=ie

The evaluation points per minute (see Table IV) earned during
the playing season show how Seay the indi vidual was, while the canposite effieiency
shows how well the individual performed or taske. 5 — ee

The oppenentts- players, were rated on few items and=these are
shown in Table Ve The table is limited to players who played at least 15 minutes
during the gamee The table (V) divides itself naturally into three groups:

le Above 90% playing efficiency
2 Between 80% and 90% playing efficiency
3. Below 80% playing efficiency.

Mn thes Grorfe
The group above 90% consisted of 13 players, the two highest of whem, were forwards,

Cor~-hered I he tan einai’ the Lat

“huree centers and eight guards, The next group consisted of 22 players, four of whom
were centers, seven were guards, and eleven were forwards, The group below 80% con-
tained 11 players, three centers, four forwards and four guards.

It should be pointed out that out of the high eight players
from the standpoint of playing efficiency, four of these players belong to Sehool ‘Dy
and that the players ranked one and two in evaluation points earned per minute also
wnpsrts alot Rewer ts Bhs Gptnk a Attn

e, Also, it should be noted that two phyers of school D were
ranked among those that were listed with zero ball handling errors.

tit tel he aud
On the basis of the data presented in Table V i as an

Le Reta?
all-opposition team .that—would_be_hard—to—beat,.

h NZ
ge,

-

4a/ ,
tt tt2.@