L0e
TABLE VIII.

Offensive Ability Rankings

 

 

 

| i. 5] “ oe
Py eG

| | | 7 | | 8 as

: LH Us . S. &

3 Os sa AS OSA BY ot

\ ~ * wei Ns -* i Sy ~~ 2 &
Oo vx <a sk c= _ 2 ss
_% 86 28 ge Ss 86
a 2 age F is. Ss Ss =
& & =e ge Ga we GY Se
A g i. * 1 Sages 2 :
Ss ts 3 2 2 2 7 8
C g 2 3 5 3 3 2
. «4 4 4 4 4 4 3
ee 6 6 7 6 12 12
a 5 3 5 7 5 6
@¢ se 9 9 9 9 1 é
s 10 12 ul 5 13 7
: 2 7 8 8 8 11 9
zs 8 7 6 10 8 10
K pe 12 10 10 11 6 &
. = 11 11 12 13 9 13
uf 13 13 13 12 10 11

xGuard, forward, contcre

At the close of the scason a lettor was sent to the 16 letter mon of the
varsity and the 17 numeral men on the freshman squade (Sample letter and rating
blonk, Exhibits C and D.) Those 33 boys wore asked to ratc the 13 varsity players
on their offensive playing ability. The 13 playors included in the study were
ranked by 21 players and the coaches On the basis of offensive playing ability,
thege rankings plus other significant rankings from the cvaluation data are shown
in Table VIII.

Of particular intcrest is the similarity of tho rankings that wore given by
tho varsity, the freshmen and the coache There are only 3 players where the dis-
agreoment is more than 2 rankings apart. All are umenimous on 5 pleyorse It
should bo romombered that in spite of the apparent discropancics between the judg=-
ment ratings and the computed ratings, tho latter are built up of isolated abili-«~
tiose As pointed out carlicr, tho guards and comter have a better chance of
making oa higher scoro in ball handling due to their positions and the style of
basketball uscd in this schoole

No attempt was made in this study to givo any of tho players a composite
ranking, but it should be noted that playor A was a guard known nationally as an
AlleAmerican playcre

On the basis of the individual cvaluation tables cortain facts are bréught
out that can best be shown in individual analyses. Tor that reason, the abilitics
of the players are discussed as singlo unitse