Re: Adrian Dantley study
- 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.who
> It can be difficult to evaluate players this way because players
> are traded often are traded for something viewed as equivalent (atimpact
> least before this era of sign-and-trade/free agency threats). But
> your numbers pretty much rule out Dantley being a significant
> team player.
> Dean Oliver
> Journal of Basketball Studies
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
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
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
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
> "...your numbers pretty much rule out dantley being a significantimpact team
> player...", i'm really not quite sure i understand thatstatement...
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