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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Adrian Dantley study

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.