Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Adrian Dantley study

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    ... Thanks, Ed. Exactly what I was curious about. It can be difficult to evaluate players this way because players who are traded often are traded for
    Message 1 of 7 , May 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Ed Weiland <weiland1029@y...> wrote:

      Thanks, Ed. Exactly what I was curious about.

      It can be difficult to evaluate players this way because players who
      are traded often are traded for something viewed as equivalent (at
      least before this era of sign-and-trade/free agency threats). But
      your numbers pretty much rule out Dantley being a significant impact
      team player.

      Dean Oliver
      Journal of Basketball Studies
    • harlanzo@yahoo.com
      Just wondering if Bernard King comes up any differently than Dantley. They are very similar players--with the exception that King wasn t really considered
      Message 2 of 7 , May 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Just wondering if Bernard King comes up any differently than
        Dantley. They are very similar players--with the exception that King
        wasn't really considered selfish or a malcontent. He also has the NY
        ethos on his side. (Who could forget his duel with Bird in 84).
        Most of the teams he played on improved when he came. But he never
        made a team more than a solid first round playoff team. I am not
        sure if an objective look at the evidence indicates he (as the focus
        of team) pushes a team towards a championship. The question is
        whether that makes him better, worse, or the same as Dantley.


        > Thanks, Ed. Exactly what I was curious about.
        >
        > It can be difficult to evaluate players this way because players
        who
        > are traded often are traded for something viewed as equivalent (at
        > least before this era of sign-and-trade/free agency threats). But
        > your numbers pretty much rule out Dantley being a significant
        impact
        > team player.
        >
        > Dean Oliver
        > Journal of Basketball Studies
      • bchaikin@aol.com
        not quite sure on the topic of this dantley discussion, other than dean asking early about whether he belonged in the HOF, but on the comment ...your numbers
        Message 3 of 7 , May 4, 2001
        • 0 Attachment

          not quite sure on the topic of this dantley discussion, other than dean
          asking early about whether he belonged in the HOF, but on the comment
          "...your numbers pretty much rule out dantley being a significant impact team
          player...", i'm really not quite sure i understand that statement...

          was dantley a "team" player? in the strictest sense i'd say no and i believe
          most would agree on that. he got his points and i'd bet half were on
          isolation plays as opposed to being in what most would think of as the "flow"
          of a team offense. he looked to score, and like most players that think of
          scoring first those points probably came at the expense of other teammates
          getting involved in the team offense....

          keep in mind, however, that a scorer like dantley, when surrounded by
          complementary players, is a huge asset to a team. if you didn't know i was
          talking about dantley, and i told you a player averaged 24 pts/g while
          shooting 54% over his entire and very long 15-16 year career, and for one
          long seven year stretch upped those numbers to 30 pts/g and 56% shooting,
          you'd think that player was great. we're not talking about dominique wilkins
          here who despite a ton of dunks shot 46% for his career. over his career
          dantley played on teams that totaled about a .500 record, but he was the
          leading scorer and offensive threat on almost all of those teams...

          i remember around 1989-90 alot of people saying michael jordan would never
          win anything - that he was a scorer (at that point 6 years in the league and
          career avgs of 33 pts/g and 52% shooting) but not a "team" player. well as
          soon as he got a decent team around him chicago won big. now dantley was not
          michael jordan, but when surrounded by a great team (detroit) he did win
          games...

          but was he an "impact" player? that depends on what your definition of an
          impact player is. if your definition of an impact player is bird, magic, and
          m.j., then no he was not....

          but when i think of an "impact" player i think of someone who has an impact
          on the game itself whenever they play, and believe me - for a 10 year stretch
          there, for every team he played on, the opponents of those teams geared their
          defense to stopping him and him specifically, and few did. in the early and
          mid 1980s, i specifically remember dantley being considered a true superstar
          in the league, and i remember how very often he got double teamed and still
          scored while shooting a high FG%....

          i remember chuck daly was quoted once as saying that what dantley did - score
          without taking time off the clock, i.e. he got to the free throw line late in
          games - was extremely important. and its true (however i also remember
          dantley sitting alot of 4th quarters because he didn't play D for
          detroit).....

          he won two scoring crowns, had amazing stats, and played little if any
          defense. does he belong in the hall of fame? well if similar players like
          george gervin, dominique wilkins, and alex english do, then so does
          dantley....

          bob chaikin
          bchaikin@...











        • Dean Oliver
          ... impact team ... statement... What we didn t see were substantial increases in team wins when Dantley arrived, nor did we see substantial decreases in team
          Message 4 of 7 , May 5, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
            > "...your numbers pretty much rule out dantley being a significant
            impact team
            > player...", i'm really not quite sure i understand that
            statement...

            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
            HOFers)
            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.

            Dean Oliver
            Journal of Basketball Studies
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.