146

Player Ke Guard and Center,

 

With a playing time of 59.5 minutes this playor made 297 evaluation points,
5 score points, 2 goals (25%) and 1 free throw (806%). 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 cffitioncy was 7423, 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
12the This player had some excellent men to compete with and on a team without an
alleAmerican guard he might have had more opportunity to playe Like the other
guards and centers, he passed more than he eaught the balle On rebounds off his
own backboard per minute he ranked 8th and he ranked 6th on the recovery per minute
of a teammate's jump ball. The data indicate that this player was a good ball
handler and an efficient player, but that he did not shoot onough in proportion to
his playing time. He was rated 12th by his teammates, and 10th by the coach and
freshmen. a

Player Le Guarde

 

This boy had a total time of 34.5 minutes, 120 evaluation points, and no scoré
pointse He is the only player of the 13 in the study that did not seoro: during, the ,
home scasone He attempted 5 goals and 2 free throws, His crror rate in ball hahdie
ing was 3.3% and this was better than four of his teammates who played longore From
the standpoint of playing officiency 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. ming any) in which he was tiod with Playor J for 8rd places; This
player ranked the lowest of the guards and was the-orly one to eatch the ball more
than he passed ite He was rated llth by the varsity ond freshmen, and 12th by the
coache .

Playor Me Forward.,..... ‘

 

This player ranked 13th in minutes of play (28v5), earned 11% evaluation
points and 4 score points. He made one goal (33.3%) and 2 fee throws (667%).
He ranked 10th both im player efficioncy (9125%) and in orror rate 304%. He had
the highest rate of personal fouls per minute of any of the 13 boys This player
had a very definite height disadvantage as he was by far tine shortest man on the
squad and can be considered small in stature even in conparison with boys not play~
ing college basketball. He was rankod 15th by all his follow vlayers.and 13th by
his coache 3

The surmarics have been presented and discussed in the body of the paper. In
addition, some general conclusions seom to be wrranteds

1, Tho study is of valuc in that a record was made of the number of tines various
activitics are performed in college basketballe 7

2 iim accurate record of the offensive abilities of players was made available,
independent of the score booke

3— By examination of the materia] after a game a coach can sce which monwre por=
forming their duties and which fundamentals need oxtra worke

4s Tho players have a definite interest in the charts and wateh their improvement
in deficiont abilitics,. , 3

5. There remains ample room for additional studicss