100

 

    

 

TABLE VIII.
Offensive Ability Rankings

; 4 3 a yo
eee y+ i

Ww | Qe S §

3 ns Zo = & FY ot

_ <- : : ee 0

gw. ay . ce = 2 oe

= oo ys ors gi XS

= Sy ‘~% We Se wet By Qwy
A g * + ea 1 2 L
fe 3 2 2 2 7 8
¢ « 2 3 3 3 3 2
D o. 4 4, & 4 4 3
E ft 6 6 7 6 12 12
F £ 5 8 5 7 5 6
c te 9 9 9 9 1 5
H r 10 12 is 5 13 7
I f 7 8 8 8 11 9
J f 8 7 6 10 8 10
K yc 12 10 10 a+ 6 &
L g ll ee ae 13 9 13
M f 13 13 13 LZ 10 11

xGuard, forward, centcre

At the close of tho soason a letter was sent to the 16 letter men of the
varsity and the 17 numeral men on the freshman squade (Sample letter and rating
plank, Exhibits C and De) Those 33 boys were asked to rato the 13 varsity players
on their offensive playing ability. The 13 playors included in the study were
ranked by 21 playors and the coache On the basis of offensive playing ability,
these rankings plus other significant rankings from the evaluation data are shown
in Table VIII.

a

of particular interest is the similarity of tho rankings that were given by
tho varsity, the freshmen and tho coaches There are only 3 players where the dis-
agrooment is more than 2 rankings aparte All are manimous on 5 playorse It
should bo remombered that in spite of the apparent discrepancics between the judg-
ment ratings and the computed ratings, tho latter are built up of isolated abilie#
tiose As pointed out earlicr, tho guards and conter have a better chance of
making a higher score in ball handling duc to their positions and the style of
basketball’ used in this schoole

No attempt was mado in this study to give any of tho players a composite
ranking, but it should be noted that player A was a guard known nationally as an
AlleAmerican playore

On the basis of the individual evaluation tables certain facts are: bréught
out that can best be shown in individual analyses. For that roason, the abilitics
of the players are discussed as single units e