--- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
> "...your numbers pretty much rule out dantley being a significant
> player...", i'm really not quite sure i understand that
What we didn't see were substantial increases in team wins when
Dantley arrived, nor did we see substantial decreases in team wins
when Dantley left. That does not mean that he wasn't a good player.
It means several _possible_ things:
1. When he was traded, he was traded for talent that was about the
same as his (Billy Knight in 77, James Edwards in 77, Spencer Haywood
in 79, Kelly Tripucka and Kent Benson in 86, Mark Aguirre in 89 - No
2. His individual skills, as good as they were, did not elevate team
performance because his offense was very isolated or because his
defense wasn't particularly good (not sure about that).
3. Simple bad luck. Detroit and Utah both probably could have
gotten great with him sticking around.
Before the entire Dantley discussion, his election to the Hall was a
foregone conclusion. I remember thinking that he was a legit star of
the '80's. Both the numbers and the general discussion of his
attitude and style have changed my opinion some. He probably will
go, in part because of the consistency argument (similarity to
'Nique, Gervin, English), an argument I really dislike. My numbers
do indicate he was an excellent offensive (not just good) player and
I have a hard time holding team mediocrity against those kind of
numbers. I have no problem with him being in the Hall.
Journal of Basketball Studies