UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Case study concerning time-motion in athletics McCallum, Malcolm Duncan 1968

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A7_5 M33.pdf [ 1.73MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077114.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077114-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077114-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077114-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077114-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077114-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077114-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077114-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077114.ris

Full Text

A CASE STUDY CONCERNING TIME-MOTION I N ATHLETICS  By M a l c o l m Duncan McCallum B.P.E. U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1961  A T h e s i s Submitted i n P a r t i a l The Requirements  Fulfilment-of  f o r t h e Degree o f  Master o f P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n i n the School of Physical Education and Recreation  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o the requir.e'jf standard  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h June 1968  Columbia  In  presenting  for  an  that  advanced  the  Study.  thesis  agree  the  make  freely  representatives.  hiis  of  this  thesis  for  permission.  of P h y s i c a l  J u l y 23rd,  may b e  Education  1968.  Columbia  of  for  granted  It  is  financial  of  British  available  permission  or  by  fulfilment  University  it  that  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada Date  partial  purposes  my w r i t t e n  Department  at  in  scholarly  publication  without  shall  | further  for  thesis  degree  Library  Department  or  this  for  the  Columbia,  I  reference  and  extensive  by  the  requirements  copying  Head  understood  gain  shall  of  this  my  that  not  of  agree  be  copying  allowed  ABSTRACT In to  t h i s s t u d y , t h r e e major q u e s t i o n s were i n v e s t i g a t e d w i t h r e s p e c t  the amount o f time i-n m o t i o n spent d u r i n g f o u r home c o l l e g e b a s k e t b a l l  games p l a y e d by the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia T h u n d e r b i r d s . the of  First,  amount o f t i m e i n motion spent on o f f e n s e was compared to the amount time i n m o t i o n spent on d e f e n s e .  Second, a l l the p o s i t i o n s on o f f e n s e  and defense were compared to the amount of time spent i n motion and ly,  third-  the d i f f e r e n c e s o f time;, spent i n m o t i o n between the f u l l c o u r t p r e s s  and no p r e s s were c a l c u l a t e d .  The s u b j e c t s used f o r t h i s study were t e n male a t h l e t e s on the 1967-68 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia T h u n d e r b i r d B a s k e t b a l l team. Each team p o s i t i o n was the  t e s t e d a t o t a l o f seven t i m e s ; t w i c e t o p e r f e c t  use of s t o p watches d u r i n g e x h i b i t i o n games, once t o r u n a p e r c e n -  tage o f e r r o r t e s t on one f o r w a r d p o s i t i o n and f o u r times t o o b t a i n scores u t i l i z e d i n t h i s study.  T h i s sequence  o f t e s t i n g was  followed to  g i v e the t e s t e r s time t o become p r o f i c i e n t i n the use o f the s t o p watches. The d a t a was a n a l y z e d i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n : a)  the d i f f e r e n c e s between o f f e n s i v e and d e f e n s i v e time spent i n m o t i o n .  b)  the d i f f e r e n c e s between each o f the f i v e p o s i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g time spent i n m o t i o n , o f f e n s i v e l y and d e f e n s i v e l y .  c)  the d i f f e r e n c e i n time spent i n m o t i o n between the f u l l c o u r t p r e s s and no p r e s s , b o t h o f f e n s i v e l y and d e f e n s i v e l y .  I t was c o n c l u d e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e d a t a c o l l e c t e d t h a t : 1)  t h e defense spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time i n motion t h a n t h e o f f e n s e .  2)  the r i g h t  f o r w a r d spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time i n m o t i o n o f f e n s i v e l y  than the r i g h t 3)  guard.  d e f e n s i v e l y , t h e c e n t e r and l e f t f o r w a r d spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time i n m o t i o n t h a n t h e l e f t  4)  t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t  guard.  d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e amount o f time spent i n  m o t i o n u s i n g t h e f u l l c o u r t p r e s s as a g a i n s t no p r e s s , e i t h e r o f f e n s i v e l y or d e f e n s i v e l y .  The d i f f e r e n c e s found i n t h i s s t u d y were s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l of confidence.  a t t h e .05  TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I II III IV  PAGE STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM  1  JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM REVIEW OF LITERATURE  . . . . .  3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  OFFENSE AND DEFENSE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VARSITY BASKETBALL TEAM  V VI VII VIII  4  METHOD AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . RESULTS . .  . . . .  9  ...  12  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18  DISCUSSION  25  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . . . . .  27  BIBLIOGRAPHY  30  APPENDICES  31  A  PERCENTAGE OF ERROR  • • •  B  DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST  C  STUDENT "T" FOR THE OFFENSE VERSUS DEFENSE  D  INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEET  E  MASTER SCORE SHEET  F  RAW SCORES  . . . . . . . .  3  2  33  ...  34  . . . .  35 36  . . . . . . . . .  . . . . .  37  ......  15  LIST OF TABLES I II III IV V  PERCENTAGE OF ERROR INFORMATION FOR GAMES PLAYED  . . . . . . . . . .  COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES BETWEEN OFFENSE AND DEFENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES BY POSITION FOR THE OFFENSE COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES BY POSITION FOR THE DEFENSE  19  19 20 .  20  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  The w r i t e r would l i k e to express h i s deepest gratitude to Dr. P. M. M u l l i n s f o r the great amount of time, patience and advice that was so w i l l i n g l y  given  throughout the study. Sincere thanks are also extended to Mr. A. P. Bakogeorge for h i s c a r e f u l scrutiny throughout a l l s t a t i s t i c a l procedures and h i s h e l p f u l c r i t i c i s m  and encouragement.  LIST OF TABLES VI VII VIII IX  PAGE  MEAN TIMES FOR THE OFFENSE BY POSITION . . . . . .  21  MEAN TIMES FOR THE DEFENSE BY POSITION  22  COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES OFFENSIVELY, FULL COURT PRESS VERSUS NO PRESS  22  COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES DEFENSIVELY NO PRESS VERSUS FULL COURT PRESS  22  CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE  PROBLEM  The purpose o f t h i s study was t o determine the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  amount o f time spent i n motion by b a s k e t b a l l p l a y e r s i n the  f o l l o w i n g three areas.  F i r s t , the amount o f time i n m o t i o n spent on o f f e n s e as compared to the amount of time i n m o t i o n spent on d e f e n s e .  Second, a l l p o s i t i o n s  on o f f e n s e and defense were compared t o the amount of time spent i n motion.  T h i r d , the d i f f e r e n c e s o f time spent i n m o t i o n between games  when f u l l c o u r t p r e s s was used and games when no p r e s s was  used.  D e f i n i t i o n of Terms (1)  M o t i o n - M o t i o n was c o n s i d e r e d t o be any type o f movement.  (2)  Time i n M o t i o n - Time i n motion was the amount o f time a p l a y e r spent i n m o t i o n w h i l e the game was  (3)  O f f e n s i v e Time - O f f e n s i v e time was the  (4)  i n progress. the time spent i n c o n t r o l o f  ball.  D e f e n s i v e Time - D e f e n s i v e time was  the time spent a t t e m p t i n g t o  o b t a i n the/ b a l l . (5)  F u l l C o u r t P r e s s - D e f e n s i v e team checks the o f f e n s i v e team as they throw the b a l l i n from out o f bounds under t h e i r own b a s k e t . The defense does not go back t o t h e i r own end and g i v e the o f f e n s e h a l f the c o u r t t o move f r e e l y i n .  2.  (6)  Zone Defense - Each p l a y e r defends a s p e c i f i c a r e a on t h e c o u r t . The  defensive  p l a y e r does n o t f o l l o w h i s man a l l over t h e c o u r t .  When t h e o f f e n s i v e p l a y e r passes o u t o f one zone, he i s p i c k e d up by another defender i n t h e next zone. (7)  Fast Break - A d v a n c i n g t h e b a l l as f a s t as p o s s i b l e down t h e floor.  The o b j e c t i s t o g a i n a man advantage on a slow r e t u r n i n g  defensive  team.  Limitations T h i s study was l i m i t e d by: (1)  The number o f home games p l a y e d .  (2)  The t e n s u b j e c t s o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia B a s k e t b a l l team.  (3)  F i v e examiners u s i n g t e n stop watches.  (4)  The magnitude o f e x p e r i m e n t a l games.  e r r o r e s t a b l i s h e d i n two p r a c t i s e  CHAPTER I I  JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM Discussions  o f s p o r t s a c t i v i t i e s i n v a r i a b l y i n v o l v e t h e amount  o f s k i l l and c o n d i t i o n i n g r e q u i r e d by t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e p l a y i n g of c e r t a i n games.  T h i s a u t h o r , because o f h i s i n t e r e s t i n b a s k e t b a l l  and h i s b e l i e f t h a t i t r e q u i r e s a g r e a t d e a l o f c o n d i t i o n i n g t o p l a y a t t h e c o l l e g e l e v e l , attempted t o determine t h e amount o f time i n motion i n v o l v e d i n a game o f c o l l e g e b a s k e t b a l l .  Very l i t t l e research  has been done t o determine t h e d i f f e r e n c e s  i n time spent i n m o t i o n between t h e d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s on a b a s k e t b a l l team.  F o r an example, what i s t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n t i m e , i f any,  i n m o t i o n between t h e c e n t e r  spent  and forward?  F u r t h e r , most seem t o f e e l t h a t more t i m e i s spent i n m o t i o n when a team uses a f u l l c o u r t p r e s s t h a n t h e more o r t h o d o x h a l f defense.  An attempt was made t o determine what d i f f e r e n c e  e x i s t s , i f any, between these v a r y i n g  defenses.  court  really  CHAPTER I I I REVIEW OF LITERATURE  A l l s t u d i e s r e v i e w e d , a l t h o u g h t i t l e d "Time-Motion S t u d i e s " , d e a l t w i t h the d i s t a n c e t r a v e r s e d d u r i n g t h e game and t h e l e n g t h o f time i t t a k e s t o p l a y t h e game.  None had attempted t o determine t h e  amount o f time spent i n motion. A l l s t u d i e s ( 1 , 2, of  procedure.  4, 5, 6, 7) r e v i e w e d used t h e same method  The a p p a r a t u s used was a p u r s u i t machine.  o p e r a t e s on 110 v o l t , a l t e r n a t i n g c u r r e n t .  The machine  By manually o p e r a t i n g t h e  s w i t c h e s i n t h e lower l e f t hand c o r n e r , t h e o p e r a t o r c a n c o n t r o l t h e p u r s u i t r e c o r d and/or  s c o r i n g which i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e c o r d e d on t h e  e l e c t r o m a g n e t i c c o u n t e r s i n t h e upper l e f t hand c o r n e r .  The o v e r a l l  dimensions o f t h e assembled machine a r e 28 i n c h e s i n l e n g t h , 21% i n c h e s i n w i d t h , and 7 i n c h e s i n depth.  I t i s readily portable,  w e i g h i n g about 30 pounds, and when assembled a p i e c e o f luggage.  forcarrying,  resembles  I t c a n be r e a d i e d f o r use i n l e s s t h a n f i v e m i n u t e s .  Removable m e t a l p l a t e s , b e a r i n g c o u r t s and f i e l d s p a t t e r n e d t o s c a l e , a r e a p a r t o f t h e machine.  Dimensions  a r e worked out so t h a t  o n e - q u a r t e r i n c h on t h e m e t a l c o u r t e q u a l s one f o o t on t h e a c t u a l p l a y i n g a r e a ( e x c e p t f o r f o o t b a l l , hockey,  s o c c e r , and s p e e d b a l l f i e l d s  i n w h i c h t h e r a t i o i s o n e - q u a r t e r i n c h t o one y a r d ) . t i o n s a r e m a i n t a i n e d on t h e t r a c i n g w h e e l .  The same p r o p o r -  The t r a c i n g wheel i s a  s m a l l wheel, two i n c h e s i n c i r c u m f e r e n c e , w h i c h has a l t e r n a t e c o n d u c t o r s and non-conductors  so a r r a n g e d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t i s c l o s e d a t each one-  f o u r t h i n t e r v a l as t h e wheel i s r o l l e d a l o n g t h e m e t a l p l a t e .  5.  The wheel i s e l e c t r i c a l l y connected i n t h e c i r c u i t so t h a t t h e c i r c u i t i s opened and c l o s e d each o n e - f o u r t h  i n c h (on t h e m e t a l f i e l d ) i n t h e  movement p a t t e r n o f t h e p l a y e r b e i n g f o l l o w e d .  As t h e o p e r a t o r  follows  the p a t h o f a g i v e n p l a y e r , t h e footage  (or yardage) i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y  recorded  counters.  on t h e e l e c t r o m a g n e t i c  I n 1931,  impulse  M e s s e r s m i t h and Corey ( 1 ) s t u d i e d t h e d i s t a n c e  by one p l a y e r i n c o l l e g e b a s k e t b a l l games. 2.34  miles.  investigating  traversed  The d i s t a n c e measured was  A s i m i l a r study done by M e s s e r s m i t h and Foy ( 2 ) i n 1938, t h e d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d p e r game by c o l l e g e b a s k e t b a l l  p l a y e r s , r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e d i s t a n c e had i n c r e a s e d over t h e d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d i n 1931.  T h i s c o u l d be due t o t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t h e t e n second  r u l e and t h e r u l e e l i m i n a t i n g t h e c e n t e r jump a f t e r t h e s c o r i n g o f f i e l d goals.  Foy and M e s s e r s m i t h ( 3 , p. 137) made t h e f o l l o w i n g statement: I t was n o t p o s s i b l e t o draw d e f i n i t e c o n c l u s i o n s from t h i s study r e g a r d i n g t h e r e l a t i v e e f f e c t s o f t h e two r u l e s upon t h e i n c r e a s e i n d i s t a n c e , as no study was made f o l l o w i n g t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t h e t e n second r u l e .  The  range o f d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d i n t h e 1938 study was 3.97 m i l e s as  a g a i n s t ranges o f 2.25 t o 2.50 m i l e s i n 1931. The  same a u t h o r s ( 2 ) , a l s o found t h a t h i g h s c h o o l p l a y e r s  travelled  s h o r t e r d i s t a n c e s t h a n c o l l e g e p l a y e r s (ranges from 2.65 m i l e s t o 3.20 per game a t t h e h i g h s c h o o l  level).  M e s s e r s m i t h and Bucher ( 4 ) found t h a t B i g Ten Conference B a s k e t b a l l p l a y e r s t r a v e l l e d from 3.46 t o 3.89 m i l e s p e r game and t h a t t h e s e d i s t a n c e s were v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h e d i s t a n c e s t r a v e l l e d by secondary college players studied i n Indiana.  6.  They a l s o c o n c l u d e d t h a t the d i s t a n c e s t r a v e r s e d by c o l l e g e p l a y e r s at the time of t h i s study were c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r t h a n those t r a v e r s e d by h i g h s c h o o l p l a y e r s .  I n a study comparing men  and women, M e s s e r s m i t h , e t a l ( 5 ) , con-  c l u d e d t h a t on a b a s k e t b a l l c o u r t - f o r t y f e e t by seventy f e e t -  men  t r a v e l l e d almost t w i c e as f a r as women i n t h i r t y - t w o minutes of p l a y but the women used t w o - c o u r t r u l e s t o govern t h e i r games.  M e s s e r s m i t h and Foy  (6) i n 1932,  found t h a t the d i s t a n c e  by t h r e e p l a y e r s i n three; games of c o l l e g e f o o t b a l l ranged from m i l e s by a guard t o 3.64  I n 1952,  2.02  m i l e s by a h a l f b a c k .  a Time-Motion Study was  conducted by F r a n c i s (7) i n v o l v -  i n g e i g h t a t h l e t i c s p o r t s i n the B i g Ten Conference. were Badminton, B a s e b a l l , B a s k e t b a l l , B o x i n g , F e n c i n g , b a l l and  travelled  The  sports studied  F o o t b a l l , Hand-  Tennis.  F r a n c i s used the p u r s u i t machine method d e s c r i b e d p r e v i o u s l y the e i g h t d i f f e r e n t s p o r t s .  on  I n b a s k e t b a l l he a l s o i n c l u d e d seven time  f a c t o r s , f o u r t i m e - m o t i o n f a c t o r s and t h i r t e e n m o t i o n f a c t o r s .  T h i s made  h i s study of b a s k e t b a l l , much more comprehensive t h a n any p r e v i o u s  studies.  F r a n c i s found the d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d d u r i n g the b a s k e t b a l l games ranged from a low of 1.90 a forward.  m i l e s by a guard t o a h i g h o f 3.23  miles  A l l of the p l a y e r s s t u d i e d t r a v e l l e d an average 2.54  by  miles  per game.  I n the Time-Motion s t u d i e s r e v i e w e d , the one i s t h a t the amount of d i s t a n c e t r a v e r s e d has  significant factor  i n c r e a s e d w i t h the r u l e changes.  7.  Only i n t h e l a s t study by F r a n c i s ( 7 ) has i t been shown t h a t the p o s i t i o n s d i f f e r i n t h e amount o f d i s t a n c e t r a v e r s e d . forwards t r a v e l l e d f u r t h e r t h a n guards.  T h i s study showed  8.  REFERENCES  1.  Messersmith, L., Corey, S., "The Distance Traversed by a Basketball Player", Research Quarterly. V o l . 2, pp. 57-60, May 1931.  2.  Foy, P.J., Messersmith, L., "The E f f e c t of Rule Changes upon Distances T r a v e l l e d by B a s k e t b a l l Players", Research Quarterly. V o l . 9, pp. 136-137, May, 1938.  3.  I b i d . , p. 137.  4.  Messersmith, L., Bucher, C , "The Distance Traversed by B i g Ten B a s k e t b a l l Players", Research Quarterly. V o l . 10, pp. 61-62, October, 1939.  5.  Messersmith, L., Lawrence, J . , Rendels, K., "A Study of Distances Traversed by College Men and Women i n Playing the Game of B a s k e t b a l l , "Research Quarterly. V o l . 11, pp. 30-31, October, 1940.  6.  Messersmith, L., Foy, P.J., "Distance Traversed by F o o t b a l l Players, "Research Quarterly. V o l . 3, p. 78, March, 1932.  7.  F r a n c i s , R.J., "An A n a l y s i s of C e r t a i n Time, Motion and Time Motion Factors i n Eight A t h l e t i c Sports", Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n . Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y . 1952. (Microcarded).  CHAPTER I V OFFENSE AND DEFENSE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VARSITY BASKETBALL TEAM  The  f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i p t i o n s of the Offense  and Defense f o r t h e  U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia V a r s i t y B a s k e t b a l l Team d e a l o n l y w i t h the f o u r home games used f o r t h i s  The  study.  f i r s t two games t h a t were t e s t e d were a g a i n s t A l a s k a Metho-  d i s t U n i v e r s i t y and t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l g a r y .  I n both o f t h e s e games  the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia used a f u l l c o u r t p r e s s .  I n the  l a s t two games t e s t e d , a g a i n s t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l g a r y and t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f M a n i t o b a , t h e coach d e c i d e d t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia s h o u l d p l a y t h e normal man t o man  defense.  F o l l o w i n g i s t h e o f f e n s i v e and d e f e n s i v e a n a l y s i s o f t h e f o u r games p l a y e d .  Offense The  U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia p l a y e d b a s i c a l l y a b a l a n c e d  o f f e n s e commonly c a l l e d a s i n g l e post o f f e n s e .  The p l a y e r s k e p t t h e  f i v e b a s i c p o s i t i o n s o c c u p i e d on t h e f l o o r ; t h e two forwards  i n the  c o r n e r s , t h e two guards out p a s t t h e t o p o f t h e key and t o e i t h e r s i d e o f i t , and f i n a l l y , t h e c e n t e r i n a h i g h p o s i t i o n on t h e f o u l  line.  G e t t i n g t h e rebound from a shot by t h e o p p o s i t i o n , t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia team s t a r t e d t h e i r o f f e n s e by immediately the f a s t b r e a k .  going to  The b a l l t r a v e l l e d from t h e forwards o r c e n t e r t o t h e  guard moving down t h e f l o o r near t h e s i d e l i n e s .  10.  The  guard from t h e o t h e r s i d e came i n t o t h e m i d d l e and i m m e d i a t e l y  r e c e i v e d the b a l l .  Meanwhile, t h e f o r w a r d who d i d not get t h e r e -  bound, f i l l e d i n t h e o t h e r l a n e on the o p p o s i t e s i d e o f t h e f l o o r e n a b l i n g t h e team t o get a t h r e e on two s i t u a t i o n a t t h e o f f e n s i v e end o f t h e f l o o r .  If  t h e r e was no q u i c k b a s k e t s c o r e d , t h e team then f i l l e d i n  the f i v e b a s i c p o s i t i o n s .  From t h i s s i t u a t i o n they then t r i e d t o  i s o l a t e one-on-one o r two-on-two t o beat t h e o p p o s i t i o n . aforementioned,  I n the  two-on-two, one man s e t s a s c r e e n and then c u t s  toward t h e basket as t h e man w i t h t h e b a l l d r i b b l e s by.  In  a l l o f t h e f o u r games p l a y e d a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r u n i v e r s i t i e s ,  the o p p o s i t i o n s t a r t e d by p l a y i n g a zone d e f e n s e .  I n the l a t e r  stages  o f t h e games when they were l o s i n g , they were f o r c e d t o come out o f the zone and p l a y man-to-man defense. A g a i n s t t h e zone defense, t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia p l a y e d a one-three-one zone break, i n w h i c h t h e p l a y e r s were p o s i t i o n e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way; one guard a t t h e t o p o f t h e k e y , one f o r w a r d a t the base l i n e t o e i t h e r s i d e o f t h e key b u t not i n : i t .  The o t h e r t h r e e  p l a y e r s were s i t u a t e d i n a s t r a i g h t l i n e a c r o s s t h e c o u r t , i n l i n e w i t h the f o u l l i n e .  The c e n t e r p l a y e d on t h e f o u l l i n e .  The man on t h e base  l i n e t r i e d t o a r r i v e a t t h e s i d e o f the key a t t h e same time t h e b a l l was passed around t o t h a t s i d e .  T h i s enabled themt'to get two men i n  the zone where t h e r e was o n l y one defender, c o n s e q u e n t l y easy s h o t .  a c q u i r i n g an  11.  Defense The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia p l a y e d a man-to-man defense. They s w i t c h e d men o n l y as a l a s t r e s o r t i f one o f t h e i r own men was screened out of the p l a y .  I n t h e f i r s t two games as was e x p l a i n e d  e a r l i e r , t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia p l a y e d a f u l l c o u r t p r e s s . One man checked t h e p l a y e r t h r o w i n g t h e b a l l i n and t h e o t h e r f o u r c o v e r e d c e r t a i n areas on t h e f l o o r . check r i g h t on t h e man.  They p r o t e c t e d a zone and d i d n o t  I f t h e y f o r c e d t h e o p p o s i t i o n t o make an  e r r o r and l o s e t h e b a l l o r s t o l e t h e b a l l , t h e T h u n d e r b i r d s  immediately  went i n t o t h e i r o f f e n s i v e p l a y .  Because t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia p l a y e r s had problems p l a y i n g t h i s type o f d e f e n s e , t h e coach d e c i d e d not t o use i t d u r i n g the l a s t two games t h a t were t e s t e d .  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia T h u n d e r b i r d s were a s t r o n g e r team t h a n t h e i r f o u r opponents and t h e r e f o r e s c o r e d q u i c k l y .  Their  s u p e r i o r defense f o r c e d t h e opposing team t o work v e r y h a r d t o s c o r e . The r e s u l t was t h a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia spent more time p l a y i n g defense than o f f e n s e .  B e t t e r rebounding by t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia  enabled  them t o get p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e b a l l o f f t h e backboards and a l l o w e d t h e o p p o s i n g teams o n l y one shot a t t h e b a s k e t i n most c a s e s .  CHAPTER V METHOD AND  PROCEDURES  Subjects The  s u b j e c t s s e l e c t e d were t e n male members o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y  o f B r i t i s h Columbia T h u n d e r b i r d B a s k e t b a l l Team, whose ages ranged from 19 t o 24 y e a r s .  P r e v i o u s t o t h e s t a r t o f t h e t e s t i n g t h e team  had gone through s i x weeks o f strenuous  workouts.  Games The  t o t a l number o f games i n v o l v e d was seven.  Two e x h i b i t i o n  games were used t o f a m i l i a r i z e t h e t e s t e r s w i t h t h e t e s t i n g The  t h i r d game'-was used t o determine  the s c o r e s .  t h e percentage  technique.  o f e r r o r among  The l a s t f o u r games made up t h e a c t u a l study f o r t h i s  thesis.  The  f i r s t game o f t h e study was a g a i n s t A l a s k a M e t h o d i s t  Uni-  v e r s i t y , t h e second and t h i r d games were a g a i n s t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l g a r y and t h e f o u r t h and f i n a l game was a g a i n s t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Manitoba.  Equipment The equipment used c o n s i s t e d o f t e n watches borrowed from t h e S c h o o l o f P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n and R e c r e a t i o n . . These s t o p watches were numbered so t h a t each t e s t e r always used t h e same s t o p watch f o r each test. Tests The  t o t a l number o f t e s t s was seven and they were d i v i d e d i n t o  two p r a c t i s e t r i a l s ; one t e s t t o determine t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f e r r o r , and f o u r t e s t s t o c o l l e c t times f o r t h e study.  I n each o f t h e f o u r  t e s t s , o f f e n s i v e and d e f e n s i v e times were r e c o r d e d . for  T h i s was done  each o f the f i v e p o s i t i o n s .  Testers There were f o u r people author.  involved i n the t e s t i n g besides the  The f o u r were s c h o o l t e a c h e r s , t h r e e o f whom were P h y s i c a l  E d u c a t i o n i n s t r u c t o r s w e l l v e r s e d i n t h e use o f stop watches.  These f i v e people  a t t e n d e d a l l seven games i n v o l v e d i n t h i s  study and used t h e same watches t h r o u g h o u t the e n t i r e  study.  B e f o r e t h e f i r s t game t h e t e s t e r s were c a l l e d t o g e t h e r and an e x p l a n a t i o n g i v e n o f t h e t e s t .  They were g i v e n t h e f o l l o w i n g  directions. 1.  The stop watches w i l l be r u n n i n g o n l y w h i l e time i s moving on the score c l o c k .  I n f r a c t i o n s t h a t cause t h e c l o c k t o stop  a l s o stop t h e watches; f o r example, time o u t s , f o u l s ,  will  injuries,  etc. 2.  F o r c o n s i s t e n c y t h e two watches w i l l be marked w i t h a (D) f o r defense and an (0) f o r o f f e n s e .  Use t h e d e f e n s i v e watch i n t h e  l e f t hand and t h e o f f e n s i v e watch i n t h e r i g h t hand. stop and s t a r t b u t t o n w i t h t h e i n d e x 3.  finger.  Any type o f movement w i l l be c l a s s i f i e d as m o t i o n ; f o r example, p a s s i n g , rebounding,  4.  Push t h e  f a k i n g , r e c e i v i n g a pass.  Keep t h e watches on t h e p l a y e r o r h i s s u b s t i t u t e i n the p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n being  played.  14.  "When t h e game s t a r t s , s t a r t one o f t h e watches on t h e p l a y e r . his  "When  s u b s t i t u t e comes i n , r e c o r d t h e time from t h e s c o r e c l o c k , t h e n  w r i t e down t h e f i r s t p l a y e r s t i m e s f o r o f f e n s e and defense and t h e n r e s e t t h e watches. 5.  W i t h a rebound,  l o o s e b a l l o r fumble, t h e b a l l i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d  i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e team t h a t l a s t had c o n t r o l u n t i l one o r t h e other again establishes" possession or scores. 6.  A t h a l f time r e c o r d t h e t i m e s and r e s e t t h e watches. i n minutes and seconds a c c u r a t e l y .  Record time  W r i t e date and team p l a y e d a t  t h e bottom o f t h e s h e e t . 7.  W r i t e up a s h o r t resume a t t h e h a l f and end o f t h e game c o n c e r n i n g o f f e n s e s and defenses by b o t h teams; f o r example, f u l l c o u r t p r e s s , zone o r zone p r e s s .  Administration of Tests The t e s t e r s s a t t o g e t h e r f o r t h e f i r s t o f t h e two e x h i b i t i o n games.  The t i m e s were r e c o r d e d a t h a l f time and t h e watches r e s e t .  To p r e v e n t any c o n f u s i o n t h e watch r e c o r d i n g o f f e n s i v e time was a l ways p l a c e d i n t h e r i g h t hand and t h e watch r e c o r d i n g d e f e n s i v e time i n the l e f t . The  Any problems t h a t a r o s e were d i s c u s s e d a t h a l f t i m e .  same procedure was f o l l o w e d f o r t h e second e x h i b i t i o n game.  The t h i r d game was used t o f i n d t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f e r r o r among the f i v e t e s t e r s .  For t h i s game t h e f i v e t e s t e r s were s c a t t e r e d  throughout t h e gymnasium so t h e y c o u l d not compare t h e i r times w i t h t h e t i m e s o f t h e o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t o r s u n t i l t h e end o f t h e game. A l l i n v e s t i g a t o r s k e p t b o t h o f f e n s i v e and d e f e n s i v e times on t h e same  15.  p o s i t i o n and t h e p o s i t i o n s e l e c t e d was t h e r i g h t f o r w a r d . To determine t h e percentage o f e r r o r , o f f e n s i v e and d e f e n s i v e t i m e s t a k e n were changed t o minutes  and p e r cent o f m i n u t e s .  example, 16.30 minutes was r e c o r d e d as 16.50.  For  The d i f f e r e n c e between  the h i g h e s t and l o w e s t s c o r e s was d i v i d e d by t h e average and m u l t i p l i e d by one hundred.  See T a b l e 1.  The f o r m u l a used was:  Percentage o f e r r o r = H i g h e s t s c o r e - Lowest s c o r e x 100 mean 1  TABLE I PERCENTAGE ERROR O f f e n s i v e Time ( i n Minutes)  D e f e n s i v e Time (In Minutes)  16.63 16.53 17.61 16.75 16.58 84.10 - T o t a l 16.82 - Mean 1.08 - D i f f e r e n c e between High and Low  Per c e n t e r r o r  6.42  22.11 22.15 21.33 22.55 22.01 110.15 - T o t a l 22.03 - Mean 1.22 - D i f f e r e n c e between H i and Low Per cent e r r o r  5.49  The percentage o f e r r o r f o r t h e o f f e n s e was 6.42 p e r cent and f o r the defense 5.49 p e r c e n t .  T h i s i s c o n s i d e r e d a low percentage o f  error.  When a l l t e s t e r s were s u f f i c i e n t l y a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e i r d u t i e s the games were a d m i n i s t e r e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way. g i v e n t h e same two watches. the l e f t f o r defense.  Each t e s t e r was  The one i n t h e r i g h t hand f o r o f f e n s e ,  The watches were stopped and s t a r t e d as t h e b a l l  changed from o f f e n s e t o defense.  16.  A t the end o f each h a l f the times were r e c o r d e d and the watches reset.  The times were then t o t a l l e d a t the end o f the game.  When a l l t e s t i n g was completed, t a b l e s were c a l c u l a t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g a r e a s : (1)  The amount o f time i n m o t i o n spent on o f f e n s e as compared to the amount o f time i n m o t i o n spent on d e f e n s e .  (2)  A l l the p o s i t i o n s o f o f f e n s e and defense were compared t o the amount o f time spent i n m o t i o n .  (3)  The  f u l l c o u r t p r e s s compared t o no p r e s s , as t o the amount  of time spent i n motion on o f f e n s e and defense.  Statistical 1.  Treatment  T-Test - Because t h e r e were o n l y two groups i n v o l v e d , i t was found t o be more c o n v e n i e n t t o use the T - t e s t f o r a comparison between o f f e n s e and d e f e n s e .  2.  A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e - A two-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e c h n i q u e as advocated by Ferguson (1) was  employed t o a n a l y z e the f o l l o w -  ing  data:  a)  The d i f f e r e n c e between each o f the f i v e p o s i t i o n s , on o f f e n s e and  b)  defense.  The d i f f e r e n c e between the f u l l c o u r t p r e s s and no p r e s s , on o f f e n s e and defense.  3.  Range T e s t - T h i s t e s t , Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Range T e s t , as suggested by Edwards ( 2 ) , was  used t o a n a l y z e the d a t a .  D e t a i l e d s t a t i s t i c s used, see Appendix B, Page 33, Appendix C, Page 34.  17.  REFERENCES  1.  Ferguson, G.A., S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s i n Psychology and E d u c a t i o n , M c G r a w - H i l l Book Company, I n c . , T o r o n t o , 1959.  2.  Edwards, A.L., E x p e r i m e n t a l D e s i g n i n P s y c h o l o g i c a l Research, H o l t , R i n e h a r t , W i n s t o n , London, 1960.  CHAPTER VI RESULTS  Ten male members o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Thunderb i r d B a s k e t b a l l team were i n v o l v e d i n a time-motion s t u d y t o d e t e r m i n e : 1.  The d i f f e r e n c e between the o f f e n s e and defense as t o the  amount o f time spent i n m o t i o n d u r i n g a c o l l e g e b a s k e t b a l l game. 2.  The d i f f e r e n c e s between each of the f i v e p o s i t i o n s b o t h on  o f f e n s e and defense as t o the amount o f time spent i n m o t i o n d u r i n g a c o l l e g e b a s k e t b a l l game. 3.  The d i f f e r e n c e between a f u l l c o u r t p r e s s and no p r e s s b o t h  on o f f e n s e and defense as t o the amount o f time spent i n motion d u r i n g a c o l l e g e b a s k e t b a l l game.  F i v e i n v e s t i g a t o r s used t e n s t o p watches t o determine the amount of time each p o s i t i o n was  i n m o t i o n b o t h o f f e n s i v e l y and  The t o t a l number of t e s t s was  defensively.  seven and t h e s e were d i v i d e d i n t o  two p r a c t i s e t r i a l s , one t r i a l t o determine the p e r c e n t a g e o f e r r o r , and f o u r t e s t s t o c o l l e c t s c o r e s f o r t h i s s t u d y . T a b l e 2 shows dates o f games, game s c o r e s and the type o f defense used i n the f o u r games by the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h  Columbia.  I t may be o f i n t e r e s t t o note t h a t the game s c o r e s f o r a l l f o u r games were f a i r l y s i m i l a r i n s p i t e o f the f a c t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia d i d not p r e s s i n t h e l a s t two games.  19.  TABLE 2 INFORMATION FOR GAMES PLAYED DATE  OPPOSITION  OPPOSITION SCORE  U.B.C. SCORE  U.B.C. DEFENSE  DECEMBER 22  ALASKA METHODIST UNIVERSITY  60  98  PRESS  JANUARY 5  UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY  54  99  PRESS  JANUARY 6  UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY  76  111  NO PRESS  FEBRUARY 2  UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA  53  78  NO PRESS  A.  OFFENSE VERSUS DEFENSE The s t a t i s t i c a l t e c h n i q u e used t o determine t h e d i f f e r e n c e be-  tween o f f e n s e and defense as t o t h e amount o f time spent i n m o t i o n was Students " t " ( 1 ) .  The t - t e s t was used as a comparison between two means.  The  r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s appear i n T a b l e 3.  TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES BETWEEN OFFENSE AND DEFENSE MEAN  OFFENSE 17.128  TOTAL DEVIATION = 1 6 . 0 5  DEFENSE 20.338 MEAN DEVIATION = 3 . 2 1  t = 7.008 T a b l e 3 shows t h a t , w i t h a t o f 7.008, t h e d i f f e r e n c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e .  The t i m e i n m o t i o n spent on  defense was g r e a t e r t h a n t h e t i m e i n m o t i o n spent on o f f e n s e .  B.  DIFFERENCES BETWEEN POSITIONS An A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e was used t o determine a s i g n i f i c a n t  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s .  Because no s i g n i f i c a n t  d i f f e r e n c e was found, Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Range T e s t was u t i l i z e d .  The r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s a r e noted i n T a b l e 4.  TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES BY POSITION FOR THE OFFENSE  R.G. L.F. L.G. C R.F.  -  16.20 16.94 17.05 17.43 18.03  R.G.  L.F.  L.G.  C  R.F.  16.20 -  16.94 .74 -  17.05 .85 .11  17.43 1.23 .49 .38 -  18.03 1.83* 1.09 .98 .60  -  -  SHORTEST SIGNIFICANT RANGES R = 1.256 R = 1.316 R, = 1.354 R? = 1.380 5 2  v  * 1.83 i s t h e o n l y f i g u r e t h a t i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l of confidence.  O f f e n s i v e l y t h i s t e s t has i n d i c a t e d , a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f conf i d e n c e , t h a t t h e r i g h t f o r w a r d spent more time i n m o t i o n on o f f e n s e than d i d the r i g h t guard. The above method o f a n a l y s i s was a p p l i e d t o t h e defense t o determine t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the amount o f time spent i n m o t i o n by each p o s i t i o n .  The r e s u l t s appear i n T a b l e 5. TABLE 5 COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES BY POSITION FOR THE DEFENSE L.G.  L.G. R.F. R.G. L.F. C  -  19.18 20.09 20.40 20.79 21.23  R.F.  R.G.  L.F.  C  20.09  20.40  20.79  21.23  .91  1.22 .31  --  -  1.61* .70 .39  -  2.05* 1.14 .83 .44  SHORTEST SIGNIFICANT RANGE R R R R  2 3 4 5  = = = =  1.352 1.417 1.457 1.485  21.  * 1.61 and 2.05 a r e t h e o n l y f i g u r e s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e .  D e f e n s i v e l y , t h e r e f o r e , t h i s t e s t has i n d i c a t e d a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e , t h a t t h e c e n t e r spent more time i n m o t i o n t h a n t h e l e f t guard and t h e l e f t f o r w a r d spent more time i n m o t i o n t h a n the l e f t  C.  guard.  THE FULL COURT PRESS VERSUS NO PRESS The f i n a l q u e s t i o n was t o determine t h e amount o f time spent  i n m o t i o n , b o t h o f f e n s i v e l y and d e f e n s i v e l y , i n games u s i n g t h e f u l l c o u r t p r e s s and i n games where no p r e s s was used.  The s t a t i s t i c a l  method used t o determine d i f f e r e n c e s was Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Range Test.  T a b l e 6 shows t h e average t i m e s f o r each p o s i t i o n f o r t h e two  games where t h e p r e s s was used and t h e average t i m e s f o r each p o s i t i o n where t h e p r e s s was n o t used.  I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t t h e s e times  r e f e r only to the offense. TABLE 6 MEAN TIMES FOR THE OFFENSE BY POSITION * L.F.  C  R.F.  L.G.  R.G.  FULL COURT PRESS  17.28  16.88  18.26  16.85  15.59  NO PRESS  16.60  17.98  17.79  17.75  16.82  * TIME I N MINUTES  T a b l e 7 shows t h e average t i m e s f o r each p o s i t i o n f o r t h e two games where t h e p r e s s was used and t h e average times f o r t h e two games where t h e p r e s s was n o t used. r e f e r t o the defense.  I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t t h e s e times o n l y  22.  TABLE 7 MEAN TIMES FOR THE DEFENSE BY POSITION * L.F.  C  R.F.  L.G.  R.G.  PRESS  21.34  22.35  19.18  19.47  20.20  NO PRESS  20.23  20.11  20.30  18.90  20.60  * TIME I N MINUTES The r e s u l t s f o r t h e o f f e n s e , f u l l c o u r t p r e s s v e r s u s no p r e s s , as t o t h e amount o f time spent i n m o t i o n appear i n T a b l e 8.  TABLE 8 COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES OFFENSIVELY FULL COURT PRESS VERSUS NO PRESS  PRESS  - 16.874  FULL COURT PRESS 16.874 -  NO PRESS 17.391 .517  SHORTEST SIGNIFICANT RANGE R = 0.783 2  NO PRESS - 17.391 The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e i s no s i g n i f i c a n t  difference,  when p l a y i n g on o f f e n s e , between the use o f a f u l l c o u r t p r e s s and when no p r e s s i s used. The r e s u l t s f o r t h e defense, no p r e s s v e r s u s t h e f u l l c o u r t p r e s s , as t o t h e amount o f time spent i n m o t i o n appears i n T a b l e 9. TABLE 9 COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES DEFENSIVELY NO PRESS VERSUS FULL COURT PRESS  NO PRESS - 20.03 PRESS  - 20.65  NO PRESS 20.03 -  FULL COURT PRESS 20.65 .62  SHORTEST SIGNIFICANT RANGE R = .843 2  23.  These r e s u l t s  a l s o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t  d i f f e r e n c e , when p l a y i n g on d e f e n s e , between t h e use o f a f u l l c o u r t p r e s s and when no p r e s s i s used.  A l t h o u g h t h e measuring t e c h n i q u e s used t o c o l l e c t t h e d a t a may seem c r u d e , t h e r e s u l t s  o f t h i s study w a r r a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g  conclusions. 1.  The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e o f f e n s e and defense i n t h e  amount o f time spent i n m o t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l o f confidence. the  The defense spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time i n m o t i o n t h a n  offense. 2.  O f f e n s i v e l y , t h e r i g h t f o r w a r d spent more time i n m o t i o n  t h a n t h e r i g h t guard.  T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05  l e v e l of confidence.  There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s found  between any o f t h e o t h e r p o s i t i o n s . 3.  D e f e n s i v e l y , t h e c e n t e r and t h e l e f t f o r w a r d spent more  time i n m o t i o n t h a n t h e l e f t guard. at t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e .  This difference i s s i g n i f i c a n t  There were no s i g n i f i c a n t  differ-  ences found between any o f t h e o t h e r p o s i t i o n s . 4.  There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e found between t h e two  games where t h e p r e s s was n o t used. and t h e d e f e n s e .  This applied to both the offense  24.  REFERENCES  1.  Ferguson, G.A., S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s i n Psychology and E d u c a t i o n , M c G r a w - H i l l Book Company, I n c . , T o r o n t o , 1959.  CHAPTER V I I DISCUSSION  The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e time i n m o t i o n spent on defense as compared t o t h e o f f e n s e i s worthy o f some comment.  The U n i v e r s i t y  of B r i t i s h Columbia T h u n d e r b i r d B a s k e t b a l l team was much s t r o n g e r as shown by t h e s c o r e s i n T a b l e 1, p. 15.  The T h u n d e r b i r d s were  a b l e t o t a k e t h e b a l l down t h e f l o o r and s c o r e q u i c k l y , g o i n g t h e n to the defense.  The o p p o s i n g team was unable t o s c o r e w i t h o u t  w o r k i n g a l o n g time f o r a s h o t .  This could e x p l a i n the d i f f e r e n c e  i n t h e amount o f time spent on defense as compared t o t h e o f f e n s e .  The r e s u l t s where t h e r i g h t f o r w a r d moves more t h a n t h e r i g h t guard on o f f e n s e agrees somewhat w i t h t h e f i n d i n g s o f F r a n c i s ( 7 ) . F r a n c i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r i g h t f o r w a r d t r a v e l l e d 3.23 m i l e s as compared t o 1.9 m i l e s by a guard.  T h i s may be f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d  by t h e f a c t t h a t a m a j o r i t y o f guards a r e r i g h t handed and no m a t t e r w h i c h guard g e t s t h e b a l l he t a k e s i t down t h e r i g h t s i d e o f t h e floor.  T h e r e f o r e t h e f o r w a r d i n o b t a i n i n g t h e b a l l spent more time  i n motion.  However, f o r w a r d s do move w i t h o u t t h e b a l l and t h e above  may o n l y be a p a r t o f t h e answer.  One p o s s i b l e r e a s o n t h a t t h e c e n t e r spent more time i n m o t i o n t h a n t h e l e f t guard i s t h a t t h e c e n t e r ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on defense i s t o p r e v e n t h i s man from r e c e i v i n g t h e b a l l .  He, t h e r e f o r e , has  to move more t o p l a y i n f r o n t o f t h e man he i s d e f e n d i n g .  This  a u t h o r i s unable t o o f f e r any r e a s o n f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n time spent on defense between t h e l e f t f o r w a r d and l e f t guard.  26.  The f i n d i n g t h a t t h e f u l l  court press  does n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  i n c r e a s e t h e amount o f t i m e i n m o t i o n s p e n t d u r i n g a b a s k e t b a l l game e i t h e r on o f f e n s e It  o r d e f e n s e i s c o n t r a r y t o what most p e o p l e  seems t h a t t e a m s p r e s s i n g b e c a u s e t h e y  able t o score  quickly.  accept.  g e t t h e b a l l more, a r e t h e n  T h e y t h e r e f o r e , g e t t h e b a l l more w h i l e  d e f e n s e a n d s p e n d more t i m e o n o f f e n s e  on  t h a n t h e team t h a t p l a y s t h e  orthodox h a l f - c o u r t defense.  It  w o u l d a p p e a r t o t h e c a s u a l s p e c t a t o r t h a t t h e tempo o f t h e  game i s much f a s t e r w i t h t h e f u l l  court press  and t h e r e f o r e t h e  p l a y e r s m u s t be s p e n d i n g more t i m e i n m o t i o n i n games u s i n g t h a n i n games i n w h i c h no p r e s s to and  be t h a t t h e f u l l  i s used.  c o u r t p r e s s makes  One e x p l a n a t i o n w o u l d  t h e m t o assume t h e r e a c t u a l l y  It  i s extremely  difficult  s t u d i e s done o n t i m e - m o t i o n .  t o make c o m p a r i s o n s w i t h t h e p r e v i o u s  The t i m e e l e m e n t i n v o l v e d i n t h e o t h e r  a l l v i o l a t i o n s and time o u t s , t h e t o t a l  game.  None o f t h e s e  thus  i s more m o t i o n i n t h e game.  s t u d i e s was t h e l e n g t h o f t h e game a n d b e c a u s e o f s t o p p i n g on  seem  f o r more e x c i t i n g b a s k e t b a l l  t h e s p e c t a t o r s a r e t h e r e f o r e more a w a r e o f t h e m o t i o n ,  causing  the press  time needed t o p l a y t h e  s t u d i e s d e a l t w i t h t h e amount o f t i m e  spend i n motion d u r i n g an a t h l e t i c  event.  the clock  players  CHAPTER V I I I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  The purpose o f t h i s s t u d y was f i r s t l y , t o determine i f t h e r e was a d i f f e r e n c e i n time i n motion spent on defense and o f f e n s e by the  p l a y e r s on a b a s k e t b a l l team; s e c o n d l y t o determine t h e amount  of  t i m e spent i n m o t i o n by each p o s i t i o n on o f f e n s e and defense and  f i n a l l y , t o determine whether t h e f u l l c o u r t p r e s s a f f e c t s t h e amount of  time spent i n m o t i o n .  The e x p e r i m e n t a l procedure was t o use two  s t o p watches on each p o s i t i o n t o determine t h e o f f e n s i v e and d e f e n s i v e time i n m o t i o n .  The watches were stopped and s t a r t e d as t h e b a l l  changed from o f f e n s e t o defense. and a t t h e end o f t h e game. the  The t i m e s were t o t a l l e d a t h a l f - t i m e  These t e s t s were r u n f o r p r a c t i s e by  t e s t e r s on two e x h i b i t i o n games.  One game was used t o f i n d t h e  p e r c e n t a g e o f e r r o r and t h e f i n a l f o u r games t e s t e d were used t o c o l l e c t data f o r t h i s study.  The raw s c o r e s r e s u l t i n g from each  game f o r each p o s i t i o n , o f f e n s e and d e f e n s e , f u l l c o u r t p r e s s and no p r e s s were used f o r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s and comparison.  The r e s u l t s o f t h i s study w a r r a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s . I t i s n e c e s s a r y t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t c o n c l u s i o n s c a n be made o n l y w i t h i n the  stated l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study.  On t h e b a s i s o f t h e d a t a  g a t h e r e d , t h e f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s were e v i d e n t . 1.  The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e o f f e n s e and defense i n t h e amount o f  t i m e spent i n m o t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . 0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . The defense spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time i n motion t h a n t h e o f f e n s e .  28.  2.  O f f e n s i v e l y , the r i g h t f o r w a r d spent more time i n m o t i o n  t h a n the r i g h t guard. of c o n f i d e n c e . any  T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t the  level  There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s found between  of t h e o t h e r p o s i t i o n s . 3.  Defensively,  the c e n t e r and  i n m o t i o n t h a n the l e f t guard. .05  .05  l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e .  between any 4.  This d i f f e r e n c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t at  There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s  the  found  o f the o t h e r p o s i t i o n s .  There was  no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e found between the  games where the f u l l c o u r t p r e s s was p r e s s was  the l e f t f o r w a r d spent more time  not used.  used and  the two  T h i s a p p l i e d t o b o t h the o f f e n s e  two  games where the and the  defense.  I n s p i t e of the c a r e t a k e n i n u s i n g the s t o p watches, i t was o f t e n v e r y d i f f i c u l t f o r the a l e r t t e s t e r s t o keep up w i t h the w h i c h changes hands q u i c k l y .  ball  Only much a d d i t i o n a l p r a c t i s e would  e l i m i n a t e the chances of e r r o r .  The  t e s t e r s i n t e r e s t i n the game  might have a f f e c t e d the speed w i t h w h i c h the s t o p watches were changed over. I t i s recommended t h a t f u r t h e r s t u d i e s i n v e s t i g a t e the 1. but  A s i m i l a r study t o the one w h i c h has  i n v o l v i n g a t l e a s t t e n games.  more games may 2.  j u s t been  following:  described,  I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t a study i n v o l v i n g  give d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s .  A study where more i n v e s t i g a t o r s are used t o  measure p l a y e r s r a t h e r t h a n p o s i t i o n s .  accurately  I t would be o f i n t e r e s t t o  f i n d out the amount of t i m e spent i n m o t i o n by each p l a y e r .  29.  3. lost.  A s i m i l a r s t u d y i n v o l v i n g e q u a l number o f games won and  I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g t o note i f a d i f f e r e n c e does e x i s t  w i t h time spent i n m o t i o n between games w h i c h a r e won and games w h i c h are  lost. 4.  The d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e time spent i n m o t i o n f o r t h e o f f e n s e  when p l a y i n g a g a i n s t a man t o man defense as compared t o p l a y i n g a g a i n s t a zone defense.  30.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  BOOKS Edwards, A.L., E x p e r i m e n t a l D e s i g n i n P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e s e a r c h . New Y o r k , H o l t , R i n e h a r t , W i n s t o n , 1960. Ferguson, G.A., S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s i n Psychology and E d u c a t i o n . M c G r a w - H i l l Book Co., I n c . , New Y o r k , 1959. PERIODICALS Foy, P . J . , M e s s e r s m i t h , TL., "The E f f e c t o f R u l e Changes Upon D i s t a n c e s T r a v e l l e d by B a s k e t b a l l P l a y e r s " , R e s e a r c h Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . 9, pp. 136-7, May, 1938. M e s s e r s m i t h , L., Bucher, C , "The D i s t a n c e T r a v e r s e d by B i g Ten B a s k e t b a l l P l a y e r s , "Research Q u a r t e r l y . V o l . 10, pp. 6062, O c t o b e r , 1939. M e s s e r s m i t h , L., Corey, S., "The D i s t a n c e T r a v e r s e d by a B a s k e t b a l l P l a y e r " , Research Q u a r t e r l y . V o l . 11, pp. 57-60, May, 1931. M e s s e r s m i t h , L., Foy, P . J . , " D i s t a n c e T r a v e r s e d by F o o t b a l l P l a y e r s " , Research Q u a r t e r l y . V o l . 3, p. 78, March, 1932. M e s s e r s m i t h , L., Lawrence, J . , R e n d e l s , K., "A Study o f D i s t a n c e T r a v e r s e d by C o l l e g e Men and Women.in P l a y i n g t h e Game o f B a s k e t b a l l " , Research Q u a r t e r l y . V o l . 11, pp. 30-31, October, 1940.  UNPUBLISHED PAPERS F r a n c i s , R.J., "An A n a l y s i s o f C e r t a i n Time, M o t i o n and Time, Motion Factors i n Eight A t h l e t i c Sports", Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n , 1952 ( m i c r o c a r d e d ) .  31.  APPENDICES  32.  APPENDIX A  PERCENTAGE OF ERROR  Stop Watches  Offense 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  1.  16j38 16:32 17:37 16:45 16:35  1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  TOTAL  16.63 16.53 17.61 16.75 16.58 84.10  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. TOTAL  22.11 22.15 21.33 22.55 22.01 110.15  Average each column. 16.82  3.  22:07 22:09 21:20 22:33 22:01  Each number changed t o a d e c i m a l and t o t a l l e d .  1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  2.  Defense  22.03  E x p r e s s t h e maximum d i f f e r e n c e as a p e r c e n t o f t h e average time i n each column.  1.08 x 100 16.82  = 6.42%  1.21 x 100 = 5.49% 22.03  33.  APPENDIX B  To a n a l y z e t h e s c o r e s from t h e f o u r games t e s t e d , two methods were used. Range T e s t .  The f i r s t method was a range t e s t ; Duncan's New M u l t i p l e The second method used was t h e S t u d e n t s  "t".  The l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e was r e q u i r e d t o r e a c h .05 t o be acceptable.  To o b t a i n t h e answers t o t h e q u e s t i o n s , t h e e x p e r i m e n t o r  entertained the f o l l o w i n g procedures. I n u s i n g Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Range T e s t the average  times  f o r the f i v e d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s on o f f e n s e were put down from t h e lowest t o the h i g h e s t .  These were t h e n compared w i t h one another t o  f i n d the d i f f e r e n c e .  16.20 16.94 17.05 17.43 18.03  R.G. L6.20 -  L.F. L.F. 16.94 .74 --  -  L.G. 17.05 .85 .11  -  C. 17.43 1.23 .49 .38  -  R.F. 18.03 1.83 1.09 .98 .60  SHORTEST SIGNIFICANT RANGE R = 1.256 R = 1.316 2  3  l  4  5  l  A t t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e t h e d i f f e r e n c e must be above t h a t number a p p e a r i n g i n t h e column marked s h o r t e s t  significant  range. The o n l y s c o r e t h a t was s i g n i f i c a n t was 1.83.  T h i s showed  t h a t on t h e o f f e n s e t h e r i g h t f o r w a r d spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time i n motion than the r i g h t  guard  34.  APPENDIX C TIME MOTION STUDY T TEST DATA FOR THE OFFENSE VERSUS THE DEFENSE OFFENSE 16.94 18.02 17.43 17.05 16.20 T 85.64 X 17.128  DEFENSE 20.79 20.09 21.23 19.18 20.40 101.69 20.338  SD  2  D N  2  DEVIATION -3.85 -2.07 -3.80 -2.13 -4.20 -16.05 - 3.21  -  D  DEVIATION 14.82 4.28 14.44 4.54 17.64 55.72  2  2  55.72 - ( - 3 2 1 ) 5  2  .840 t  D SD "  =  D^ SD^ N-1  =  7.008  2  t  3.21 84 4  I n comparing t h e O f f e n s e t o t h e Defense i n t h e amount o f time b e i n g spent i n m o t i o n a t t e s t was used. T h i s i n v o l v e d t o t a l l i n g u t h e f i v e mean times f o r o f f e n s e and d o i n g t h e same f o r d e f e n s e .  The d e v i a t i o n between t h e two was  k e e p i n g t h e s i g n , t o t a l l e d and then t h e average t a k e n .  found,  The d e v i a t i o n s  were t h e n a l l squared and summed. These f i g u r e s were t h e n s u b s t i t u t e d i n t h e f o r m u l a t o f i n d t h e S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n squared.  The Standard D e v i a t i o n squared was t h e n  s u b s t i t u t e d i n t o t h e f o r m u l a f o r f i n d i n g t . T h i s gave t h e answer f o r the t t e s t .  35.  APPENDIX D  INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEET  Time i n M o t i o n For T h u n d e r b i r d B a s k e t b a l l  Position  -  1st Offense  Name  Position Defense  Offense  Team  -  Name Defense  H a 1 f  TOTAL Resume:  Position 2nd O f f e n s e H a 1  f TOTAL Game Total Resume:  Position Defense  Offense  Defense  APPENDIX E MASTER SCORE SHEET  L e f t Forward  Game  Center  R i g h t Forward  R i g h t Guard  Offense  Defense  Offense  Defense  Offense  23.41  18.68  19.18  15.08  20.28  14.85  20.05  17.60  21.30  17.85  20.58  17.61  18.66  16.33  20.36  19.36  17.81  20.16  17.85  20.36  17.43  18.78  17.38  20.68  16.35  21.11  18.16  20.06  17.73  20.25  18.08  19.03  16.26  20.53  TOTAL  67.77  83.16  69.73  84.93  72.11  80.37  68.20  76.75  64.82  81.62  AVERAGE  16.94  20.79  17.43  21.23  18.02  20.09  17.05  19.18  16.20  20.40  Offense  Defense  Offense  Dec. 1  17.58  20.51  16.16  Jan.  5  16.98  22.18  Jan. 6  16.86  Feb. 2  Defense  L e f t Guard  Defense  APPENDIX F  RAW SCORES  Defense  Game  L.F.  C  R.F.  L.G.  R.G.  1.  20.51  23.41  19.18  20.28  20.05  2.  22.18  21.30  20.58  18.66  20.36  3.  19.36  20.16  20.36  18.78  20.68  4.  21.11  20.06  20.25  19.03  20.53  Press  No P r e s s  Offense  Game  L.F.  C  R.F.  L.G.  R.G.  1.  17.58  16.16  18.68  15.08  14.85  2.  16.98  17.60  17.85  17.61  16.33  3.  16.86  17.81  17.85  17.43  1 7.38  4.  16.35  18.16  17.73  18.08  16.26  Press  No P r e s s  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077114/manifest

Comment

Related Items