14

Player Ke. Guard and Center.

 

With a playing time of 59.5 minutes this playcr made 297 evaluation points,
5 scoro points, 2 goals (25%) and 1 freo throw (500%). His crror rate in ball
handling was 264% and of the 5 players with a better rating 3 were guards, one was
a forward, and one was a eontere His playing cfficicency was 74.3, and of the three
players who ranked better than he, two wore guards and one was a centere In re-
bounds off the opponentts backboard, he rated llth and in goals per minute he ranked
12th. This player had some excellent men to compote with and on a team without an
OlleAmerican guard he might have had more opportunity to playe Like the other
guards and centers, he passed more than he eaught the balle 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 ball, 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 time. He was rated 12th by his tearmates, and 10th by the coach and
freshmene

Player L, Guard.

 

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 season, He attempted 5 goals and 2 free throws, 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
squad. 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 places. 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 freshmen, and 12th by the
coache

Player Me Forward.

 

This player ranked 13th in minutes of play (22¢5), earned 11% evaluation
points and 4 score points. He made one goal (33.23%) and 2 free throws (6607%)«
He ranked 10th both in player efficioncy (915%) and in orror rate 364%. He had
the highest rate of personal fouls per minute of any of the 13 boys. This player
had a very definite height disadvantage as he was by far tine shortest man on the
squad and can be considered small in stature even in comparison with boys not play=
ing college basketball. He was ranked 13th by all his fellow players and 135th by
his coache

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

le Tho study is of valuc in that a record was made of the number of tines various
activaitics are performed in college basketballe

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

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

4. Tho players have a definite interest in the charts and wateh their improvement
in deficient abilities.

5. Thore remains ample room for additional studiase