2002-2003 Total Offensive Efficiency (Point Guards)
In this year's entries, I added a bit more commentary as well as data from previous years. At this point, the formula was a bit more refined and I think the rankings and commentary reflected that. Grouping by position was also continued, which helped put numbers in context a bit better. Due to the length, I am going to break the 2002-3 rankings into multiple days by position. Today, we will start with the point guards.In this year's entries, I added a bit more commentary as well as data from previous years. At this point, the formula was a bit more refined and I think the rankings and commentary reflected that. Grouping by position was also continued, which helped put numbers in context a bit better. Due to the length, I am going to break the 2002-3 rankings into multiple days by position. Here are the point guards.
1. Willie Deane, Purdue
2002-2003 TOE: 0.112
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 7th
2001-2002 TOE: 0.081
2001-2002 Big Ten Rank: 27th
COMMENT: Deane is listed as a point guard, though he really isn't one with the emergence of McKnight. Either way, the guy can play. Despite playing only 27 minutes per game in Purdue's balanced attack, he is incredibly productive. People think of him as a perimeter gunner, though if you look at his numbers, you see that he is actually more effective in transition and as a mid-range scorer. Combined with much improved ball handling and an ability to get to the line, he is arguably the most explosive player in the league.
2. Devin Harris, Wisconsin
2002-2003 TOE: 0.097
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 11th
2001-2002 TOE: 0.069
2001-2002 Big Ten Rank: 40th
COMMENT: Harris is not a natural point guard, but has been an offensive force this season. His perimeter shot fell off once Big Ten season began, but he was solid in all facets of the game. Though he does not distribute the ball in the classic point guard manner due to the swing offense, his AST/TO ratio remains good due to solid ball security. His future is bright.
3. Chris Hill, Michigan State
2002-2003 TOE: 0.096
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 13th
2001-2002 TOE: 0.098
2001-2002 Big Ten Rank: 11th
COMMENT: Hill is really a shooting guard that is playing a bit of point (along with forward Alan Anderson). Still, despite being forced to play out of position, he continues to produce at a high level. His handle is still a bit loose to be handling the ball as much as he does and he isn't the prettiest player around, but just a good solid shooter who knows how to put the ball in the hoop.
4. Dee Brown, Illinois
2002-2003 TOE: 0.090
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 18th
COMMENT: When you start weeding out the non-true points listed above him and start looking at his performance subjectively, you may be looking at the best pure point guard in the Big Ten already. Brown's only true weakness is that he doesn't get to the line as much as you might like and hasn't shot well from the line when he has gotten there. Outstanding decision maker for a young player. Exceptionally explosive.
5. Brent Darby, Ohio State
2002-2003 TOE: 0.071
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 36th
2001-2002 TOE: 0.090
2001-2002 Big Ten Rank: 20th
COMMENT: Wow, what a surprise, another point guard that really isn't one. He is however just a good basketball player. He gets my vote for player that suffered the most from the talent around him. I think he is much better than these numbers show as I think he was forced to be such a focal point of the offense that his turnovers and shooting percentage suffered. He is a good perimeter shooter who is brutish strong and can take anybody to the rack.
6. TJ Parker, Northwestern
2002-2003 TOE: 0.070
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 37th
COMMENT: A good solid player that nobody has heard of (yet). He shoots the ball well from the perimeter, but doesn't just hang around outside either. He hits his throws. He rebounds a little bit. There just isn't much here not to like. However, as teams began focusing on him, his game did suffer a bit which isn't atypical for a freshman. I like him better than Horton.
7. Tom Coverdale, Indiana
2002-2003 TOE: 0.069
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 39th
2001-2002 TOE: 0.088
2001-2002 Big Ten Rank: 22nd
COMMENT: Coverdale's peripherals continue to look solid. The only reason he doesn't rank as high as you might think is due to a shooting slump. Coverdale never did adjust to his role as an off-guard/combo-guard with the Hoosiers. His shooting might point to the lack of Jeffries in the lane clearing things outside.
8. Marshall Strickland, Indiana
2002-2003 TOE: 0.062
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 47th
COMMENT: Strickland played very well early and worked his way into major playing time. However, like many freshmen he struggled at times when he hit conference play. All in all however, solid play from a freshman point.
9. Austin Parkinson, Purdue
2002-2003 TOE: 0.057
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 54th
COMMENT: One of the most extreme players in the Big Ten. A very solid ballhandler passer with a tremendous amount of assists for his limited playing time, but literally does NOTHING else.
10. Deron Williams, Illinois
2002-2003 TOE: 0.053
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 57th
COMMENT: Still feeling his way around the college game, but came on strong late in the year. Great defender but a terrible foul shooter. To think we already have Brown, Parker, Strickland, and Williams as solid freshman point guards, and we haven't even gotten to players like Horner, Horton, McKnight, and Wade.
11. Boo Wade, Wisconsin
2002-2003 TOE: 0.051
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 58th
COMMENT: Doesn't do anything especially well yet, but doesn't do anything terribly poor either. He was never eye-opening, but simply gradually played better and better as he got more comfortable. He will never be a big scorer IMO, but he is one of those guys that is going to have his fingerprints all over the box score.
12. Kevin Burleson, Minnesota
2002-2003 TOE: 0.047
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 59th
2001-2002 TOE: 0.063
2001-2002 Big Ten Rank: 45th
COMMENT: Burleson hurt his team again this year. The guy cannot shoot but that trivial little detail doesn't seem to stop him. Limited players need not be bad players. Limited players that don't know they are limited are bad players.
13. Daniel Horton, Michigan
2002-2003 TOE: 0.039
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 66th
COMMENT: Was heralded as a difference maker for the Wolverines and is obviously a talented player (and a huge improvement over Avery Queen). Still, right now he is vastly overrated despite his solid raw production. His shot selection is awful and he takes a ton of terrible shots, resulting in a terrible shooting percentage. He also led the league in turnovers with over 100, a totally unacceptable number. If he was a player on a less than talented team who was forced to take on more than he should have (like say Brent Darby), I could probably live with his numbers. But, when you have solid talent around you in Abram, Robinson, Blanchard, Graham, etc. there is no excuse for running around out of control making poor decisions and chucking up shots left and right. Once he matures and gets under control, I would guess he would be pretty good (perhaps even as good as his rep).
14. Jeff Horner, Iowa
2002-2003 TOE: 0.039
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 68th
COMMENT: Contrast Horner to Horton. Really, there isn't much separating them as players, but because Michigan got off to a hot start, Horton was the guy who got the pub. Has good peripheral numbers but struggled with his shot. Once he figures out where he can get his shots, I think he will be fine.
15. Brandon McKnight, Purdue
2002-2003 TOE: 0.037
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 69th
COMMENT: It took a while for McKnight to settle down, but took control of the Purdue back court. He has no perimeter shot right now but makes up for it with solid decision making and good defensive toughness. Does the parade of freshman point guards ever end?
16. Brandon Watkins, Penn State
2002-2003 TOE: 0.035
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 72nd
2001-2002 TOE: 0.050
2001-2002 Big Ten Rank: 61st
COMMENT: Would probably be a more than decent player if he had more discretion from long range. Handle is still marginal for a point guard. I still believe he would be a better shooting guard than point guard. Like many on the PSU team, Watkins is just a guy being forced to play more of a role than he can handle at this level.
17. Aaron Robinson, Minnesota
2002-2003 TOE: 0.026
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 78th
COMMENT: Doesn't look like he can play upon my limited viewing, but still too early to tell. Indicative of Minnesota's back court problems that he was looked to late in the year.
18. Brandon Fuss-Cheatham, Ohio State
2002-2003 TOE: -0.049
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 91st
COMMENT: Highly thought of by some but struggled last year as well. He was hurt early in the year as well. Just a dreadful shooter right now.
19. Brandon Cameron, Penn State
2002-2003 TOE: -0.065
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 93rd
COMMENT: Mr. Irrelevant. Got some playing time as the year went on....but shouldn't have
2002-2003 TOE: 0.112
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 7th
2001-2002 TOE: 0.081
2001-2002 Big Ten Rank: 27th
COMMENT: Deane is listed as a point guard, though he really isn't one with the emergence of McKnight. Either way, the guy can play. Despite playing only 27 minutes per game in Purdue's balanced attack, he is incredibly productive. People think of him as a perimeter gunner, though if you look at his numbers, you see that he is actually more effective in transition and as a mid-range scorer. Combined with much improved ball handling and an ability to get to the line, he is arguably the most explosive player in the league.
2. Devin Harris, Wisconsin
2002-2003 TOE: 0.097
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 11th
2001-2002 TOE: 0.069
2001-2002 Big Ten Rank: 40th
COMMENT: Harris is not a natural point guard, but has been an offensive force this season. His perimeter shot fell off once Big Ten season began, but he was solid in all facets of the game. Though he does not distribute the ball in the classic point guard manner due to the swing offense, his AST/TO ratio remains good due to solid ball security. His future is bright.
3. Chris Hill, Michigan State
2002-2003 TOE: 0.096
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 13th
2001-2002 TOE: 0.098
2001-2002 Big Ten Rank: 11th
COMMENT: Hill is really a shooting guard that is playing a bit of point (along with forward Alan Anderson). Still, despite being forced to play out of position, he continues to produce at a high level. His handle is still a bit loose to be handling the ball as much as he does and he isn't the prettiest player around, but just a good solid shooter who knows how to put the ball in the hoop.
4. Dee Brown, Illinois
2002-2003 TOE: 0.090
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 18th
COMMENT: When you start weeding out the non-true points listed above him and start looking at his performance subjectively, you may be looking at the best pure point guard in the Big Ten already. Brown's only true weakness is that he doesn't get to the line as much as you might like and hasn't shot well from the line when he has gotten there. Outstanding decision maker for a young player. Exceptionally explosive.
5. Brent Darby, Ohio State
2002-2003 TOE: 0.071
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 36th
2001-2002 TOE: 0.090
2001-2002 Big Ten Rank: 20th
COMMENT: Wow, what a surprise, another point guard that really isn't one. He is however just a good basketball player. He gets my vote for player that suffered the most from the talent around him. I think he is much better than these numbers show as I think he was forced to be such a focal point of the offense that his turnovers and shooting percentage suffered. He is a good perimeter shooter who is brutish strong and can take anybody to the rack.
6. TJ Parker, Northwestern
2002-2003 TOE: 0.070
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 37th
COMMENT: A good solid player that nobody has heard of (yet). He shoots the ball well from the perimeter, but doesn't just hang around outside either. He hits his throws. He rebounds a little bit. There just isn't much here not to like. However, as teams began focusing on him, his game did suffer a bit which isn't atypical for a freshman. I like him better than Horton.
7. Tom Coverdale, Indiana
2002-2003 TOE: 0.069
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 39th
2001-2002 TOE: 0.088
2001-2002 Big Ten Rank: 22nd
COMMENT: Coverdale's peripherals continue to look solid. The only reason he doesn't rank as high as you might think is due to a shooting slump. Coverdale never did adjust to his role as an off-guard/combo-guard with the Hoosiers. His shooting might point to the lack of Jeffries in the lane clearing things outside.
8. Marshall Strickland, Indiana
2002-2003 TOE: 0.062
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 47th
COMMENT: Strickland played very well early and worked his way into major playing time. However, like many freshmen he struggled at times when he hit conference play. All in all however, solid play from a freshman point.
9. Austin Parkinson, Purdue
2002-2003 TOE: 0.057
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 54th
COMMENT: One of the most extreme players in the Big Ten. A very solid ballhandler passer with a tremendous amount of assists for his limited playing time, but literally does NOTHING else.
10. Deron Williams, Illinois
2002-2003 TOE: 0.053
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 57th
COMMENT: Still feeling his way around the college game, but came on strong late in the year. Great defender but a terrible foul shooter. To think we already have Brown, Parker, Strickland, and Williams as solid freshman point guards, and we haven't even gotten to players like Horner, Horton, McKnight, and Wade.
11. Boo Wade, Wisconsin
2002-2003 TOE: 0.051
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 58th
COMMENT: Doesn't do anything especially well yet, but doesn't do anything terribly poor either. He was never eye-opening, but simply gradually played better and better as he got more comfortable. He will never be a big scorer IMO, but he is one of those guys that is going to have his fingerprints all over the box score.
12. Kevin Burleson, Minnesota
2002-2003 TOE: 0.047
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 59th
2001-2002 TOE: 0.063
2001-2002 Big Ten Rank: 45th
COMMENT: Burleson hurt his team again this year. The guy cannot shoot but that trivial little detail doesn't seem to stop him. Limited players need not be bad players. Limited players that don't know they are limited are bad players.
13. Daniel Horton, Michigan
2002-2003 TOE: 0.039
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 66th
COMMENT: Was heralded as a difference maker for the Wolverines and is obviously a talented player (and a huge improvement over Avery Queen). Still, right now he is vastly overrated despite his solid raw production. His shot selection is awful and he takes a ton of terrible shots, resulting in a terrible shooting percentage. He also led the league in turnovers with over 100, a totally unacceptable number. If he was a player on a less than talented team who was forced to take on more than he should have (like say Brent Darby), I could probably live with his numbers. But, when you have solid talent around you in Abram, Robinson, Blanchard, Graham, etc. there is no excuse for running around out of control making poor decisions and chucking up shots left and right. Once he matures and gets under control, I would guess he would be pretty good (perhaps even as good as his rep).
14. Jeff Horner, Iowa
2002-2003 TOE: 0.039
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 68th
COMMENT: Contrast Horner to Horton. Really, there isn't much separating them as players, but because Michigan got off to a hot start, Horton was the guy who got the pub. Has good peripheral numbers but struggled with his shot. Once he figures out where he can get his shots, I think he will be fine.
15. Brandon McKnight, Purdue
2002-2003 TOE: 0.037
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 69th
COMMENT: It took a while for McKnight to settle down, but took control of the Purdue back court. He has no perimeter shot right now but makes up for it with solid decision making and good defensive toughness. Does the parade of freshman point guards ever end?
16. Brandon Watkins, Penn State
2002-2003 TOE: 0.035
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 72nd
2001-2002 TOE: 0.050
2001-2002 Big Ten Rank: 61st
COMMENT: Would probably be a more than decent player if he had more discretion from long range. Handle is still marginal for a point guard. I still believe he would be a better shooting guard than point guard. Like many on the PSU team, Watkins is just a guy being forced to play more of a role than he can handle at this level.
17. Aaron Robinson, Minnesota
2002-2003 TOE: 0.026
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 78th
COMMENT: Doesn't look like he can play upon my limited viewing, but still too early to tell. Indicative of Minnesota's back court problems that he was looked to late in the year.
18. Brandon Fuss-Cheatham, Ohio State
2002-2003 TOE: -0.049
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 91st
COMMENT: Highly thought of by some but struggled last year as well. He was hurt early in the year as well. Just a dreadful shooter right now.
19. Brandon Cameron, Penn State
2002-2003 TOE: -0.065
2002-2003 Big Ten Rank: 93rd
COMMENT: Mr. Irrelevant. Got some playing time as the year went on....but shouldn't have