10.

 

 

TABLE VIII.
Offensive Ability Rankings
eS | Es = te
| | | = a
bt :
| as >.
Nm Ug > on
Ss SOS ._ ee 2 zy ae
\. s6- ‘ae . ~ yo 3.8
v “SN aX : a a ~uN
s* § SS v s v4 gi SS
S. ie le je WT Oly QA
A g 4 a * L 2 1
B ¥,6 3 a 2 2 . 8
C g 2 3 o 3 5 2
D c “ 4 4, 4 S 3
E f 6 6 7 6 L2 12
F - 5 5 5 7 5 6
G £2 9 9 9 9 1 5
H f 10 12 11 5 13 7
I r 7 8 8 8 il 9
J : 8 7 6 10 8 10
K Bye 12 10 10 11 6 4
L g a 11 12 13 9 13
M = 13 13 13 le 10 11

xGuard, forward, contcre

At the close of the season a letter was sent to the 16 letter mon of the
varsity and the 17 numeral men on the freshman squade (Sample letter and rating
blank, Exhibits C and De) These 33 boys were asked to rate the 13 varsity players
on their offensive playing ability. The 1s players included in the study were
ranked by 21 players and tho coach. On the tasis of offensive playing ability,
these rankings plus other significant rankings from the evaluation data are shown
in Table VIIIe ‘

of particular interest is the similarity of the rankings that wore given by
the varsity, tho freshmen and the coach. Thoro are only 3 playors where the dis-
agreoment is more than 2 rankings aparte All are wmAnimous on 5 playcrse It |
should bo romombered that in spite of the apparont discrepancics between the judg-
ment ratings and the computed ratings, tho latter are built up of isolated abili-
tiose As pointed out earlicr, tho guards and conter have a better chance of
moking a higher score in ball handling due to their positions and the style of
basketball used in this schoole |

No attempt was made in this study to give any of the players a composite
ranking, but it should be noted that player A was a guard Imown nationally as on
All-American playcre |

On the basis of the individual cvaluation tables eortain facts are breught
out that can best be shown in individual anolysese For that roason, the abilitics
of the players are discussed as singlo unitse