Who Compares? Top Three Ex-Indiana Players Who Produced Like Mackenzie Mgbako

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

Todd Golden | Aug 19, 2024

Mar 10, 2024; Bloomington, Indiana, USA; Indiana Hoosiers forward Mackenzie Mgbako (21) celebrates a made basket in the first half against the Michigan State Spartans at Simon Skjodt Assembly Hall. Mandatory Credit: Trevor Ruszkowski-USA TODAY Sports / Trevor Ruszkowski-USA TODAY Sports

In this story:

Indiana Hoosiers

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – For a while there, it didn’t seem like Mackenzie Mgbako wasn’t going to be the super freshman everyone thought he would be.

That’s the problem with star ratings and recruiting hype – players have to live up to expectations set by the standards of others. It’s something that Indiana coach Mike Woodson often railed against in the first half of the 2023-24 season. (Of course, Indiana didn’t mind that attention when it got plaudits for attaining a five-star level player.)

In the calendar year of 2023 of last year's slate, Mgbako averaged 10 points and 4.3 rebounds, perfectly acceptable for any normal freshman, but with that hype came expectation of more. Mgbako struggled to find his 3-point stroke and his defense was questionable to say the least.

However, once Big Ten play began in earnest, Mgbako began to figure things out. From February onward, Mgbako improved his numbers to 14.7 points and 33.3% 3-point shooting. His defense got better and he was the asset everyone expected him to be coming into the season.

Mgabko was not the first impact freshman Indiana has had. How does he stack up against some of his first-year brethren?

First, you have to parse the “comps”. Listed as forward, Mgbako is a swingman, to use an old-school term. His game suggests he’s a two-guard or a three-forward. He could play the 4-spot, but it wasn’t required with Malik Reneau and Kel’El Ware patrolling the paint, nor was it his strength at this stage of his career.

Given that, some of Mgbako’s “comps”, at least strictly contained to forwards, weren’t comps at all. Eric Anderson ‘89 and Alan Henderson ’92 had similar statistics, but they did not have anything like the same role Mgbako did.

To make comparisons somewhat apples-to-apples, you have to include shooting guards. For this exercise? Shooting guards who were within two inches of Mgbako’s 6-foot-8 frame were eligible as a “comp”.

So let’s jump into it.

Tale of the tape

Mgbako’s traditional statistics: 12.2 points, 4.1 rebounds, 1.3 assists. He converted 39.5% of his shots, including 32.7% from 3-point range. He is listed at 6-foot-8 and 217 pounds.

Mgbako’s advanced statistics, as used by sports-reference.com: Mgbako had 2 win shares and a 14.7 Player Efficiency Rating. He had an 24.4% usage percentage, a 9.3% assist percentage, an 8.6% total rebounding percentage and a 0.1 defensive box plus-minute rating.

Some of the advanced statistics are explained below.

Honorable mention

As mentioned, based purely on traditional statistics, Anderson (11.9 ppg, 6.1 rpg) and Henderson (11.6, 7.2 rpg) were both within close range of Mgbako as forwards, but neither played his role, and that’s demonstrated by far superior rebounding averages for both players. Both also shot above 50% from the field, another indication of lack of fit.

Lawrence Funderburke ’90 (11.7 ppg, 1.3 apg) was a bit closer to Mgbako’s numbers in his brief Indiana stint and was only an inch taller, which only lasted six games before he departed to Ohio State, but that’s not a large enough sample size.

Some similar stats aside, Noah Vonleh ’14 (11.3 ppg, 9 rpg) is another example of a forward who doesn't fit in the same role as Mgbako.

On the advanced stat side, Troy Williams ’14 (1.9 WS), OG Anonuby ’16 (1.9 WS) and DeRon Davis ’17 (1.8 WS) were all very similar to Mgbako in win shares. Davis was close in usage (22.8%) too, but all of those players came off the bench and weren’t close in traditional production during their freshman seasons.

3. Luke Recker ‘98

Jan 18, 1998; FILE PHOTO; Indiana's Luke Recker beats Chad Austin to the rebound during the second half of Sunday's game at Assembly Hall. The Hoosiers defeated the Boilermakers 94-88. (Sun. Jan. 18, 1998). Mandatory Credit: Tom Leininger-USA TODAY NETWORK / Journal and Courier-USA TODAY NETWORK

If you weren’t around during the 1997-98 Indiana season, you probably have little idea of what a big deal it was for the Auburn, Ind. native to suit up for the Hoosiers. Recker joined a team with a young backcourt consisting of A.J. Guyton and Michael Lewis, super sophomore big man Jason Collier, and a solid senior center in Andrae Patterson.

Big things were expected from these Hoosiers. It was hoped they could be the core of Bob Knight’s next deep NCAA Tournament run.

Alas, it famously didn’t work out. The Hoosiers were 20-12 in 1998. Collier would leave for Georgia Tech after the season and Recker would bolt for Iowa one year later, torturing the Hoosiers as a Hawkeye for the remainder of his college career.

However, in 1998, Recker was living up to the excitement that surrounded him. He averaged 12.8 points, 3.9 rebounds and 2.8 assists, all numbers that are within range of Mgabko’s in the same categories.

One might think of Recker as a superior 3-point shooter. He was, but not by as much as you might think. Recker made 36.2% of his threes in 1998, ahead of Mgbako’s 32.7% clip, but not by an outrageous amount.

2. Christian Watford ‘10

Jan 4, 2011; Minneapolis, MN, USA; Indiana Hoosiers forward Christian Watford (2) during the first half against the Minnesota Golden Gophers at Williams Arena. Minnesota defeated Indiana 67-63. Mandatory Credit: Brace Hemmelgarn-USA TODAY Sports / Brace Hemmelgarn-USA TODAY Sports

Watford makes his second appearance in the comparison series. The sophomore iteration of Watford was a match for Reneau. In Mgbako’s case, he gets the freshman version of Watford.

In traditional statistics, they were close. Watford averaged 12 points, 6 rebounds and 0.6 assists, all within acceptable range of Mgbako. They were tight in shooting too. Watford converted 37.5% overall and 31.9% of his threes in 2010. That’s really close to Mgabko’s 39.5% overall and 32.7% from long-range.

The advanced stats align similarly. Watford had 1.4 win shares, fewer than Mgbako, but they were both in the same usage range. Watford at 26% and Mgabko at 24.4%.

Watford was also not far off in size. Watford is an inch taller and 15 pounds heavier.

1. Jalen Hood-Schifino ‘23

Mar 10, 2023; Chicago, IL, USA; Indiana Hoosiers guard Jalen Hood-Schifino (1) brings the ball up court against the Maryland Terrapins during the second half at United Center. Mandatory Credit: Kamil Krzaczynski-USA TODAY Sports / Kamil Krzaczynski-USA TODAY Sports

This stands to reason. Comparisons are easy to make when the players compared played under the same head coach in Mike Woodson.

Hood-Schifino was certainly more on the guard side of Mgbako’s skill set. Statistically, however, the freshman seasons of Hood-Schifino and Mgbako are tight.

Hood-Schifino averaged 13.5 points, 4.1 rebounds (an exact replica of Mgbako) and 3.7 assists, more than Mgbako, as you’d think it would be given Hood-Schifino’s role after he took over ball-handling duties in the wake of Xavier Johnson's foot injury in 2022.

Hood-Schifino, a one-year Hoosier now with the Los Angeles Lakers, converted 41.7% from the field and 33.3% from 3-point range, both very close to Mgbako’s numbers.

In advanced stats, they’re really close. Win shares? Mgabko 2-Hood-Schifino 1.9. Usage? Hood-Schifino 25.7-Mgbako 24.4. Defensive box plus-minus? Hood-Schifino 0.3-Mgabko 0.1. Neither was going to threaten the all-defensive team.

Indiana only got one season of Hood-Schifino’s production. If Mgbako can build on his freshman season in the same way Reneau did? The Hoosiers will be in really good shape in 2025.

Next: Oumar Ballo.

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.