As I noted this week, the 2008-09 incarnation of the Knicks is not going to excite the team’s fans. In fact, this team might once again lose more than 50 games. If this happens it will be the fourth time in the past eight years this team ranked among the elite losers in the league.
From 1988-89 to 1999-00 it was a different story in New York. Across these years the Knicks reached the 50 win mark seven times. Although the team never won a title, it was often a contender.
This week – perhaps much to the relief of fans of this team – we are once again reminded of the contending Knicks. The leader of this team – Patrick Ewing – is being inducted into the NBA Hall of Fame.
Joining Ewing in the 2008 Hall of Fame class is Hakeem Olajuwon. These two players played for the 1984 NCAA title, a game where Ewing’s Georgetown Hoyas proved victorious. Ten years later Ewing and Olajuwon met in the NBA Finals. This time it was Hakeem’s Houston Rockets that won the title.
The competition for titles at the college and professional level has joined these two players in the mind of basketball fans. But which player is “better”?
We could define “better” in a number of ways. We could ask who was better paid. According to Basketball-Reference, the “better” player if money is the metric of choice is Ewing. Across his 17 year career, Ewing was paid approximately $124 million. Olajuwon, in his 18 year career, was “only” paid about $99 million. Of course, Ewing got to spend most of his career in the NBA’s largest market, so that might explain some of the difference in salaries earned.
Of course, salaries in the NBA are not always the best measure of performance. What if we turn to the statistics?
Before I get to the numbers I should note that before I looked I thought each player was roughly equal. Certainly I would not have thought the differences were as great as they appear through the view of The Wages of Wins metrics.
The first metric we wish to consider is Win Score, or the simple Wages of Wins metric based on the standard box score statistics.
Table One: Comparing the Career Averages of Patrick Ewing and Hakeem Olajuwon
As Table One indicates, there is a difference in the career averages of Ewing and Olajuwon. If we look at shooting efficiency from the field, rebounds, steals, turnovers, assists, blocked shots, and personal fouls, Olajuwon posted better numbers. In fact, Ewing only bested Olajuwon with respect to free throw percentage, free throw attempts, and points scored. And the difference with respect to these three factors was quite small.
In looking at the individual stats we can see that Olajuwon was generally better. But how did these differences translate into wins? To answer that question I calculated Wins Produced and WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] for each season of these player’s careers.
Table Two: Comparing the Career Performances of Patrick Ewing and Hakeem Olajuwon
From Table Two we see that the differences in the individual stats translate into a substantial difference in Wins Produced. Across his career, Olajuwon produced 272.1 wins and posted a 0.295 WP48. Ewing’s career production with respect to wins was only 175.7. In other words, Ewing produced nearly 100 fewer wins across his career.
Turning to WP48 we see that Ewing’s best mark was still less than what Olajuwon averaged across his career. Furthermore, Ewing never even got to the level Olajuwon achieved in his rookie season.
When we look over each player’s career, we see the familiar arc. Both players got better in the first few years of their career, and then declined as they got closer to retirement. But for Ewing, the starting and ending points were both in the below average territory. Yes, when Ewing was named Rookie of the Year in 1985-86 he was actually a below average player.
I would emphasize that although Ewing started as a below average performer, this quickly changed. For his career Ewing was certainly much better than the average center. He just wasn’t as good as Olajuwon.
Let me close by noting that I don’t think the results of this comparison will surprise many. Although Ewing did get paid more money, Olajuwon was more frequently named to the All-NBA First Team. Also, of these two, Olajuwon was the only one to be named MVP of the league. And finally, Olajuwon’s team won two NBA titles while Ewing’s Knicks never got to the top of the mountain.
Of course, awards and championships are not always the best way to compare two players. And in my next post, I am going to make another comparison where the story is somewhat different.
– DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
stephanie
September 6, 2008
Thanks for writing this article Berri, I don’t think I’m alone in being interested about what the WP model says about past NBA legends or team match ups.
As for Hakeem, he really was a joy to watch. His array of moves and skill level were just out of this world. His title runs in 93-94 and 94-95 and the stat lines he put up are still ridiculous to think about. Against Ewing in the Finals Hakeem averaged 27 ppg / 50% and held Ewing to 19 ppg on 36% shooting.
Then he famously embarrassed Robinson who had just collected his MVP…
Olajuwon: 35.3 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 5.0 apg, 4.1 bpg, 56.0 FG%
Robinson: 23.8 ppg, 11.3 rpg, 2.7 apg, 2.2 bpg 39.8 FG%
And the really crazy thing is what he did to Shaq. He didn’t severely outplay him like some say — Shaq was more efficient for example — but Hakeem was giving up 3-4 inches and like 60-70 pounds and was able to pretty much cancel him out.
Then there was the time he he had over 200 blocks / 200 steals in a single season (213/282). No one has ever done that before or since.
It’s too bad he was on bad teams for most of his career. Or the whole Sampson thing. But when he did go all the way he went through a gauntlet of impressive 60 win teams and without HCA for many.
I’m just sad that the Rockets didn’t get to the finals in 97. Hakeem, Drexler, and Barkley against the Bulls? Thanks for ruining a dream match up Stockton.
Evan
September 6, 2008
I’m actually surprised you thought Ewing was close. Really really surprised.
Arturo
September 6, 2008
I think this is a no-brainer. Hakeem dominated every other great center he played against. Keep in mind he was drafted ahead of Jordan and no one ever complains about Houston screwing that up.
Ignarus
September 6, 2008
Just a friendly suggestion for consideration – Is there any way to make it so the tables can open up on the same page within the text? It’s not a big deal or anything, but I (for one) find it kinda cumbersome to try to read the article and then tab over to a different page to look at the table you’re talking about. Thanks for crunching the numbers to begin with!
Ignarus
September 6, 2008
Stephanie – From what I could find on basketballreference, Hakeem’s listed at 7′. Shaq is listed at 7’1″. I’m confused that you’re claiming Olajuwon gave up up 3-4″ in that matchup…
Owen
September 6, 2008
I was expecting something on whether Adrian Dantley belongs in the HOF, and look what I find, what a treat.
I think any Knicks fan will reluctantly agree that Hakeem was the better player. Ewing never was a truly elite level player, which you can see by the fact that he never crossed the .300 threshold. But we still love him, the third best Knick ever…..
Jason
September 6, 2008
Listed heights for NBA players are like MSRP for cars. They are an imperfect correlate with actual heights. I believe that most think that Olajuwon was closer to 6-10 than 7 feet tall.
I suspect that players over 7 feet tall (*actually taller, not merely listed as such) tend to have more accurate measures, while players below that threshold tend to have inflated heights (usually listed with heights in shoes and rounded up at the very least).
I had the opportunity to meet Hakeem once. He was in Berkeley visiting a friend who was a Muslim scholar who worked for the university back when I was a lowly employee of the athletic dept there. He’s very tall, though 6-10 and 7-0 look pretty similar to me.
Daniel
September 6, 2008
Mario Elie mentioned in a recent interview that Hakeem was closer to 6’9″– Shaq really is 7’1″. Here’s a link to his height without shoes from the 1992 predraft combine. Amazing in that is his standing reach (9’5″) + his max vert (36″) is 12’5″. Wow.
http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/measurements.php?page=&year=All&sort2=DESC&draft=0&pos=0&sort=2
Ty at Bucks Diary
September 7, 2008
The first commentor isn’t considering the fact that built into the Wins Produced per 48 statistic is the fact that only five men can compete on a basketball court at any given time, meaning that the most playing time any one player on any team can consume is 20%. If that is considered, then the WP48 average of 0.100 makes perfect sense.
Big Sneezy
September 8, 2008
Aesthetically speaking, it’s hard to find a center with a more pleasing game to watch than Hakeem. I simply cannot think of a center that matches his level of smoothness and efficiency on the offensive end of the court, and he wasn’t a slouch on defense, either.
Ewing is a tough case to figure. He rarely matched the numbers of Hakeem, Robinson, or Shaq, and, for my money, he was never the best center in the league while he played. Yet for all of the mistakes he made in crunch time, for all of the ugly footwork and one of the worst signature moves in NBA history (the awkward running “jumper” across the lane), he clearly was a very high-level player, a deserving perennial All-Star, and a tough competitor. His greatness has to do with something a little more than his game: How he handled the pressure cooker that is New York sports for so long, the precipitous fall of the Knicks in the post-Ewing era, and the 13 straight playoff appearances (more than Hakeem or Robinson) during the prime of his career. He never delivered the championship goods, but he delivered pretty much everything else.
John W. Davis
September 9, 2008
You have to go with the Dream and his shake.
I remember he used to serve those other centers fries with his dream shake.
I know that was corny. Sorry.
Laz
September 9, 2008
Dream and it’s not even close. Perhaps the best think Ewing had going for him was playing in the circus that is NYC.
T.O
September 12, 2008
In terms of Win Score and Wins Produced, was Wilt Chamberlain a moreproductive center than Bill Russell ? Which players were primarilyresponsible for the Celtics wins while Russell was with the team in the 50’s& 60’s ? How do Win scores and Wins produced avoid a strong offense vsdefense bias ?
Lucas
September 16, 2008
Olajuwan Olajuwan Olajuwan
Better athlete, better defender, better shooter, better inside move, better big money player. Neither stayed prime after 28 or 29 years, but Olajuwan was a beast during his 20. Best center since Wilt.
No question…
dave angel jr.
May 27, 2009
olajuwon would have ate Wilt chamberlain for lunch, he was the best
dave angel jr.
May 27, 2009
olajuwon destroyed Ewing in the 94 finals… this one is simple