14.

TABLE VIII.
Offensive Ability Rankings

 

| + b
bop ¢ eg
bP BR ud #& Me
= a we SM bo. ay aa
¢ 2 rf @ ‘s 3 2 Hw 6h
“Ss @: & fe & =2° 25 ft.
ry _f- os ey
B f,e¢ ; 2 2 2 ? ; JS
is. 2 3 5 3 2
Ow ie ook Oe ee
ef -€ se. &s 6 12 12
Sf: pies BC oe EO OS e
-€ ts % 9 _ +4 1 5
1. we. se ee 5. 8 7
. 2. ¥' 8 8 8 1 9
K B90 12 10 —)6lUeS 6 4
at li 11 so &@..8 13
¥ 13 15 iz. «oie 10 12

® guard, forward, center. —

At the close of the season a letter was sent to the 16
letter men of the varsity and the 17 numeral men on the freshman
squad. (Sample letter and rating blenk, Exhibits C and D) These
33 boys were asked to rate the 13 varsity players on their offensive
playing ability. The 13 players included in the study were ranked
by 21 players | and the coach. On the basis of offensive: playing
ability, these rankings plus. other significant rankings from 1 the
evaluation data are shown in Table VIII. : |

3 of particular interest is the sintiiarity of the rankings
that were given by the varsity, the freshmen and the coach. There
— only 3 players where the disagreement is more than 2 rankings
apart. AlL are unanimous, on 5 players. It should be remembered
that in spite of the apparent discrepancies between the Judgment
ae and the — ratings, the latter are ‘pullt up of ,