106

 

 

 

TABLE VIII.
Offensive Ability Rankings
a Ed > Pod
oo 7. |.
ee} =| >
, Nw | Os _ =
3 a ke af ge fe 3
ow AX | ss oF i on. O
~~ a i= >. 2 <s Sf
ao © Be. v se or gS XS
Sqse we Ge HT SW Ae
i = 1 7 - . a
sf 3 2 2 2 7 8
¢ 6 2 3 3 3 g 2
s 3 4. 4 4 4, 4 3
2 6 6 7 6 12 12
, 68 5 i 5 7 5 6
’ £3 2 9 9 9 1 5
sf 10 12 ul 5 13 7
t F# 7 8 8 8 11 9
- £ 8 7 6 10 A 10
x 60 .2 10 10 11 6 4
8 1l 11 12 13 9 13
u Ff 13 13 13 12 yo

xGuard, forward, contcre

At the close of the season a lettor was sent to the 16 letter mon of the
varsity and the 17 numeral men on the froshman squade (Sample letter and rating
plank, Exhibits C and De) Those 33 boys were asked to rato tho 16 varsity players
on their offensive playing ability. The 13 players included in the study were
ranked by 21 players and tho coach. On the basis of offensive playing ability,
thego rankings plus other significant rankings from the evaluation data are shown
in Table VIIIe

Of particular interost is the similarity of the rankings that wore given by
the varsity, tho freshmen and tho coach, There are only 3 players whero the dis-
agreoment is more than 2 rankings apart. All are umanimous on 5 playorse It |
should bo romombered that in spite of the apparont discrepancics between the judg-
ment ratings and the computed ratings, tho latter are built up of isolated abili-
tiose As pointed out earlicr, the guards and contcr have a better chance of
making a higher score in ball handling duo to their positions and the style of
basketball used in this schoole

No attempt was made in this study to givo any of the players a eomposite
ranking, but it should be noted that player A was 4 guard known nationally as an
AlleAmerican playcore

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