l4e

Player Ke Guard and Center.

 

With a playing time of 59.5 minutes this player mace 297 evaluation points,
5 score points, 2 goals (25%) and 1 free throw (50.0%). His error rate in ball
handling was 2.4% and of the 5 players with a better rating 3 were guards, one was
a forward, and one was a center. His playing cfficiency was 74.3, and of the three
players who ranked better than he, two wore 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 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 ball. On rebounds off his
own backboard per minute he ranked 8th and he ranked 6th on the recovery per minute
of a teammatets jump balle The data indicate that this player was a good ball
hondler and an efficient player, but that he did not shoot enough in proportion to
his playing timee He was rated 12th by his teammates, and 10th by the coach and
freshmen,

 

Playor L, Guards

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 throwse His crror rate in ball handl-
ing was 3.5% and this was better than four of his teammates who played longere Fron
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 making any) in which he was ticd with Player J for Srd place. 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
coach.

Player Me Forward.

 

This player ranked 13th in minutes of play (2225), earned 118 evaluation
points and 4 score pointse He made one goal (33.3%) and 2 free throws (66e7%).«
He ranked 10th both in player efficioney (91,5%%) and in error rate 34%. He had
the highest rate of personal fouls peor minute of any of the 13 boys. This player
had a very definite height disadvantage as he was by far tl shortest man on the
squad and can be considered small in stature even in comparison with boys not play=
ing college Ee SA He was ranked 13th by all his fellow players and 13th by
his coaches

The summarics have beon presented and discussed in the body of the paper. In
addition, some general conclusions seem to be worranteds;

le The study is of voluc in that a record was made of the number of times various
activitics are performed in college basketballe

2« fn accurate record of the offensive abilities of playors 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 intcrest in the charts and wateh their improvement
in deficicnt abilitics.

5 There remains ample room for additional studics.s