226

he ranked sixth on the recovery per minute of a teammate's jump
ball. The data indicate that this player was a geod ball handler
and an efficient player, but that he did not shoet enough in pro-
portion to his playing time. He was rated twelfth by his teammates,
and tenth by the coach and the freshmen.
Player L. Guard. |

This boy had a total time of 54-5 minutes, 120 evaluation
points, and ne score points. He is the only player of the 13 in the
study that did net seore during the home season. He attempted 5
goals and 2 free throws. His error rate in ball handling was 5.3%
and this was better than four of his teammates, who played longer.
From the standpoint of playing efficiency he made a scere of 84.5%,
the lowest on the squad. The point most in favor of this boy was
his rank in free throws attempted per mimte (not making any) in
which he was tied with player J for third place. This player ranked
the lowest of the guaras and was the only one to cateh the ball more
than he passed it. He was rated eleventh by the Yarsity and fresh-
men, and twelfth by the coach.
Player M. Forward.

This player ranked thirteenth in mimtes of play (22.5),

     

earned 117 evaluation points and 4 score points. He made one goal
(33.3%) and 2 free throws (66.7%). He ranked tenth both in player
efficiency (91.5%) and in error rate 3.4%. He had the highest rate
ef personal fouls per minute of any of the 135 boys. This player
had a very définite height disadvantage as he was by far the short-
est man on the squad and can be considered small in stature even
in comparison with boys not playing college basketball. He was
ranked thirteenth by all his fellow players and thirteenth by his

coach.