Who Compares? Top Three Ex-Indiana Players Who Produced Like Chloe Moore-McNeil

Hoosiers On SI examines past Hoosiers whose stats or style were similar to current players.

Todd Golden | Aug 29, 2024

Indiana's Chloe Moore-McNeil (22) drives and scores during the second half of the Indiana versus Northwestern women's basketball game at Simon Skjodt Assembly Hall on Sunday, Jan. 28, 2024. / Rich Janzaruk/Herald Times / USA TODAY NETWORK

In this story:

Indiana Hoosiers

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – Time to move to the Indiana women’s basketball team in the comparison series. Point guard Chloe Moore-McNeil is the first of four women’s players we’ll review.

The rules are the same for women’s comparisons as they are for the men. Players had to play 25 minutes per game to be eligible, and the other rules and criteria are listed below.

The one difference from the men’s side is that there isn’t the same level of data available for women’s basketball. Women’s statistics are only reliably available from the late 1980s onward.

In Moore-McNeil’s case, the Tennessee native has long been an integral part of head coach Teri Moren’s attack. During her first senior year in 2024, Moore-McNeil improved in nearly every statistical category, including getting her scoring average into double-digits for the first time.

Tale of the tape

Moore-McNeil’s traditional statistics: 10.2 points, 3.6 rebounds and 5 assists. She converted 46.4% of her shots and 40.9% of her 3-point attempts. She is listed at 5-foot-11.

Moore-McNeil’s advanced statistics, as used by sports-reference.com: Moore-McNeil had 4.7 win shares and a 20.1 Player Efficiency Rating. She had a 16.9% usage percentage, a 25.2% assist percentage, a 6.8% total rebounding percentage and a 4.2 defensive box plus-minute rating.

Some of the advanced statistics are explained below.

Honorable mention

Moore-McNeil aligned with a total of 14 “comps.” Most players from the late 1980s and 1990s aren’t a good comparison because of size differences and 3-point shooting percentages that weren’t as good.

Rainey Alting ’01 approaches Moore-McNeil’s oeuvre, though she was also comparatively undersized at 5-foot-5. While she only averaged 8.8 points and 2.5 assists, she’s close in rebounds (3.3), but is the first who compares in shooting. Alting converted 45.5% overall and 40% from 3-point range.

Sara Scalia ’23, her first season at Indiana after she transferred from Minnesota, aligns very closely at 9.5 points, 3.9 rebounds and 4.8 assists. Where the difference occurs is in shooting. Scalia converted 35.6% from the field and 34.4% from 3-point range in her first Indiana season before she really took off in her second.

3. Ali Patberg ‘22

Indiana Assistant Coach Ali Patberg talks with Indiana's Chloe Moore-McNeil (22) during the second half of the Indiana versus Lipscomb women's basketball game at Simon Skjodt Assembly Hall on Sunday, Nov. 19, 2023. / Rich Janzaruk/Herald-Times / USA TODAY NETWORK

As it was in the men’s comparison series, it stands to reason that players who play under the same head coach will make for good comparisons to current players.

In Patberg’s case, this is the second of her two senior seasons thanks to COVID-19 amnesty, and she was a teammate of Moore-McNeil’s as well as a current assistant coach on-staff. Patberg averaged 11.6 points, which is better than Moore-McNeil, while Moore-McNeil is superior in rebounds (3.6-3.2) and assists (5-3.4).

Mar 26, 2022; Bridgeport, CT, USA; Indiana Hoosiers guard Ali Patberg (14) drives the ball against UConn Huskies forward Olivia Nelson-Ododa (20) during the first half in the Bridgeport regional semifinals of the women's college basketball NCAA Tournament at Webster Bank Arena. Mandatory Credit: David Butler II-USA TODAY Sports / David Butler II-USA TODAY Sports

Where the comparison comes into sharper focus is in advanced stats. Moore-McNeil (20.1) and Patberg (19.1) are close in Player Efficiency Rating. They rebounded at close to the same rate (6.8 McNeil-6.6 Patberg). Advanced stats give Moore-McNeil the edge in assists and defense, while Patberg’s usage was higher, but they’re a good comparison.

2. Dani Thrush ‘99

Dani Thrush played at Indiana from 1995-99. / Indiana athletics

While not an exact comparison, as she played multiple positions, Thrush, who played at Indiana from 1995-99, is in the right ballpark.

Thrush averaged 9.8 points, just a shade shy of Moore-McNeil’s average. She was a good rebounder at 4.9 per game, but most importantly, Thrush’s 4.7 assists draw her close to Moore-McNeil. Thrush is also 5-9, reasonably close to Moore-McNeil’s size.

Moore-McNeil is a superior shooter. Thrush converted 35.6% from the field and 31.9% from 3-point range, but they were both point guards who produced in a similar fashion for their respective teams.

1. Grace Berger ‘23

Indiana's Grace Berger (34) passes around Tennessee Tech's Anna Walker (4) during the first round of the NCAA women's tournament at Simon Skjodt Assembly Hall on Saturday, March 18, 2023. / Rich Janzaruk/Herald-Times / USA TODAY NETWORK

Like Patberg, Berger had two senior seasons for the Hoosiers. And like Patberg, she played with Moore-McNeil. The 2023 season was Berger’s final one, and she missed eight games with a knee injury.

So with that proviso acknowledged, the numbers are within range. Berger was the superior scorer at 12.9 points and in rebounds at 4.2 boards per game, but they align in assists. Berger had 5.8 in 2023.

Where they’re nearly identical is in shooting. Berger’s 48.4% from the field and 40.7% from 3-point range are very close to Moore-McNeil’s 46.4% and 40.9%.

Advanced stats are mixed. Moore-McNeil has more win shares (4.7 to 3.9), but Berger has the edge in Player Efficiency Rating (22.6 to 20.1) – a rare split between two methods that usually align with one another.

Berger had the edge in rebounding percentage (8.6 to 6.8), usage (22.3 to 16.9) and assist percentage (31 to 25.2), while Moore-McNeil won in defensive box plus-mins (4.2 to 3.5).

Bottom line? They’re both players who have thrived running the show in Moren’s system.

Rules

First, the basic rules. Players will only be compared to those who played roughly the same position. There’s little point in comparing Malik Reneau to Yogi Ferrell, for example.

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.