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 IN ATHLETICS By Malcolm Duncan McCallum B.P.E. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1961 A Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l F u l f i l m e n t - o f The Requirements f o r the Degree of Master of P h y s i c a l Education i n the School of P h y s i c a l Education and Recreation We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the requir.e'jf standard The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia June 1968 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a n a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l m a k e i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d S t u d y . | f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may b e g r a n t e d b y t h e H e a d o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r b y h i i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t b e a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t of P h y s i c a l Education T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8 , C a n a d a D a t e J u l y 23rd, 1 9 6 8 . ABSTRACT In t h i s study, three major questions were i n v e s t i g a t e d w i t h respect to the amount of time i-n motion spent during four home c o l l e g e b a s k e t b a l l games played by the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Thunderbirds. F i r s t , the amount of time i n motion spent on offense was compared to the amount of time i n motion spent on defense. Second, a l l the p o s i t i o n s on offense and defense were compared to the amount of time spent i n motion and t h i r d -l y , the d i f f e r e n c e s of time;, spent i n motion between the f u l l court press and no press were c a l c u l a t e d . The subjects used f o r t h i s study were ten 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 Thunderbird B a s k e t b a l l team. Each team p o s i t i o n was t e s t e d a t o t a l of seven times; twice to p e r f e c t the use of stop watches during e x h i b i t i o n games, once to run a percen-tage of e r r o r t e s t on one forward p o s i t i o n and four times to o b t a i n scores u t i l i z e d i n t h i s study. This sequence of t e s t i n g was followed to give the t e s t e r s time to become p r o f i c i e n t i n the use of the stop watches. The data was analyzed i n order to 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 defensive time spent i n motion. b) 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 regarding time spent i n motion, 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 motion between the f u l l court press and no press, both 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 concluded on the b a s i s of the data c o l l e c t e d t h a t : 1) the defense spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time i n motion than the offense. 2) the r i g h t forward spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time i n motion o f f e n s i v e l y than the r i g h t guard. 3) d e f e n s i v e l y , the center and l e f t forward spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time i n motion than the l e f t guard. 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 i n the amount of time spent i n motion using the f u l l court press as against no press, 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 study were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of confidence. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1 I I JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . 3 I I I REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 IV OFFENSE AND DEFENSE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VARSITY BASKETBALL TEAM . . . . 9 V METHOD AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . 12 VI RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 VI I DISCUSSION 25 V I I I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . . . . . 27 BIBLIOGRAPHY 30 APPENDICES 31 A PERCENTAGE OF ERROR • • • 3 2 B DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST . . . . . . . . 33 C STUDENT "T" FOR THE OFFENSE VERSUS DEFENSE . . . 34 D INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEET . . . . 35 E MASTER SCORE SHEET 36 F RAW SCORES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 LIST OF TABLES I PERCENTAGE OF ERROR . . . . . . 15 I I INFORMATION FOR GAMES PLAYED . . . . . . . . . . 19 I I I COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES BETWEEN OFFENSE AND DEFENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 IV COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES BY POSITION FOR THE OFFENSE 20 . V COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES BY POSITION FOR THE DEFENSE 20 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The writer would l i k e to express his deepest gratitude to Dr. P. M. Mullins for 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 his careful scrutiny throughout a l l s t a t i s t i c a l procedures and his helpful c r i t i c i s m and encouragement. LIST OF TABLES PAGE VI MEAN TIMES FOR THE OFFENSE BY POSITION . . . . . . 21 VII MEAN TIMES FOR THE DEFENSE BY POSITION 22 V I I I COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES OFFENSIVELY, FULL COURT PRESS VERSUS NO PRESS 22 IX COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES DEFENSIVELY NO PRESS VERSUS FULL COURT PRESS 22 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The purpose of t h i s study was to determine the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the amount of time spent i n motion by b a s k e t b a l l players i n the f o l l o w i n g three areas. F i r s t , the amount of time i n motion spent on offense as compared to the amount of time i n motion spent on defense. Second, a l l p o s i t i o n s on offense and defense were compared to 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 of time spent i n motion between games when f u l l court press was used and games when no press was used. D e f i n i t i o n of Terms (1) Motion - Motion was considered to be any type of movement. (2) Time i n Motion - Time i n motion was the amount of time a player spent i n motion while the game was i n progress. (3) Offensive Time - Of f e n s i v e time was the time spent i n c o n t r o l of the b a l l . (4) Defensive Time - Defensive time was the time spent attempting to o b t a i n the/ b a l l . (5) F u l l Court Press - Defensive 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 of bounds under t h e i r own basket. The defense does not go back to t h e i r own end and give the offense h a l f the court to move f r e e l y i n . 2. (6) Zone Defense - Each player defends a s p e c i f i c area on the court. The defensive p l a y e r does not f o l l o w h i s man a l l over the court. When the o f f e n s i v e player passes out of one zone, he i s picked up by another defender i n the next zone. (7) Fast Break - Advancing the b a l l as f a s t as p o s s i b l e down the f l o o r . The objec t i s to gain a man advantage on a slow r e t u r n i n g defensive team. L i m i t a t i o n s This study was l i m i t e d by: (1) The number of home games played. (2) The ten subjects of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia B a s k e t b a l l team. (3) Five examiners using ten stop watches. (4) The magnitude of experimental 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 games. CHAPTER I I JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM Disc u s s i o n s of sports 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 the amount of 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 the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the p l a y i n g of c e r t a i n games. This author, because of 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 that i t r e q u i r e s a great deal of c o n d i t i o n i n g to play at the c o l l e g e l e v e l , attempted to determine the amount of time i n motion i n v o l v e d i n a game of 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 to determine the d i f f e r e n c e s i n time spent i n motion between the 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. For an example, what i s the d i f f e r e n c e i n time, i f any, spent i n motion between the center and forward? Further, most seem to f e e l that more time i s spent i n motion when a team uses a f u l l court press than the more orthodox h a l f court defense. An attempt was made to determine what d i f f e r e n c e r e a l l y e x i s t s , i f any, between these v a r y i n g defenses. CHAPTER I I I REVIEW OF LITERATURE A l l s t udies reviewed, although 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 distance traversed during the game and the length of time i t takes to pla y the game. None had attempted to determine the amount of time spent i n motion. A l l s t udies (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7) reviewed used the same method of procedure. The apparatus used was a p u r s u i t machine. The machine operates on 110 v o l t , a l t e r n a t i n g c u r r e n t . By manually operating the switches i n the lower l e f t hand corner, the operator can c o n t r o l the p u r s u i t record 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 recorded on the electromagnetic counters i n the upper l e f t hand corner. The o v e r a l l dimensions of the assembled machine are 28 inches i n len g t h , 21% inches i n width, and 7 inches i n depth. I t i s r e a d i l y p o r t a b l e , weighing about 30 pounds, and when assembled f o r c a r r y i n g , resembles a piece of luggage. I t can be readied f o r use i n l e s s than f i v e minutes. Removable metal p l a t e s , bearing courts and f i e l d s patterned to s c a l e , are a part of the machine. Dimensions are worked out so that one-quarter in c h on the metal court equals one foot on the a c t u a l p l a y i n g area (except f o r f o o t b a l l , hockey, soccer, and speedball f i e l d s i n which the r a t i o i s one-quarter i n c h to one yard). The same propor-t i o n s are maintained on the t r a c i n g wheel. The t r a c i n g wheel i s a small wheel, two inches i n circumference, which has a l t e r n a t e conductors and non-conductors so arranged that the c i r c u i t i s cl o s e d at each one-f o u r t h i n t e r v a l as the wheel i s r o l l e d along the metal 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 the c i r c u i t so that the c i r c u i t i s opened and c l o s e d each one-fourth i n c h (on the metal f i e l d ) i n the movement p a t t e r n of the player being followed. As the operator f o l l o w s the path of a given p l a y e r , the footage (or yardage) i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y recorded on the electromagnetic impulse counters. I n 1931, Messersmith and Corey (1) studied the distance t r a v e r s e d by one pl a y e r i n c o l l e g e b a s k e t b a l l games. The distance measured was 2.34 m i l e s . A s i m i l a r study done by Messersmith and Foy (2) i n 1938, i n v e s t i g a t i n g the distance t r a v e l l e d per 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 , reported that the distance had increased over the distance t r a v e l l e d i n 1931. This could be due to the i n c l u s i o n of the ten second r u l e and the r u l e e l i m i n a t i n g the center jump a f t e r the sco r i n g of f i e l d g oals. Foy and Messersmith (3, p. 137) made the f o l l o w i n g statement: I t was not p o s s i b l e to draw d e f i n i t e conclusions from t h i s study regarding the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t s of the two r u l e s upon the increase i n di s t a n c e , as no study was made f o l l o w i n g the i n c l u s i o n of the ten second r u l e . The range of distance t r a v e l l e d i n the 1938 study was 3.97 miles as against ranges of 2.25 to 2.50 mi l e s i n 1931. The same authors ( 2 ) , a l s o found that high school players t r a v e l l e d s horter distances than c o l l e g e p l a y e r s (ranges from 2.65 miles to 3.20 per game at the high school l e v e l ) . Messersmith and Bucher (4) found that B i g Ten Conference Basket-b a l l p l a y e r s t r a v e l l e d from 3.46 to 3.89 miles per game and that these distances were very s i m i l a r to the distances t r a v e l l e d by secondary c o l l e g e p l a y e r s s t u d i e d i n Indiana. 6. They a l s o concluded that the distances 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 conside r a b l y greater than those t r a v e r s e d by high school p l a y e r s . I n a study comparing men and women, Messersmith, et a l ( 5 ) , con-cluded t h a t on a b a s k e t b a l l court - f o r t y f e e t by seventy fee t - men t r a v e l l e d almost twice 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 two-court r u l e s to govern t h e i r games. Messersmith and Foy (6) i n 1932, found that the distance t r a v e l l e d by three 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 2.02 m i l e s by a guard to 3.64 miles by a halfback. I n 1952, 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 sports i n the B i g Ten Conference. The sports s t u d i e d were Badminton, B a s e b a l l , B a s k e t b a l l , Boxing, Fencing, F o o t b a l l , Hand-b a l l and Tennis. F r a n c i s used the p u r s u i t machine method described p r e v i o u s l y on the e i g h t d i f f e r e n t s p o r t s . 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 , four time-motion f a c t o r s and t h i r t e e n motion f a c t o r s . This made h i s study of b a s k e t b a l l , much more comprehensive than any previous s t u d i e s . F r a n c i s found the distance t r a v e l l e d during the b a s k e t b a l l games ranged from a low of 1.90 m i l e s by a guard to a high of 3.23 miles by a forward. A l l of the players s t u d i e d t r a v e l l e d an average 2.54 m i l e s per game. I n the Time-Motion studies reviewed, the one s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i s that the amount of distance t r a v e r s e d has increased w i t h the r u l e changes. 7. Only i n the l a s t study by Fr a n c i s (7) has i t been shown that the p o s i -t i o n s d i f f e r i n the amount of distance t r a v e r s e d . This study showed forwards t r a v e l l e d f u r t h e r than guards. 8. REFERENCES 1. Messersmith, L., Corey, S., "The Distance Traversed by a Basketball Player", Research Quarterly. Vol. 2, pp. 57-60, May 1931. 2. Foy, P.J., Messersmith, L., "The Effect of Rule Changes upon Distances Travelled by Basketball Players", Research  Quarterly. Vol. 9, pp. 136-137, May, 1938. 3. I b i d . , p. 137. 4. Messersmith, L., Bucher, C , "The Distance Traversed by Big Ten Basketball Players", Research Quarterly. Vol. 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 Basketball, "Research Quarterly. Vol. 11, pp. 30-31, October, 1940. 6. Messersmith, L., Foy, P.J., "Distance Traversed by Football Players, "Research Quarterly. Vol. 3, p. 78, March, 1932. 7. Francis, R.J., "An Analysis of Certain Time, Motion and Time Motion Factors i n Eight A t h l e t i c Sports", Doctoral  Dissertation. Ohio State University. 1952. (Microcarded). CHAPTER IV 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 the U n i v e r s i t y of 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 deal only w i t h the four home games used f o r t h i s study. The f i r s t two games that were t e s t e d were against Alaska Metho-d i s t U n i v e r s i t y and the U n i v e r s i t y of Calgary. I n both of these games the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia used a f u l l court press. I n the l a s t two games t e s t e d , against the U n i v e r s i t y of Calgary and the U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba, the coach decided the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia should play the normal man to man defense. F o l l o w i n g i s the o f f e n s i v e and defensive a n a l y s i s of the four games played. Offense The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia played b a s i c a l l y a balanced offense commonly c a l l e d a s i n g l e post offense. The playe r s kept the f i v e b a s i c p o s i t i o n s occupied on the f l o o r ; the two forwards i n the corners, the two guards out past the top of the key and to e i t h e r side of i t , and f i n a l l y , the center i n a high p o s i t i o n on the f o u l l i n e . G e t t i n g the rebound from a shot by the o p p o s i t i o n , the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia team s t a r t e d t h e i r offense by immediately going to the f a s t break. The b a l l t r a v e l l e d from the forwards or center to the guard moving down the f l o o r near the s i d e l i n e s . 10. The guard from the other side came i n t o the middle and immediately r e c e i v e d the b a l l . Meanwhile, the forward who d i d not get the r e -bound, f i l l e d i n the other lane on the opposite side of the f l o o r enabling the team to get a three on two s i t u a t i o n at the o f f e n s i v e end of the f l o o r . I f there was no quick basket scored, the 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 to i s o l a t e one-on-one or two-on-two to beat the o p p o s i t i o n . I n the aforementioned, two-on-two, one man sets a screen and then cuts toward the basket as the man w i t h the b a l l d r i b b l e s by. I n a l l of the four games played against the other 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 defense. I n the l a t e r stages of the games when they were l o s i n g , they were forced to come out of the zone and play man-to-man defense. Against the zone defense, the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia played a one-three-one zone break, i n which the players were p o s i t i o n e d i n the f o l l o w i n g way; one guard at the top of the key, one forward at the base l i n e to e i t h e r side of the key but not i n : i t . The other three players were s i t u a t e d i n a s t r a i g h t l i n e across the 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 center played on the f o u l l i n e . The man on the base l i n e t r i e d to a r r i v e at the side of the key at the same time the b a l l was passed around to that s i d e . This enabled themt'to get two men i n the zone where there was only one defender, consequently a c q u i r i n g an easy shot. 11. Defense The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia played a man-to-man defense. They switched men only as a l a s t r e s o r t i f one of t h e i r own men was screened out of the pl a y . I n the f i r s t two games as was expl a i n e d e a r l i e r , the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia played a f u l l c ourt press. One man checked the player throwing the b a l l i n and the other four covered c e r t a i n areas on the f l o o r . They protected a zone and d i d not check r i g h t on the man. I f they forced the o p p o s i t i o n to make an er r o r and lose the b a l l or s t o l e the b a l l , the Thunderbirds 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 the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia players had problems p l a y i n g t h i s type of defense, the coach decided not to use i t during the l a s t two games that were t e s t e d . The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Thunderbirds were a stronger team than t h e i r four opponents and th e r e f o r e scored q u i c k l y . T h e i r super i o r defense forced the opposing team to work very hard to score. The r e s u l t was that the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia spent more time p l a y i n g defense than offense. B e t t e r rebounding by the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia enabled them to get poss e s s i o n of the b a l l o f f the backboards and allowed the opposing teams only one shot at the basket i n most cases. CHAPTER V METHOD AND PROCEDURES Subjects The subjects s e l e c t e d were ten male members of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Thunderbird B a s k e t b a l l Team, whose ages ranged from 19 to 24 years. Previous to the s t a r t of the t e s t i n g the team had gone through s i x weeks of strenuous workouts. Games The t o t a l number of 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 to f a m i l i a r i z e the t e s t e r s w i t h the t e s t i n g technique. The t h i r d game'-was used to determine the percentage of e r r o r among the scores. The l a s t four games made up the a c t u a l study f o r t h i s t h e s i s . The f i r s t game of the study was against Alaska Methodist U n i -v e r s i t y , the second and t h i r d games were against the U n i v e r s i t y of Calgary and the f o u r t h and f i n a l game was against the U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba. Equipment The equipment used c o n s i s t e d of ten watches borrowed from the School of P h y s i c a l Education and Recreation.. These stop watches were numbered so that each t e s t e r always used the same stop watch f o r each t e s t . Tests The t o t a l number of 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 to determine the percentage of e r r o r , and four t e s t s to c o l l e c t times f o r the study. I n each of the four t e s t s , o f f e n s i v e and defensive times were recorded. This was done f o r each of the f i v e p o s i t i o n s . Testers There were four people i n v o l v e d i n the t e s t i n g besides the author. The four were school teachers, three of whom were P h y s i c a l Education i n s t r u c t o r s w e l l versed i n the use of stop watches. These f i v e people attended a l l seven games i n v o l v e d i n t h i s study and used the same watches throughout the e n t i r e study. Before the f i r s t game the t e s t e r s were c a l l e d together and an e x p l a n a t i o n given of the t e s t . They were given the f o l l o w i n g d i r e c t i o n s . 1. The stop watches w i l l be running only while time i s moving on the score c l o c k . I n f r a c t i o n s that cause the c l o c k to stop w i l l a l s o stop the watches; f o r example, time outs, f o u l s , i n j u r i e s , e t c . 2. For consistency the two watches w i l l be marked w i t h a (D) f o r defense and an (0) f o r offense. Use the defensive watch i n the l e f t hand and the o f f e n s i v e watch i n the r i g h t hand. Push the stop and s t a r t button w i t h the index f i n g e r . 3. Any type of movement w i l l be c l a s s i f i e d as motion; f o r example, passing, rebounding, f a k i n g , r e c e i v i n g a pass. 4. Keep the watches on the pl a y e r or 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 the game s t a r t s , s t a r t one of the watches on the pl a y e r . "When h i s s u b s t i t u t e comes i n , r e c o r d the time from the score c l o c k , then w r i t e down the f i r s t p l a y e r s times f o r offense and defense and then r e s e t the watches. 5. With a rebound, loose b a l l or fumble, the b a l l i s to be considered i n possession of the team th a t l a s t had c o n t r o l u n t i l one or the other again establishes" possession or scores. 6 . At h a l f time record the times and reset the watches. Record time i n minutes and seconds a c c u r a t e l y . Write date and team played at the bottom of the sheet. 7. Write up a short resume at the h a l f and end of the game concerning offenses and defenses by both teams; f o r example, f u l l court press, zone or zone press. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Tests The t e s t e r s sat together f o r the f i r s t of the two e x h i b i t i o n games. The times were recorded at h a l f time and the watches r e s e t . To prevent any confusion the watch recording o f f e n s i v e time was a l -ways placed i n the r i g h t hand and the watch r e c o r d i n g defensive time i n the l e f t . Any problems that arose were discussed at h a l f time. The same procedure was followed f o r the second e x h i b i t i o n game. The t h i r d game was used to f i n d the percentage of e r r o r among the f i v e t e s t e r s . For t h i s game the f i v e t e s t e r s were s c a t t e r e d throughout the gymnasium so they could not compare t h e i r times w i t h the times of the other i n v e s t i g a t o r s u n t i l the end of the game. A l l i n v e s t i g a t o r s kept both o f f e n s i v e and defensive times on the same 15. p o s i t i o n and the p o s i t i o n s e l e c t e d was the r i g h t forward. To determine the percentage of e r r o r , o f f e n s i v e and defensive times taken were changed to minutes and per cent of minutes. For example, 16.30 minutes was recorded as 16.50. The d i f f e r e n c e between the highest and lowest scores was d i v i d e d by the average and m u l t i -p l i e d by one hundred. See Table 1. The formula used was: Percentage of e r r o r = Highest score - Lowest score x 100 mean 1 TABLE I PERCENTAGE ERROR Offensive Time ( i n 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 Defensive Time (I n Minutes) 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 Hi and Low Per cent e r r o r 6.42 Per cent e r r o r 5.49 The percentage of e r r o r f o r the offense was 6.42 per cent and f o r the defense 5.49 per cent. This i s considered a low percentage of e r r o r . When a l l t e s t e r s were s u f f i c i e n t l y acquainted w i t h t h e i r duties the games were administered i n the f o l l o w i n g way. Each t e s t e r was given the same two watches. The one i n the r i g h t hand f o r offense, the l e f t f o r defense. The watches were stopped and s t a r t e d as the b a l l changed from offense to defense. 16. At the end of each h a l f the times were recorded and the watches r e s e t . The times were then t o t a l l e d at the end of 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 areas: (1) The amount of time i n motion spent on offense as compared to the amount of time i n motion spent on defense. (2) A l l the p o s i t i o n s of offense and defense were compared to the amount of time spent i n motion. (3) The f u l l c ourt press compared to no press, as to the amount of time spent i n motion on offense and defense. S t a t i s t i c a l Treatment 1. T-Test - Because there were only two groups i n v o l v e d , i t was found to be more convenient to use the T-test f o r a compari-son between offense and defense. 2. A n a l y s i s of variance - A two-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e technique as advocated by Ferguson (1) was employed to analyze the f o l l o w -i n g data: a) The d i f f e r e n c e between each of the f i v e p o s i t i o n s , on offense and defense. b) The d i f f e r e n c e between the f u l l court press and no press, on offense and defense. 3. Range Test - This t e s t , Duncan's New M u l t i p l e Range Test, as suggested by Edwards ( 2 ) , was used to analyze the data. 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 Education, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Toronto, 1959. 2. Edwards, A.L., Experimental Design i n P s y c h o l o g i c a l Research, H o l t , R i n e hart, Winston, London, 1960. CHAPTER VI RESULTS Ten male members of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Thunder-b 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 study to determine: 1. The d i f f e r e n c e between the offense and defense as to the amount of time spent i n motion during 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 both on offense and defense as to the amount of time spent i n motion during 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 court press and no press both on offense and defense as to the amount of time spent i n motion during a c o l l e g e b a s k e t b a l l game. Five i n v e s t i g a t o r s used ten stop watches to determine the amount of time each p o s i t i o n was i n motion both o f f e n s i v e l y and d e f e n s i v e l y . The t o t a l number of t e s t s was seven and these 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 to determine the percentage of e r r o r , and four t e s t s to c o l l e c t scores f o r t h i s study. Table 2 shows dates of games, game scores and the type of defense used i n the four games by the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. I t may be of i n t e r e s t to note that the game scores f o r a l l four games were f a i r l y s i m i l a r i n s p i t e of the f a c t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia d i d not press i n the l a s t two games. 19. DATE DECEMBER 22 JANUARY 5 JANUARY 6 FEBRUARY 2 TABLE 2 INFORMATION FOR GAMES PLAYED OPPOSITION ALASKA METHODIST UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA OPPOSITION SCORE 60 54 76 53 U.B.C. SCORE 98 99 111 78 U.B.C. DEFENSE PRESS PRESS NO PRESS NO PRESS A. OFFENSE VERSUS DEFENSE The s t a t i s t i c a l technique used to determine the d i f f e r e n c e be-tween offense and defense as to the amount of time spent i n motion 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 of t h i s a n a l y s i s appear i n Table 3. TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES BETWEEN OFFENSE AND DEFENSE OFFENSE DEFENSE MEAN 17.128 20.338 TOTAL DEVIATION =16.05 MEAN DEVIATION =3.21 t = 7.008 Table 3 shows t h a t , w i t h a t of 7.008, the d i f f e r e n c e i s s i g -n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l of confidence. The time i n motion spent on defense was greater than the time i n motion spent on offense. B. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN POSITIONS An A n a l y s i s of Variance was used to determine a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the 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 Test was u t i l i z e d . The r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s are noted i n Table 4. TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES BY POSITION FOR THE OFFENSE R.G. L.F. L.G. C R.F. SHORTEST SIGNIFICANT 16.20 16.94 17.05 17.43 18.03 RANGES R.G. - 16.20 - .74 .85 1.23 1.83* R 2 = 1.256 L.F. - 16.94 - - .11 .49 1.09 R = 1.316 L.G. - 17.05 - .38 .98 R, = 1.354 C - 17.43 - - - - .60 R? = 1.380 R.F. - 18.03 v5 * 1.83 i s the only f i g u r e t h a t i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .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 , at the .05 l e v e l of con-f i d e n c e , that the r i g h t forward spent more time i n motion on offense than d i d the r i g h t guard. The above method of a n a l y s i s was a p p l i e d to the defense to determine the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the amount of time spent i n motion by each p o s i t i o n . The r e s u l t s appear i n Table 5. TABLE 5 COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES BY POSITION FOR THE DEFENSE L.G. L.G. - 19.18 R.F. - 20.09 R.G. - 20.40 L.F. - 20.79 C - 21.23 R.F. R.G. L.F. C SHORTEST SIGNIFICANT 20.09 20.40 20.79 21.23 RANGE .91 1.22 1.61* 2.05* R 2 = 1.352 - .31 .70 1.14 R 3 = 1.417 - - .39 .83 R 4 = 1.457 - - - .44 R 5 = 1.485 21. * 1.61 and 2.05 are the only f i g u r e s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of confidence. 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 at the .05 l e v e l of confidence, that the center spent more time i n motion than the l e f t guard and the l e f t forward spent more time i n motion than the l e f t guard. C. THE FULL COURT PRESS VERSUS NO PRESS The f i n a l q uestion was to determine the amount of time spent i n motion, both 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 using the f u l l c ourt press and i n games where no press was used. The s t a t i s t i c a l method used to 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. Table 6 shows the average times f o r each p o s i t i o n f o r the two games where the press was used and the average times f o r each p o s i t i o n where the press was not used. I t should be noted that these 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 IN MINUTES Table 7 shows the average times f o r each p o s i t i o n f o r the two games where the press was used and the average times f o r the two games where the press was not used. I t should be noted t h a t these times only r e f e r to the defense. 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 IN MINUTES The r e s u l t s f o r the offense, f u l l court press versus no press, as to the amount of time spent i n motion appear i n Table 8. TABLE 8 COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES OFFENSIVELY FULL COURT PRESS VERSUS NO PRESS FULL COURT PRESS NO PRESS SHORTEST SIGNIFICANT 16.874 17.391 RANGE PRESS - 16.874 - .517 R 2 = 0.783 NO PRESS - 17.391 The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that there i s 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 off e n s e , between the use of a f u l l court press and when no press i s used. The r e s u l t s f o r the defense, no press versus the f u l l court press, as to the amount of time spent i n motion appears i n Table 9. TABLE 9 COMPARISON OF MEAN TIMES DEFENSIVELY NO PRESS VERSUS FULL COURT PRESS NO PRESS FULL COURT PRESS SHORTEST SIGNIFICANT 20.03 20.65 RANGE NO PRESS - 20.03 - .62 R 2 = .843 PRESS - 20.65 -23. These r e s u l t s a l s o i n d i c a t e that there 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 defense, between the use of a f u l l court press and when no press i s used. Although the measuring techniques used to c o l l e c t the data may seem crude, the r e s u l t s of t h i s study warrant the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s . 1. The d i f f e r e n c e between the offense and defense i n the amount of time spent i n motion was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l of confidence. The defense spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time i n motion than the o ffense. 2. O f f e n s i v e l y , the r i g h t forward spent more time i n motion than the r i g h t guard. 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 the .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 of the other p o s i t i o n s . 3. D e f e n s i v e l y , the center and the l e f t forward spent more time i n motion than the l e f t guard. 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 the .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 -ences found between any of the other 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 the two games where the press was not used. This a p p l i e d to both the offense and the defense. 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 Education, McGraw-Hill Book Company, I n c . , Toronto, 1959. CHAPTER V I I DISCUSSION The d i f f e r e n c e between the time i n motion spent on defense as compared to the offense i s worthy of some comment. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Thunderbird B a s k e t b a l l team was much stronger as shown by the scores i n Table 1, p. 15. The Thunderbirds were able to take the b a l l down the f l o o r and score q u i c k l y , going then to the defense. The opposing team was unable to score without working a long time f o r a shot. This c o u l d e x p l a i n the d i f f e r e n c e i n the amount of time spent on defense as compared to the off e n s e . The r e s u l t s where the r i g h t forward moves more than the r i g h t guard on offense agrees somewhat w i t h the f i n d i n g s of Francis ( 7 ) . Fr a n c i s i n d i c a t e d that the r i g h t forward t r a v e l l e d 3.23 mile s as compared to 1.9 mile s by a guard. This may be f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d by the f a c t that a m a j o r i t y of guards are r i g h t handed and no matter which guard gets the b a l l he takes i t down the r i g h t side of the f l o o r . Therefore the forward i n o b t a i n i n g the b a l l spent more time i n motion. However, forwards do move without the b a l l and the above may only be a part of the answer. One p o s s i b l e reason that the center spent more time i n motion than the l e f t guard i s th a t the center's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on defense i s to prevent h i s man from r e c e i v i n g the b a l l . He, t h e r e f o r e , has to move more to play i n f r o n t of the man he i s defending. This author i s unable to o f f e r any reason f o r the d i f f e r e n c e i n time spent on defense between the l e f t forward 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 c o u r t p r e s s 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 or 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 a c c e p t . I t seems t h a t teams p r e s s i n g because t h e y get t h e b a l l more, a r e t h e n a b l e t o s c o r e q u i c k l y . They 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 on d e f e n s e and spend more t i m e on o f f e n s e t h a n t h e team t h a t p l a y s t h e o r t h o d o x h a l f - c o u r t d e f e n s e . I t w o u l d appear t o t h e c a s u a l s p e c t a t o r t h a t the 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 c o u r t p r e s s and t h e r e f o r e t h e p l a y e r s must 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 e p r e s s t h a n i n games i n w h i c h no p r e s s i s u s e d . One e x p l a n a t i o n w o u l d seem t o be t h a t t h e f u l l c o u r t p r e s s makes f o r more e x c i t i n g b a s k e t b a l l and 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 aware o f t h e m o t i o n , t h u s c a u s i n g them t o assume t h e r e a c t u a l l y i s more m o t i o n i n t h e game. I t i s e x t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t t o make com p a r i s o n s w i t h t h e p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s done on t i m e - m o t i o n . The t i m e element i n v o l v e d i n t h e o t h e r s t u d i e s was t h e l e n g t h o f t h e game and because o f s t o p p i n g t h e c l o c k on a l l v i o l a t i o n s and t i m e o u t s , t h e t o t a l t i m e needed t o p l a y t h e game. None o f t h e s 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 p l a y e r s spend i n m o t i o n d u r i n g an a t h l e t i c e v e n t . CHAPTER V I I I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of t h i s study was f i r s t l y , to determine i f there was a d i f f e r e n c e i n time i n motion spent on defense and offense by the p l a y e r s on a b a s k e t b a l l team; secondly to determine the amount of time spent i n motion by each p o s i t i o n on offense and defense and f i n a l l y , to determine whether the f u l l court press a f f e c t s the amount of time spent i n motion. The experimental procedure was to use two stop watches on each p o s i t i o n to determine the o f f e n s i v e and defensive time i n motion. The watches were stopped and s t a r t e d as the b a l l changed from offense to defense. The times were t o t a l l e d at h a l f - t i m e and at the end of the game. These t e s t s were run f o r p r a c t i s e by the t e s t e r s on two e x h i b i t i o n games. One game was used to f i n d the percentage of e r r o r and the f i n a l four games te s t e d were used to c o l l e c t data f o r t h i s study. The raw scores r e s u l t i n g from each game f o r each p o s i t i o n , offense and defense, f u l l court press and no press 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 of t h i s study warrant the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s . I t i s necessary to recognize that conclusions can be made only w i t h i n the s t a t e d l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study. On the basis of the data gathered, the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s were evident. 1 . The d i f f e r e n c e between the offense and defense i n the amount of time spent i n motion was s i g n i f i c a n t at the . 0 1 l e v e l of confidence. The defense spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time i n motion than the offense. 28. 2. O f f e n s i v e l y , the r i g h t forward spent more time i n motion than the r i g h t guard. 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 the .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 of the other p o s i t i o n s . 3. D e f e n s i v e l y , the center and the l e f t forward spent more time i n motion than the l e f t guard. 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 the .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 of the other 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 the two games where the f u l l court press was used and the two games where the press was not used. This a p p l i e d to both the offense and the defense. I n s p i t e of the care taken i n using the stop watches, i t was o f t e n very 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 to keep up w i t h the b a l l which changes hands q u i c k l y . 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 which the stop watches were changed over. I t i s recommended that f u r t h e r studies i n v e s t i g a t e the f o l l o w i n g : 1. A s i m i l a r study to the one which has j u s t been described, but i n v o l v i n g at l e a s t ten games. I t i s p o s s i b l e that a study i n v o l v i n g more games may give d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s . 2. A study where more i n v e s t i g a t o r s are used to a c c u r a t e l y measure p l a y e r s r a t h e r than p o s i t i o n s . I t would be of i n t e r e s t to f i n d out the amount of time spent i n motion by each p l a y e r . 29. 3. A s i m i l a r study i n v o l v i n g equal number of games won and l o s t . I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to 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 motion between games which are won and games which are l o s t . 4. The d i f f e r e n c e s i n the time spent i n motion f o r the offense when p l a y i n g against a man to man defense as compared to p l a y i n g against a zone defense. 30. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Edwards, A.L., Experimental Design i n P s y c h o l o g i c a l Research. New York, H o l t , Rinehart, Winston, 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 Education. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 1959. PERIODICALS Foy, P.J., Messersmith, TL., "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 P l a y e r s " , Research Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . 9, pp. 136-7, May, 1938. Messersmith, L., Bucher, C , "The Distance Traversed by B i g Ten B a s k e t b a l l P l a y e r s , "Research Quarterly. V o l . 10, pp. 60-62, October, 1939. Messersmith, L., Corey, S., "The Distance Traversed 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. Messersmith, L., Foy, P.J., "Distance Traversed 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. Messersmith, L., Lawrence, J . , Rendels, K., "A Study of Distance Traversed by College Men and Women.in P l a y i n g the Game of 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 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", D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , 1952 (microcarded). 31. APPENDICES 32. APPENDIX A PERCENTAGE OF ERROR Stop Watches 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Offense 16j38 16:32 17:37 16:45 16:35 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Defense 22:07 22:09 21:20 22:33 22:01 1. Each number changed to a decimal and t o t a l l e d . 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 2. Average each column. 16.82 22.03 3. Express the maximum d i f f e r e n c e as a per cent of the 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 analyze the scores from the four games t e s t e d , two methods were used. 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 Range Test. The second method used was the Students " t " . The l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e was r e q u i r e d to reach .05 to be acceptable. To o b t a i n the answers to the questions, the experimentor e n t e r t a i n e d 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 Test 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 offense were put down from the lowest to the h i g h e s t . These were then compared w i t h one another to f i n d the d i f f e r e n c e . R.G. L.F. L.G. C. R.F. SHORTEST L6.20 16.94 17.05 17.43 18.03 SIGNIFICANT RANGE 16.20 - .74 .85 1.23 1.83 R 2 = 1.256 17.05 17.43 18.03 . - .11 .49 1.09 - - .38 .98 - - - .60 16.94 -  R 3 = 1.316 l4 l5 At the .05 l e v e l of confidence the d i f f e r e n c e must be above that number appearing i n the column marked s h o r t e s t s i g n i f i c a n t range. The only score that was s i g n i f i c a n t was 1.83. This showed that on the offense the r i g h t forward 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 OFFENSE 16.94 18.02 17.43 17.05 16.20 T 85.64 X 17.128 SD 2 t t I n comparing the Offense to the Defense i n the amount of time being spent i n motion a t t e s t was used. T h i s involved t o t a l l i n g u t h e f i v e mean times f o r offense and doing the same f o r defense. The d e v i a t i o n between the two was found, keeping the s i g n , t o t a l l e d and then the average taken. The d e v i a t i o n s were then a l l squared and summed. These f i g u r e s were then s u b s t i t u t e d i n the formula to f i n d the Standard D e v i a t i o n squared. The Standard D e v i a t i o n squared was then s u b s t i t u t e d i n t o the formula f o r f i n d i n g t . This gave the answer f o r the t t e s t . TIME MOTION STUDY T TEST DATA FOR THE OFFENSE VERSUS THE DEFENSE DEFENSE DEVIATION DEVIATION 2 20.79 -3.85 14.82 20.09 -2.07 4.28 21.23 -3.80 14.44 19.18 -2.13 4.54 20.40 -4.20 17.64 101.69 -16.05 55.72 20.338 - 3.21 2 2 D - D N 55.72 - (-321) 2 5 .840 D = D^  SD2" SD^ N-1 3.21 84 4 = 7.008 35. APPENDIX D INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEET Time i n Motion For Thunderbird B a s k e t b a l l Team P o s i t i o n - Name P o s i t i o n - Name  1st Offense Defense Offense Defense H a 1 f TOTAL Resume: P o s i t i o n P o s i t i o n  2nd Offense Defense Offense Defense H a 1 f TOTAL Game T o t a l Resume: APPENDIX E MASTER SCORE SHEET Game Le f t Forward Center Right Forward L e f t Guard Right Guard Offense Defense Offense Defense Offense Defense Offense Defense Offense Defense Dec. 1 17.58 20.51 16.16 23.41 18.68 19.18 15.08 20.28 14.85 20.05 Jan. 5 16.98 22.18 17.60 21.30 17.85 20.58 17.61 18.66 16.33 20.36 Jan. 6 16.86 19.36 17.81 20.16 17.85 20.36 17.43 18.78 17.38 20.68 Feb. 2 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 APPENDIX F RAW SCORES Defense L.F. C R.F. L.G. R.G. Game 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 Offense L.F. C R.F. L.G. R.G. Game 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 Press Press No Press 

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