa) a 1 a, oan 28 5966 1273 15 eat 2 G 2 3 13 330d 5 7194 1004 17 le? 3 y & 4 14 28.0 5 6265 961 18 1.8 & E f 6 10 3003 5 7let 372 18 46 iZ > Ff 7 1a 17.9 8 57 el 341 7 200 5 Go f,6 7 a.° 20,0 b 50.0 348 4 1.13 1 ee 5 13 50.2 4, 6667 166 11 6 e2 13 . oo. 8 7 212 Zz 3500 192 8 4.0 11 . F 10 3 1607 2 400 346 ii Sel 8 S668 2 2520 1 50.0 244 6 Cok 6 » ek 13 0 0 0 0 116 4: 30d 9 es 12 1 350d 2 66 67 85 3 3 04 10 «guard, forward, center Je 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, 33.3%. However, play- er C was the most valuable on the basis of other itemse 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, Noe 7)» This gives a rather high index number which when reduced to a one=twoethree 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 numbor 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 players with tho low- est ball handling error rate (playors A and G) are guards. Howevor, player G also played as a forwarde The lowest error rate for a forward was 2.0 for player Fe 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 to 13 given the various players. The material in this chart (Table VII) is of value until one reaches the players 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 playcrse TABLE Vile Rating on Activitics per Minute ° . “ < \ a | "2 | = = ef % ; &! 8 £. S 0 x SeecS €is, & Be & . «= Se se 7. .2s & a ; & SS ye Base GEGE — i. ££ 7 - men be & Fs S§ ° Ss .¢ * Siw OH KS SY sh a . , — oe. S~ ses 9 Ga w«hb © &@2 w« HS OF ef . Se SEs we ESO SSS S SS Sys elsississ 3s 2 BED S mF = © © Lev eeee as fa & | we Ss = Ye AF g_SoueUm sede GIG GUS "+. t+ tetfttfttY i —". c+ +t © Se © ee 8 tk CS 7 ». 8 © ©. oe 8 © & © F 8 hh. 8. we i 13 . @ FY © 6 Ss . ¢ ©£ © 8 oe 8 9 9 s 4 © 8 | et £6 ee Se 8 4 sn uM 8 . © £7 £m 6 YF 1 [we we ££ 8 8 ct, 7 wee we YY 3 12 ee a ee ee . 2: £ et 8 8 A 10 ‘ ww wm € Ff | EE 7. as 8. Le 3 a | =a. i 3 7 8 2f£ wm 8 FY tet Ret C 3 “so + + 2 Hw S sce. 6 eR Ft 8M 8 ‘ £ at & 4 i ss 2M Mw uM 8 tC 6 t 8* £4 un S&S weep in i 8 5 wo 8 466 HH OD *A ranking of 1 is the best performance. 106 TABLE VIII. Offensive Ability Rankings a Ed > Pod oo 7. |. ee} =| > , Nw | Os _ = 3 a ke af ge fe 3 ow AX | ss oF i on. O ~~ a i= >. 2 orrensive C1OLOLOLO1O;O1a0}O0;0;] Oo 2Q5|-15}-40\-3 |-43}-4|-441 O |47}-19|-66 O1OlClololo -3 |-121-15|-10}-25| O Total Negative Eval l7e Exhibit C DIRECTIONS Consider the following items of the player's offensive ability; 1. His scoring abilitye 2e His ability to recover rcboundse Se His ability to pass accuratclye 4, His ability to receive the ball on passese 5e His ability to recover juwip ballse 6. His ability to avoid held balls. After considering the above points, rate the players in the alphabetical list from 1 to 13, The player you consider best should be rated number l, and the poorest should be numbered 13.6 Rating of “offensive ability" Nanes Corlis Durand Ebling Florell Golay Harp Ce (ae A a men arene AE GE Hunts Johnson Kappelman Pralie So oe Reid Schmidt Sullivan ce ee SR es, —— eee 48, Exhibit D University of Kansas Lawrence Department of Physical Education May 10, 1938. TO THE BASKETBALL SQUAD: In connection with the basketball roscarch that we have been doing this winter we need your opinione You have worked with your group of boys and know them better than an outsider, and henee your opinion is better than mince Each member of the Varsity and Freshman squad is being asked to rate a group of this year's varsity players, Will you please read the directions on the enclosed sheet carefully, and in the seclusion of your room give us oa careful opinion? If your name is in the list, give your- self an honest ratinge Ploase note that you arc not being asked to sign these sheets and we have no method of identifying theme It is hoped that you will co-= operate in this mattore Very truly yours, Ve We Lavps 3 a ee a inion BASKETBALL EVALUATION STUDY FOR 1938839 SEASON Dre. Forrest C. Allen Dre Be Re Blbel Dre Ve W. Lapp Department of Physical Education, University of Kansas March, 1939 le In the 1938#39 study the evaluation teehnique has been extended to ine clude a defensive rating system for both the team and the individual playcrs The items and their cvaluation weights, as used in this study, aro shown in Table Ie Data were collected during 411 the home games on both the Kansas team and the visiting tcams. The technique used in the collection of these date is the same as deseribed in the first evaluation studye In thc 1937=@38 scason ninc home games were played, and this season eight home games were played, thus making a total of 17 games on which averages of certain activities were availablee These averages are shown in Table III. 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 yoar took more shots than did last season's team, but averaged one less goal per game. Tho number of free throws awarded in both seasons wis practicall y identical, but the number made was slightly reduced this seasone This yoar the total number of positive offensive evaluation points is lower than last yoarts total, This is due to two roasonse First, there ws a change in the technique of tabulating immediate assistse 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 onces The second reason for the lower total is that the recovery of reboumcds 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 soasone It is possible that the team summary posted in the team dressing room the day following each game made the individual players more conscious of their mistakes with the end result that fewer were mades The defensive evaluation voints as shown in Table I do not accumulate as rapidly as do the offensive points. Howover, this is not truce of the negative defensive points. During the season the negative defensive points were accumulated almost exactly twice as fast as were the negative offensive points. 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 pointse In games where a. player was forced out by fouls his total negative points excceded his positive points e The team summaries (sce Table IV) were made from the data gathered during the last hone seasone Kansas did not lose a home contest this season and lost only one last seasone Because no data wero available on the opposition at the time of the loss it is not possible to show the effect of losing | game on the statistics gathered. Due to its style of play, Kansas does more passing than most teamse This is well shown under total passes and catehes, Table III. Evon ina loss it is possible Kansas would show 4 higher evaluation point total due to the factor just mentioned, It would be interesting to collect data for games played oway from homee However, this has been considered impractical to datee Included in the tean summary, Table III, a new term (defensive cffi- ciency) is listed. This term is the result of the formula: total positive defensive evaluation points sun of positive and negative defensive points Ze Duc to the ease with whieh negative defense points can be accumulated the efficiencies for dofense are low. Thc composite cfficicney, like last year's efficiency, is bascd on the net positive points and nogative points that are earned during the ontire gamee The composite cfficioncy rating scems to parallel the game score more closely than some of the other itomse A close cxamination of the statisties of the game with Toam D will lead one to wonder just how the Kansas team won the gamee Tho story is told in goals made where the home team made two more than the opposition, The romaining statis= tics are largely in favor of Team De In the middle of the scason there was some question about the number of violationse It seemed that the number of violations was too low and it was the opinion that our observers were missing 2 fow violationse Without discussing the matter with the observers, a check was made during the game with Team F and both sets of observers had nine violetions on the Kansas team charged against the same boyse We realize the data cannot be more accurate then our observers and this check on the violations indicate that our boys were noticing the game rather closclye Table IV shows the player analysis for twelvo playcrse A few more players wore used in the home contests, but all had less than 20 minutes of playing time to their eredit and were not included in the present tablee The number (see Table IV) preceding the dash in the various columns represents the individual's rank in relation to the other mombers of the squade The scoring ability index as shovm in column 2 is based upon goals and free throws made and is conputed as show in the first study under definition of termse If two boys each made 25 goals, the one with the highest percentage of made shots will have the highest scoring ability indexe By changing the order of same of the data it is possible to make some player comparison between the two soasons! play on the same basisSe 1937-38 Season 1938-39 Season Offensive Bell handl= Offensive Ball handl- Player efficienoy ing error efficiency ing error - 90eD 46% et 164% B. 96 4 lal 97 39 gb F 9202 209 97 ee lel I 9401 200 76 4% 204 L 9465 204 97 26 15 This rating shows that all the players, with the exception of Player I who did not finish the season, did make improvenente The evaluation points per minute (see Table IV) earned during the play ing season show how active the individual was, while the composite efficiency shows how well the individual performed his taskse The players of visiting teams were rated on the fow items which are shown in Table Ve The table is limited to players who played at least 15 minutes during the game, The table (V) divides itself naturally into ghree groups: le Above 90% playing efficiency 26 Between 80% and 90% playing efficiency 3 Below 80% playing efficicncye Se The group above 90% consisted of 13 players; the two highest in this Group were forwards. Three centers and cight guards composed the remaindér of the liste The next group consisted of 22 players, four of whon were centers, seven were guards, and eleven were forwards. The group below 80% contained eleven players, three conters, four forwards and four guards.» It should be pointed out that out of the high cight players from the standpoint of playing efficiency, four of these players belong to School D, and that the players ranked one and two in evaluation points carned per minute also were from the same team. Also, it should be noted that two players of School D were ranked among those that were listed with zcro tll handling crrorse On tho basis of the data presented in Table V it would be interesting to sclect an all-opposition team, Summary and Conclusion Research of this type depends to a great extent upon the accuracy of the observers. Realizing this, the observors were very carcfully selected from student majors and other interested studentse Tho sane observers wore usod in all the games ond there is evory roason to believe that tho results are very nearly correct. It is the opinion of the writers that this study has merit because: le It points out mistakes made during a game, thus causing the players to be more conscious of theme ée@ It stresses the importance of gane fundanentals $e It provides an itemized history of the contest. 4. It makes possible a more accurate neans of conparing individuals and teans » TABLE I ITEMS USED IN BASKETBALL EVALUTAION 1939 STUDY OFFENSIVE Weight in evaluation points Ae Positive items 1. Field goals 1 2e Free throws Se Immediate assists 4 Secondary assists 5¢ Recovers ball off own backboard 6, Recovers teammate's jump ball 7« Recovers opponent's fumble 8. Good pass to a teammate 9e Catches teammate's pass MHHeeY ww POO Be Negative items 1. Error of omission 2e Held ball forced by opponent 3e Fumbles ball and it goes out of bounds 4. Fumbles ball and it is obtained by epponent 5e Taps ball out of bounds 6, Wild pass out of bounds 7. Wild pass to an opponent 8, Violation of rules 9. Offensive personal foul COPA nnneH FE DEFENSIVE Ae Positive items 1. Blocking opponent's shot 2e Recovery from opponent's backboard 5e Intercepting opponent's dribble 4 Intercepting opponent's pass 5e Forcing held ball with opponent 6. Batting ball from opponent's hands and recevering 7. Batting ball from opponent's hands and not recovering 8. Cuts off opponent's pass, but not recovering mm nw wee HH By, Negative items le Fouling opponent with ball 2e Fouling opponent without ball Om TABLE II AVERAGES OF THE KANSAS TEAM 1938-39 Study 1938 Nine Game 1939 Eight 17 Game Averages Game Aves Averages Score 4267 4005 4165 Goals attempted 61e5 7208 668 Goals mide 1665 1566 1661 Free throws attempted 16 1661 1661 Free throws made 956 9 905 Personal fouls 1002 1261 11.1 Offensive personal fouls 078 88 ae Violations 3e7 328 Sel Rebounds from own backboard 21,3 15 18.3 Rebounds from -Esneneees 's backboard 2268 27 44 247 fetal passes aiid catohes 70663 728.6 71608 Wild passes 7457 345 5e6 Held balls obtained by opponent Sel 3d See Fumbles Sel 209 Bee Recovers jump ball 10.8 Tel Yel Offensive positive evale points 1103 1055 1080 4 Offensive negative evale points 7302 48 94 615 Defensive positive evale points - 144 ~ Defensive negative evale points - 97 - Net eval. points per player per minute of play 5el4 5ed 5e2 Immediate assists 13 1304 1302 Secondary assists li lled llel TABLE III | TEAM SUMMARY & , ‘ _ = a FF Iclens > = 9) “ote, | .'. al | n _s Gish ead g KB 3 vn th : we ee 9 ‘ : 4€ e@ 3 tise @¢34.8 sg X - @:7," @ OF izes. 2-8 & = & = ‘ i ' ., = = “Se = . eh ~ Poh is Ne OD = ” NY ¢ 36:6 7 Sev oe pees & & : * * | Se — < Set ge § py eh e:8 S <2 ‘y zs : ~ Oy © = _ i : ‘ 9 i % Yy Ay : KE od RE BO ISR wr fg € oY fenees 27 = =8 i4q8 9 6e49 U5 7ee © lal coo 90.8 2.0 Gc.0 eo A =. 6 i685 € Hl (4 6 86 lel lk lee Se a 6 Kansas 39 16 23.8 7 50 1 968 6 OS W@W 6.964 S604 Sak 1123 B ee ea ee 1.3 28 2 96.8 6.5 872 67 wees 283 20 168 0 Heo Ullal lot Oe C oo 0 3655 9 Bee 16 G18 06 5 OM ks + eS. ae Teese 37 15 16:9 7 S88 24 954 34 UcB S36 2 9659 G4ci 60.4 OEE D 32.13 20 6 #6 i 6 10 16 WO BO Gst- 3 6S Wenene S4 15 2267 4 GGet O. 734 19 1s8 87.0 9768 G4s2 92.5 1061 E 7.20 24 7 Oe 1 Oe 8 ls OE (OM ek OR (Oe Memene 49 22 2963 5 27,8 UU 754 16° 2.3 57 9 O85 G7c6 8607 1247 F a 39 6h 6 GS 16 «23 Ot lia wt lee oe em CU Meusas 46 16 isd 14° 66.6 14 7865 4 OcB 48 4 9406 GBc8 82.9 1168 G YY 16 ty 7 ys OW lee 8s 8 lk oe Se et OT Womens SO 28 S4:7 15 Mise 16 FL 8 Lik 89 2 876 B66 G12 ibs H 45 18 24 9 0.2 14 40 6 48 4 9. be Hl Co Ka nsas ! Totals322 125 21.5 72 55.8 104 5829 77 163 339 30 95,6 59.8 89.2 8053 Oppe Totals269 102 21e7 65 55.6 112 4372 99 262 245 28 93.9 48.5 8468 5932