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