On Wednesday Henry Abbott offered the following bet/prediction: (Darko) Milicic will help his team more than (Shaquille) O’Neal will this upcoming season.
Henry went on to explain his prediction:
I’m not saying Milicic will score more, play better D, have a better PER or anything else. I’m saying that over the course of this season, smart analysis will show he’ll produce more at both ends of the floor, in total. In other words, heck yes we’ll factor in defense, and heck yes, I’ll take the advantage I’ll get from the reality that he’s likely to play more minutes.
And that may not be fair in judging the better player, but it’s fair when we’re talking about the value of signing this or that player — players who can get on the floor are more valuable than players who can’t.
If the two have similar production, at both ends of the floor, we’ll appoint some kind of commission of stat geeks to poke into all the best available metrics — PER, SCHOENE, plus/minus, WinScore, or whatever they want to use — to break the tie.
Here’s what I’m really getting at with all that. O’Neal has a huge reputation. Milicic has a tiny one. But reputations aren’t everything, and in reality these two players are not so different.
My first reaction to this column is that Henry is likely to be wrong. Here are the Wins Produced (the more complex version of Win Score) numbers for both players last year:
Shaquille O’Neal: 2.2 Wins Produced, 0.086 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]
Darko Milicic: -0.2 Wins Produced, -0.016 WP48
And if we look at Milicic’s career we see the following: 0.8 Wins Produced, 0.006 WP48
Given these numbers, it seems unlikely that Milicic is going to offer more than Shaq in 2010-11. At least, that’s not likely if Wins Produced (or Win Score) is your measure.
But if you look at a different set of Wins Produced numbers… well, maybe Henry is on to something. This is what Milicic had done each season of his career:
2003-04: 159 minutes, -0.6 Wins Produced, -0.171 WP48
2004-05: 254 minutes, -1.1 Wins Produced, -0.211 WP48
2005-06: 767 minutes, 0.8 Wins Produced, 0.049 WP48
2006-07: 1,913 minutes, 2.4 Wins Produced, 0.061 WP48
2007-08: 1,663 minutes, -1.6 Wins Produced, -0.045 WP48
2008-09: 1,034 minutes, 1.1 Wins Produced, 0.052 WP48
With the exception of 2007-08 – his first season in Memphis – Milicic has produced a positive quantity of wins when he has gotten minutes. No, he is not a great player. But his production of wins can exceed zero.
If we look at Milicic numbers after Detroit (where he spent his first 2½ seasons) and excluding the first disastrous season in Memphis (yes, I know these are somewhat arbitrary exclusions) we see the following: 4,260 minutes, 4.2 Wins Produced, 0.048 WP48
Now here is the key point Henry was making. Milicic will probably get more minutes than Shaq next season. If Milicic plays 2,000 minutes – and posts a 0.048 WP48 – he will produce 2.0 Wins. If Shaq only plays 1,000 minutes – and continues to post a 0.086 WP48 [what he did last year] – then he will only produce 1.8 wins.
Okay, there were quite a few assumptions made to get that result. We don’t know how many minutes each player will play. Darko was also in the negative range last year in Minnesota (where he will be playing this year). And it’s possible Shaq will play better; although at his age it seems more likely he will get worse.
But the point of this exercise was not to establish with certainty who would do better. The idea was to see if Henry had a good chance of being right on this one. And I think – despite what I thought when I first read his column – that his chances are not too bad. Darko Milicic might offer more than Shaq in 2010-11.
Let me close with one more observation. Age ultimately destroys all athletes. Last December I noted that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar – one of the greatest centers in NBA history – was reduced to the production level of Spencer Hawes in the last year of his career. We see the same story with Shaq. Yes, Shaq in his prime is much better than Darko Milicic. But Shaq is far removed from his prime. And at his age, he might fail to offer more than Milicic.
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
Evan
August 5, 2010
He definitely _might_ offer more than Shaq, but I’d take Shaq in a heartbeat at even odds.
Italian Stallion
August 5, 2010
The most interesting part of this question is the issue of minutes played.
Stats guys tend to evaluate players based on per 36, 40, or 48 minutes. But the reality is that some players can’t stay on the floor for that many minutes for an entire season and maintain the same level of productivity they could coming off the bench and playing limited minutes. Perhaps they are the minority, but they exist.
Alvy
August 5, 2010
Man, this post is depressing. Was just thinking about how jovial and amazing Shaq was during his time with the Lakers, and now we’re discussing if he can produce more than some no-body.
arturogalletti
August 5, 2010
The real sad part is that I thought about taking Henry Abbot up on his wager, ran the numbers and thought better of it.
todd2
August 5, 2010
I’ve always felt Shaq carried too much weight throughout his career—he was much lighter at LSU. He definitely benefited from his size during his prime because his game was predicated on being a battering ram. Now, it looks as if the wear and tear has caught up and we’re seeing a precipitous decline in performance. Kareem managed to be (slightly) better than average through his 39th year and I’m curious to know how Robert Parish stacks up as he approached 40. Both of them were fitness fanatics. Tim Duncan may be another who can be effective at 39 or 40. He’s in great shape and he’s taken less of a beating because of his face-up game.
khandor
August 5, 2010
dberri and arturogalletti,
If Darko Milicic would not be playing with the Minnesota Timberwolves next season, with Kurt Rambis as the coach, and David Kahn as the GM, and Glen Taylor as the owner, and their current collection of other players on the roster; and, Shaquille O’Neal would not be playing with the Boston Celtics next season, with Doc Rivers as the coach, and Danny Ainge as the GM, and Wyc Grousbeck as the owner, and their current collection of other players on the roster … Would you still consider it to be a likely occurrence that Darko will, quite possibly, make a bigger contribution to his team than Shaquille?
arturogalletti
August 5, 2010
Khandor,
If pigs had wings would they taste like bacon when fried?
Seriously though, given their relative ages. All Darko has to do is sustain if Shaq has the typical decline for a big man his age. Darko will get more minutes than a Shaq. They way Henry couched it it’s a sucker bet.
dan
August 6, 2010
@italian stallion, check out a classic tom ziller piece called “the millsap doctrine.” the thrust of the piece is that so-called energy guys who put up stellar per 36 numbers actually tend to see their production go up with increased minutes
reservoirgod
August 6, 2010
After reading this thread, I’m surprised hell didn’t freeze over last nite. Did everyone ignore all of the caveats in Dave’s post? When did David Kahn host a kool-aid drinking party? Did we learn nothing from his summer league encounter w/ Chris Webber? YOU CANNOT COMPARE DARKO TO PERENNIAL ALL-STARS. And what a stupid argument by Abbott. He basically said, “Somehow, someway I’ll find something to support my assertion that Darko will be more productive than Shaq.” Of course that’s a sucker’s bet! Arguments like these setback fan adoption of advanced statistics in basketball. Hell, I don’t think Darko believes he’ll be more productive than Shaq in 2011.
fricktho
August 6, 2010
I don’t think this is that easy of a call. Shaq is an aging shell of what he used to be. He’s lost all semblance of a jump or hook shot. All he can do now is plow his way to the basket, take up space, and miss free throws. That may be all Boston needs him to do however. Darko still to this day has untapped potential, but I’m not sure if he cares enough to tap into it. He’s not horrible, he’s just apathetic. Do you choose apathy or age? I’ll take age for one more year, until Darko proves to me that he even likes playing basketball.
Chicago Tim
August 6, 2010
Just lost my stat-filled comment. :-( Rather than look them up again, I’ll note that Michael Jordan produced 10 wins with Washington at age 39, and Derrick Mutumbo produced 8 wins in Houston at age 40 (and in far fewer minutes than Jordan). Any other productive oldsters in NBA history?
Edmond
August 6, 2010
Given that neither of these guys is going to be a very good long-term prospect, and since the t-wolves are probably going to be pretty bad next year regardless, wouldn’t it have been worthwhile to take the risk and sign one (or even a couple, since they’re so cheap!) of the better d-league centers–or one of the undrafted bigs (aren’t Samhan and that big lug from Duke still on the board?)?
Edmond
August 6, 2010
nope. Samhan signed with a Lithuanian team.
nerdnumbers
August 6, 2010
Chicago Tim,
“Any other productive oldsters in NBA history?”
Is your goal to make sure Arturo and I always have topics? Also on my Terrific Trio Post (which your Bulls kindly hogged http://nerdnumbers.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/terrific-trios/) We see the 99 Rockets had one of the top Role Playing trios with 36,36,34 year olds.
Chicago Tim
August 6, 2010
nerdnumbers
Why should and Arturo you be exempt? I’ve been suggesting topic to Prof. Berri for years, now. ;-)
Speaking of which, I would love to see a closer examination of the 1998-99 Rockets.
khandor
August 6, 2010
——————
re: Given that neither of these guys is going to be a very good long-term prospect – Edmond
——————
Yes, Shaq’s best years are, indeed, behind him; but, the exact same observation should not be made … at least, just yet … regarding a player with Darko Milicic’s specific skill-set, if/when he gets a legit opportunity to work extended minutes for a coach like Rambis, who is committed to using the Triangle Offense.
Although he is now unlikely to ever become a star player in the NBA, the chances of Darko becoming a fairly “productive” player for the T-wolves next season, are actually quite high.
Baseball Guy
August 6, 2010
Despite his reputation, Shaq wouldn’t be making that much next season. Not sure about Milicic, I think he made $7M last season – but he might be out of a contact for 2010-2011. Perhaps they will both be paid accordingly.
arturogalletti
August 6, 2010
Khandor,
Care to put some specifics and odds around that for a friendly wager?
brgulker
August 6, 2010
Italian Stallion,
The primary metric used here is Wins Produced, which is not a per minute measure of production. Yes, we all use the per minute measures as well, but the the ability to stay on the floor — whether that’s by avoiding injuries or avoiding fouls — has been discussed here at length.
I’m not sure which stat guys you have in mind, but if it’s this blog, I think you’re wrong in your criticism.
TBall
August 6, 2010
I don’t think Shaq has aged badly. Big men have problems staying healthy. The names jumping to mind are Oden, Yao, Muresan, Bynum, big guys who seem to have health problems long before they log significant NBA minutes. Shaq’s body has kept up relatively well, as has his body of work.
Some 18th NBA season averages (per 36 min):
Shaq (23 mpg)
57% FG
18.5 points
10.2 boards
1.8 blocks
Kareem (31 mpg)
56% FG
20.1 points
7.7 boards
1.4 blocks
Hakeem (23 mpg)
46% FG
11.4 points
9.6 boards
2.4 blocks
Moses (31 mpg)
47% FG
18.3 points
10.7 boards
0.9 blocks
Parish (27 mpg)
49% FG
15.7 points
9.8 boards
0.7 blocks
Judged against other NBA centers in their 18th season, Shaq did well last year. He’s still a below league average NBA center (and to expect a .086 again is optimistic based on a look at the 19th season for the above players). He’s a victim of time and miles, not the cause of his drop off.
TBall
August 6, 2010
Of course Ainge criticized Celtics management for not disassembing the C’s when they got old. That Celtic management refused to keep Parish after his 18th NBA season. Danny ran out and signed Shaq after his 18th NBA season.
And Danny’s big three already have more season under their belt than The Big Three did in their last season together. Those that do not learn from history …
arturogalletti
August 6, 2010
Tim & Andres,
Click above just for you :-)
Evan
August 6, 2010
i think it’s equally likely that Darko is negative WP as positive, so i’ll take Shaq. anyone seriously interested in betting who has more WP and is willing to escrow?
jbrett
August 6, 2010
When I proposed the worn-out, overused argument herein labeled letter J, I truly never believed anyone would later offer it almost verbatim. Who knew it was possible to be immune to spoof?
khandor
August 6, 2010
——————
re: Care to put some specifics and odds around that for a friendly wager? – ag
——————
No, thank you.
Daniel
August 7, 2010
The key variable missing here is salary. Yes, Darko might offer slightly more in the wins column, but Darko will be making a little over $4M next season, while Shaq will be making $1.4M. If money wasn’t an issue, Darko might make some sense, but since money is the essential piece of determining a player’s value, Shaq will absolutely be more valuable as long as he isn’t in the negative range.
Sam Lively
August 7, 2010
Henry Abbot has some kind of vendetta against this Celtics squad. Religiously picked against them in the playoffs and now goes out of his way to minimize the Shaq signing. The whole premise is pretty ridiculous: that the Darko Milicic deal won’t be looked down upon so much if he can produce as much as a 38-year old center who’s earning less than 1/3 of Darko’s salary.
I’d take him up on his wager, BTW. Darko will be playing alongside against a rebounding monster in Kevin Love and will have an uphill battle to score efficiently on that crappy offensive team. Shaq is going to be playing against team’s bench bigs.
griffo
August 8, 2010
Two problems with most of the analysis on this:
1) people all over the web keep backsliding (or conveniently forgetting) that what Abbott is saying has nothing to do with which player is better, but only with which player will help his team more this coming year. Statistics aside, it seems pretty clear that Darko has a better chance of helping the lowly T-Wolves more than Shaq will help the Eastern Conference Champs.
And 2) all of the statistical analysis can obscure as much as it reveals. If you actually watched Darko play in the last 20 games of the season for the T-Wolves (as Rambis did, and as I did, most of them in-person) it was overwhelmingly obvious that he improved the team when he was on the floor. Maybe this didn’t translate to some of the statistical analyses that have been done. After all, he was playing for a terrible team that wasn’t going to win games either way. But the fans who were paying attention could see the way that he improved the team defense, often impressively closing off the lane and altering the opponents offense. They could see that he was passing out of the post better than anyone who has played for the Wolves since KG left. They could see that he immediately understood Rambis’ triangle better than most of the players who had been on the team all season. That is why he immediately won the fans over and became a crowd favorite.
Rambis is not an idiot. He knows what he witnessed on the floor. No statistics alter that reality.