Who Compares? Top Three Ex-Indiana Players Who Produced Like Shay Ciezki

Hoosiers On SI examines past Hoosiers whose stats or style were similar to current players like transfer Shay Ciezki.

Todd Golden | Sep 4, 2024

Penn State Nittany Lions guard Shay Ciezki (4) shoots a three point basket during the first half at Xfinity Center. / Tommy Gilligan-Imagn Images

In this story:

Indiana Hoosiers

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – Before we tell you which Hoosiers of the past compare to Shay Ciezki’s production level as a sophomore, we should probably tell you about Shay Ciezki.

If you weren’t aware, Indiana women’s basketball secured the transfer guard from Penn State in April. She was one of two transfers coach Teri Moren added to the roster.

Tennessee forward Karoline Striplin was also added, but she didn’t average enough minutes per game to qualify for this series. Ciezki just cleared the 25-minutes-per-game cutoff.

The 5-foot-7 Ciezki, who hails from Lancaster, N.Y., played two seasons for the Nittany Lions. She started 59 of the 65 games she played in two seasons. She has a career average of 11.6 points, 2.4 assists and she’s made 42.3% from the field, 36.8% from 3-point range and 83% at the free throw line.

She’s a ball-dominant guard who can get to the basket, but she also can step back and be dangerous from the 3-point line.

Does Ciezki line up as a Sara Scalia replacement? Kind of. If Scalia’s 2024 season was used for comparison, they match each other in assists per game at 2.4. Scalia out-paced her everywhere else, but it’s not a fair comparison, as Scalia was a fifth-year senior and Ciezki a second-year sophomore.

So which Indiana sophomores of the past compare to Ciezki? Let’s find out.

Tale of the tape

Ciezki’s traditional statistics (at Penn State): 11.5 points, 2.1 rebounds and 2.4 assists. She converted 42.3% of her shots and 36.8% of her 3-point attempts. She is listed at 5-foot-7.

Ciezki’s advanced statistics, as used by sports-reference.com: Ciezki had 3.5 win shares and an 18.0 Player Efficiency Rating. She had a 22.6% usage percentage, a 15.8% assist percentage, a 4.9% total rebounding percentage and a 0.7 defensive box plus-minute rating.

Some of the advanced statistics are explained below.

Honorable mention

One player who lines up statistically is future Ciezki teammate, Yarden Garzon ’24. Last season, Garzon averaged 11.7 points, was even in win shares at 3.5 and their usage and assist percentages were both close.

They don’t align completely, though, as Garzon is five inches taller, a more effective rebounder and a better 3-point shooter.

A few other names – Kristi Green ’97 and Jamie Braun ’08 – were considered, but not quite top three-worthy.

3. Kris McGrade ‘92

Indiana guard Kris McGrade handles the ball during her Hoosiers career. / Indiana athletics

The Fort Wayne, Ind., native played at Indiana from 1990-94. Her most productive season was her sophomore year before she suffered a knee injury during her junior season.

Playing for Jim Izard’s 16-12 Hoosiers, McGrade averaged 12.3 points, 2.1 rebounds and 1.3 assists. The rebounds are dead-even with Ciezki, and the other totals are within reasonable range.

Her 32.9% shooting is a cut below, but she catches up in 3-point shooting at 35.6% during her sophomore season.

McGrade played before the advanced stats era, so there’s nothing to work with there.

2. Jori Davis ‘09

Indiana Hoosiers guard Jori Davis (32) drives to the basket while being defended by Clemson Tigers guard Kirstyn Wright (10) during the first half at Littlejohn Coliseum in a 2010 game. / Joshua S. Kelly-Imagn Images

This is the second time Davis has made the cut and it’s the same 2009 season for a different player.

This is where the Garzon-Ciezki statistical nexus comes together. Also a comparable producer to Garzon, Davis averaged 11.8 points, 3.9 rebounds and 1.5 assists. She out-paces Ciezki in boards, but Ciezki has the edge in assists. They’re very close in shooting, with Davis at 39.1% overall and 36.1% from 3-point range.

The advanced stats back up the comparison too, especially in usage rate with Ciezki at 22.6% and Davis at 22.5%. Davis is taller at 5-9, but her production level is very similar.

1. Larryn Brooks ‘15

Indiana guard Larryn Brooks handles the ball during an Indiana home game against Butler from the 2014-15 season. / Indiana athletics

Brooks spent two years at Indiana – one with Curt Miller, one in Moren’s first season at Indiana. It’s her season with Moren that matches up to Ciezki.

Brooks, who later played at Texas Tech and Weber State, averaged 11.8 points, 2.4 rebounds and four assists. Brooks has a big advantage in assists, but the rest is very close to Ciezki.

Brooks also converted 36.3% from 3-point range, just a half-percentage point below Ciezki. The advanced stats line them up, too. Brooks’ 4.4% rebound percentage, 21% usage percentage and 0.6 defensive box plus-minus are all very close to Ciezki’s production levels.

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.