146

Player Ke Guard and Conter.

 

With a playing time of 59.5 minutes this playcr made 297 evaluation points,
5 score points, 2 goals (25%) and 1 free throw (50%). His crror rate in ball
handling was 24% and of the 5 players with a bettcr rating 3 were guards, one was
a forward, and one was a center. His playing officioncy was 74.3, and of the three
players who ranked better than he, two were guards and one was a center. In re«
bounds off the opponent's backboard, he rated llth and in goals per minute he ranked
l2the This player had some excellent mon to compete with and on a team without an
alleAmerican guard he might have had more opportunity to plays Like the other
guards and centers, he passed more than he eaught the ball. On rebounds off his
own backboard per minute he ranked 8th and he ranked 6th on the recovery per minute
of a teammate's jump balle The data indicate that this player was a good ball
handler and an efficient player, but that he did not shoot enough in proportion to
his playing timce He was rated 12th by his tearmates, and 10th by the coach and
freshmene ,

Player Le Guarde

 

This boy had a total time of 34.5 minutes, 120 evaluation points, and no score
pointse He is the only player of the 13 in the study that did not score during the
home seasone Ho attempted 5 goals and 2 free throwse His error rate in ball handl-
ing was 3.3% and this was better than four of his tearmates who played longere From
the standpoint of playing efficiency he made a score of 84.5%, the lowest on the
squade The point most in favor of this boy was his rank in free throws attempted
per minute (not mking any) in which he was tied with Player J for Srd placee This
player ranked the lowest of the guards and was the only one to catch the ball more
than he passed ite He was rated llth by the varsity and freshnen, and 12th by the
coache

Player Me Forward.

 

This player ranked 13th in minutes of play (22.5), earned 11% ovalusation
points and 4 score pointse He made one goal (33.63%) and 2 free throws (6647%)e:
He ranked 10th both in player efficioney (915%) and in orror rate 364%« He had
the highest rate of personal fouls por minute of any of the 13 boyse This player
had a very definite height disadvantage as he tas by far tie shortest man on the
squad and can be considered small in stature even in comparison with boys not play~
ing college basketball. He was rankod 13th by all his fellow players and 13th by
his coaches

The summarics have been presented and discussed in the body of the paper. In
addition, some general conclusions secm to be warranted:

le The study is of voluc in that a record was made of the number of times various
activities are performed in college basketball.

2~ An accurate record of the offensive abilities of players was made available,
independent of the score booke

3. By examination of the material after a game a coach can sce which menwre pore
forming their duties and which fundamentals need oxtra worke

4. Tho players have a definite intcrest in the charts and vateh their improvement
in deficient abiliticse

5, There renains ample roo for additional studicse