Who Compares? Top Three Ex-Indiana Players Who Produced Like Sydney Parrish

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – It has no doubt been said before, but still worth noting, that one of the best traits Indiana women’s basketball coach Teri Moren has in building her teams is the versatility of each player.

This really comes into focus in the comparison series when you see just how skilled today’s Indiana players are versus their predecessors.

That’s not meant to be a knock on Indiana players of the past. They did what they were asked to do. Roles were more defined in pre-2010s basketball.

When you have a player like Sydney Parrish – the subject of today’s comparison series – and try to compare her scoring, rebounding, passing and defensive skills? You realize what kind of golden age Indiana’s women’s basketball finds itself in given her diverse talents.

What’s fascinating about Parrish is that if you expand her criteria to include forwards who were 6-foot-2 or shorter, Parrish has characteristics that match both her listed guard spot and forward. She matches quite a few former Hoosiers. Twenty-two in all fit the bill.

When you get into the finer details? That’s when the sheer across-board excellence of the current players like Parrish can really be appreciated. There may be a lot of matches for her scoring and win shares, but not many that match everything she can do.

Here’s our stab at finding Indiana players of the past who produced like Parrish.

Tale of the tape

Parrish’s traditional statistics: 10.8 points, 6 rebounds and 2.3 assists. She converted 45.3% of her shots and 40% of her 3-point attempts. She is listed at 6-foot-2.

Parrish’s advanced statistics, as used by sports-reference.com: Parrish had 3.3 win shares and a 21.6 Player Efficiency Rating. She had a 19.6% usage percentage, a 14.1% assist percentage, a 13% total rebounding percentage and a 4.4 defensive box plus-minute rating.

Some of the advanced statistics are explained below.

Honorable mention

Worth naming in this space is Rainey Alting ’01. It’s a shame advanced statistics aren’t available for her season. Her scoring stats (8.8 ppg) are barely in-range of Parrish, but when you look at her shooting (45.5%, 40% 3-point) and assist (2.5 apg) numbers? You wonder. However, Alting was 5-foot-5, so that’s one disqualifier to make the top three.

Dawn Douglas ’93 is a close match for Parrish’s traditional stats at 10.1 points, 5.1 rebounds and 2.3 assists, but she did not shoot threes, a glaring difference.

Jamie Braun ’10, Whitney Lindsay ’11, Hope Elam ’11 and Alexis Gassion ’17 all have certain numbers that line up well, but not enough to make the top three.

Same for the recent Moren players. Al Patberg ’22 and the inevitable Grace Berger ’23. Both close, but none quite there to make the top three.

3. Tabitha Gerardot ‘14

Gerardot was a 6-foot-1 forward on Curt Miller’s last Indiana team, a transfer from Valparaiso. Her scoring would seem to disqualify her. Gerardot averaged just 8.7 points in her only Indiana season.

However, advanced stats demonstrate how close their games were.

Gerardot had 3.1 win shares, a 13.4% rebounding percentage and a 19.8% usage percentage, all within a fraction of Parrish’s numbers. She’s also close to Parrish in size, so she made the cut.

2. Nicole Cardaño-Hillary ‘22

Given the interchangeable traits that Moren players tend to have, a recent player needed to be included, so we went with the Spanish standout.

Her traditional numbers line up closely. She averaged 11.6 points, 4.9 rebounds and 3.1 assists during her senior season. Parrish is a better shooter, but not by a wide margin. Cardaño -Hillary converted 40.7% overall and 35.7% from 3-point range.

The pair are close in advanced stats, too. Cardaño-Hillary had 3.8 win shares and a close usage rate of 21.4%.

Cardaño-Hillary was also one of the few players who had a superior defensive box plus-minus rating than Parrish’s stout 4.4 as Cardaño -Hillary reached 5.5 in 2022.

1. Lisa Eckart ‘03

The Greenwood, Ind., native only played one year at Indiana after she transferred from Evansville, but her numbers are very close to what Parrish produced.

One of three double-digit scorers on the 2003 team (which also produced the top comparable for Yarden Garzon – Jenny DeMuth), Eckart averaged 11.1 points, 6.4 rebounds and 1.6 assists. The scoring is very close to Parrish. Eckart enjoys the rebounding advantage; Parrish has the edge in assists.

Eckart, a 6-foot forward, also converted 38.1% of her 3-point shots, a rare forward from that era who had that skill set.

The advanced stats also show similarities. Eckart’s rebounding percentage is 11% to Parrish’s 13%, and their assist percentage (14.1 % for Parrish, 13.4% for Eckart) also makes the two a good comparison.

Rules

First, the basic rules. Players will only be compared to those who played roughly the same position.

There’s some leeway granted to shooting guards, whether they also handled the ball or whether they were big and could play small forward. Same for power forwards, some of whom are stretch forwards, others have manned the post.

This rule is important: players are only compared to those who were the same class. Seniors-to-seniors, juniors-to-juniors, etc.

With redshirt seasons, and particularly as it relates to current players, COVID-19 amnesty seasons, some current seniors can only be compared to seniors who exhausted their eligibility in their own period of time. Xavier Johnson had three senior seasons thanks to his injury waiver season – a true man of the times.

Criteria

Current Indiana players were compared to players of the past in three different categories – traditional statistics, advanced statistics and role.

One fundamental issue is that advanced statistics are only available starting in the mid-1990s – and that’s only the most basic ones. The full menu of advanced statistics we have today were only tracked starting in the 2009-10 season.

Even the full menu of traditional statistics weren’t accurately tracked until the 1980s.

Traditional counting stats and advanced stats create differences in comps. Traditional stats are subject to minutes played.

Players were considered a “comp” if they were within two points per game in scoring or within one win share in advanced statistics.

After that, the other statistics were used to form a close comparison. A good comp also needs to be roughly the same size, though that is difficult as players have steadily grown over time. Bill Garrett was a 6-foot-3 post player in the early 1950s, for example.

Ratings explained

Win shares: An estimate of the number of wins contributed by a player via their offense and defense. The higher the number, the better.

Player Efficiency Rating: A rating created by John Hollinger in an attempt to quantify a player’s overall contribution. An average rating is 15.

Usage Percentage: An estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player when they’re on the floor.

Assist percentage: An estimate of the percentage of teammate field goals a player assisted on where they were on the floor.

Total rebounding percentage: An estimate of the available rebounds a player grabbed when they were on the floor.

Defensive box plus-minus: A box score estimate of the defensive points per 100 possessions a player contributed to above a league-average player. The higher the number, the better.