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

Re: Adrian Dantley study

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.