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