Question regarding Aguire vs Dantley and Bad Boy Pistons

[chrismikayla]

Dantley came VERY close to winning a ring in the 1988 Finals against the Lakers and had a monster game one in LA. There were of course rumors(some substantiated) that he was high maintenance, selfish, etc with every team he played with. it has been noted every team he left has gotten better but I do not think that measurement alone is fair to him because there were other team dynamics at play such as other players improving, etc. though it is something to think about considering what a dynamic scorer he was. Watching him he reminded me of Chuck being AD was also an undersized forward who would abuse bigger, more athletic players down low. The difference being AD had a variety of jab steps, fakes, and other moves to score rather than brute strength and athletic ability like Charles did.As is well known the Pistons won two titles after trading him for Mark Aguire. Aguire changed his game and took a lesser role when he got to Detroit, apparently after Zeke and Laimbeer sitting him down stating what was going to be accepted from him. Even then Larry Bird was quoted as stating MA was the only player they could not single cover because he could beat you so many ways. My questions are;

1. Do the Pistons still repeat if AD remains with the team? Me personally I believe they still win in 1989 and 1990 as they would have been able to put aside personal differences on the court. For what it's worth, Zeke said he did not orchestrate bringing Aguire in.

2. If both players at their PEAKS were in the NBA right now wouldn't they both be in the top three? I tend to think so as today's rules would favor them even MORE today on offense.

5 year peaks for both guys:

AD- 29.0 ppg on 64.o ts%
MA- 25.6 ppg on 55.5ts%

What do you guys think?

[Quotatious]

Dantley came VERY close to winning a ring in the 1988 Finals against the Lakers and had a monster game one in LA. There were of course rumors(some substantiated) that he was high maintenance, selfish, etc with every team he played with. it has been noted every team he left has gotten better but I do not think that measurement alone is fair to him because there were other team dynamics at play such as other players improving, etc. though it is something to think about considering what a dynamic scorer he was. Watching him he reminded me of Chuck being AD was also an undersized forward who would abuse bigger, more athletic players down low. The difference being AD had a variety of jab steps, fakes, and other moves to score rather than brute strength and athletic ability like Charles did.As is well known the Pistons won two titles after trading him for Mark Aguire. Aguire changed his game and took a lesser role when he got to Detroit, apparently after Zeke and Laimbeer sitting him down stating what was going to be accepted from him. Even then Larry Bird was quoted as stating MA was the only player they could not single cover because he could beat you so many ways. My questions are;

1. Do the Pistons still repeat if AD remains with the team? Me personally I believe they still win in 1989 and 1990 as they would have been able to put aside personal differences on the court. For what it's worth, Zeke said he did not orchestrate bringing Aguire in.

I think the Pistons still would've won with Dantley in 1989. Numbers-wise, he was a bit better than Aguirre.
In 1990, however, Dantley clearly declined (don't forget that he was almost 4 years older than Aguirre, and entered the NBA 5 years earlier), and assuming he still plays the same amount of games, he wouldn't be able to participate in the playoffs, so they would lose a MAJOR part of their starting lineup. They don't win in 1990.

Even as it actually was, Aguirre fit more seamlessly with the Pistons than Dantley did, particularly in terms of personality.

2. If both players at their PEAKS were in the NBA right now wouldn't they both be in the top three? I tend to think so as today's rules would favor them even MORE today on offense.

What do you guys think?

Top 3? No. Definitely not. Neither would be better than Curry, Harden, Davis or LeBron. I'd say not even top 5. I guess you can compare them to Carmelo Anthony (especially Aguirre), and Melo was IMO just a borderline top 10 player in 2013 and 2014. Even then, Anthony has one big advantage over these two guys - he's a very good 3-point shooter. Aguirre could shoot the 3, but he wasn't particularly good at it, and Dantley never developed a 3-pointer...That's a major limitation in today's game. They would still be great (AD was just an unstoppable scoring machine, and would be in any era) - I mean, Grant Hill was very successful in the late 90s, despite not having 3-pt range (he started developing it in 2000, but then his career as a superstar was over...), but it would definitely affect their team's spacing negatively (Aguirre would probably develop that shot, but I don't think Dantley would ever become good at it).

[chrismikayla]

Dantley came VERY close to winning a ring in the 1988 Finals against the Lakers and had a monster game one in LA. There were of course rumors(some substantiated) that he was high maintenance, selfish, etc with every team he played with. it has been noted every team he left has gotten better but I do not think that measurement alone is fair to him because there were other team dynamics at play such as other players improving, etc. though it is something to think about considering what a dynamic scorer he was. Watching him he reminded me of Chuck being AD was also an undersized forward who would abuse bigger, more athletic players down low. The difference being AD had a variety of jab steps, fakes, and other moves to score rather than brute strength and athletic ability like Charles did.As is well known the Pistons won two titles after trading him for Mark Aguire. Aguire changed his game and took a lesser role when he got to Detroit, apparently after Zeke and Laimbeer sitting him down stating what was going to be accepted from him. Even then Larry Bird was quoted as stating MA was the only player they could not single cover because he could beat you so many ways. My questions are;

1. Do the Pistons still repeat if AD remains with the team? Me personally I believe they still win in 1989 and 1990 as they would have been able to put aside personal differences on the court. For what it's worth, Zeke said he did not orchestrate bringing Aguire in.

I think the Pistons still would've won with Dantley in 1989. Numbers-wise, he was a bit better than Aguirre.
In 1990, however, Dantley clearly declined (don't forget that he was almost 4 years older than Aguirre, and entered the NBA 5 years earlier), and assuming he still plays the same amount of games, he wouldn't be able to participate in the playoffs, so they would lose a MAJOR part of their starting lineup. They don't win in 1990.

Even as it actually was, Aguirre fit more seamlessly with the Pistons than Dantley did, particularly in terms of personality.

2. If both players at their PEAKS were in the NBA right now wouldn't they both be in the top three? I tend to think so as today's rules would favor them even MORE today on offense.

What do you guys think?

Top 3? No. Definitely not. Neither would be better than Curry, Harden, Davis or LeBron. I'd say not even top 5. I guess you can compare them to Carmelo Anthony (especially Aguirre), and Melo was IMO just a borderline top 10 player in 2013 and 2014. Even then, Anthony has one big advantage over these two guys - he's a very good 3-point shooter. Aguirre could shoot the 3, but he wasn't particularly good at it, and Dantley never developed a 3-pointer...That's a major limitation in today's game. They would still be great (AD was just an unstoppable scoring machine, and would be in any era) - I mean, Grant Hill was very successful in the late 90s, despite not having 3-pt range (he started developing it in 2000, but then his career as a superstar was over...), but it would definitely affect their team's spacing negatively (Aguirre would probably develop that shot, but I don't think Dantley would ever become good at it).

So basically you feel they would be great scorers still but not top players because of deficiencies in their all around games?

[Quotatious]

So basically you feel they would be great scorers still but not top players because of deficiencies in their all around games?

Yes. Both were one-dimensional scorers with poor defense, like Melo (Anthony is also the best rebounder of the three).

Dantley, despite his incredible individual scoring numbers, was never really a good offensive anchor - he was known as a ball-stopper, and his teams were usually mediocre offensively.

Aguirre's teams (I mean in Dallas, in his prime), on the other hand, were usually excellent on offense (for example between 1985 and 1988, they were #2 or 3 in the league every year). Aguirre also shows promise of being able to develop a good 3-point shot, so I believe that he could be better/more valuable than Dantley in today's game (in the 80s, Dantley was IMO better).

[chrismikayla]

So basically you feel they would be great scorers still but not top players because of deficiencies in their all around games?

Yes. Both were one-dimensional scorers with poor defense, like Melo (Anthony is also the best rebounder of the three).

Dantley, despite his incredible individual scoring numbers, was never really a good offensive anchor - he was known as a ball-stopper, and his teams were usually mediocre offensively.

Aguirre's teams (I mean in Dallas, in his prime), on the other hand, were usually excellent on offense (for example between 1985 and 1988, they were #2 or 3 in the league every year). Aguirre also shows promise of being able to develop a good 3-point shot, so I believe that he could be better/more valuable than Dantley in today's game (in the 80s, Dantley was IMO better).

That late 80,s Mavs team was one of the best never to win a title IMO. Aguire, Blackmon, Harper, Tarpley, Donalson they gave the Lakers all they could handle in that seven game series.

[Owly]

Dantley came VERY close to winning a ring in the 1988 Finals against the Lakers and had a monster game one in LA. There were of course rumors(some substantiated) that he was high maintenance, selfish, etc with every team he played with. it has been noted every team he left has gotten better but I do not think that measurement alone is fair to him because there were other team dynamics at play such as other players improving, etc. though it is something to think about considering what a dynamic scorer he was. Watching him he reminded me of Chuck being AD was also an undersized forward who would abuse bigger, more athletic players down low. The difference being AD had a variety of jab steps, fakes, and other moves to score rather than brute strength and athletic ability like Charles did.As is well known the Pistons won two titles after trading him for Mark Aguire. Aguire changed his game and took a lesser role when he got to Detroit, apparently after Zeke and Laimbeer sitting him down stating what was going to be accepted from him. Even then Larry Bird was quoted as stating MA was the only player they could not single cover because he could beat you so many ways. My questions are;

1. Do the Pistons still repeat if AD remains with the team? Me personally I believe they still win in 1989 and 1990 as they would have been able to put aside personal differences on the court. For what it's worth, Zeke said he did not orchestrate bringing Aguire in.

2. If both players at their PEAKS were in the NBA right now wouldn't they both be in the top three? I tend to think so as today's rules would favor them even MORE today on offense.

5 year peaks for both guys:

AD- 29.0 ppg on 64.o ts%
MA- 25.6 ppg on 55.5ts%

What do you guys think?

First thing is to tackle the second question, no neither are top 3 today. They just aren't in the league of James, Durant, Davis (and then going on this season's Curry, Westbrook, Harden).

Big picture question, did the Dantley trade affect their title chances in terms of well they play basketball?

Not at a basketball level. People point to a hot end to the season with Aguirre, but they were on something like a 7 game (active) win streak when Dantley was traded (including solid MOVs and I think a road win over the Lakers, with Dantley playing a fairly large role for this spell). I therefore think the improvement started earlier and was reflective of having their full rotation together (Pistons had been good to that point with all healthy but had injuries to Dumars and Edwards which screwed up their rotation), now they did have Salley absent for some of their hot end to the RS, but he wasn't having the best RS in any case.

Do they still repeat?
Don't know. Basketball isn't predetermined. Run it again (with the teams they had) and they don't necessarily win either year (they weren't a top SRS team either year). Then too there's matchups etc. Chemistry (is Isiah happier/better now he's the unquestioned "1st option"/leading scorer; was the Daly/Dantley relationship really that damaged; was Dantley's genuine teaching influence on Dumars-Salley no longer worth the problems with the Thomas-Dantley dynamic? Finally the question has been brought up of Dantley's aging. Was this inevitable or would he have aged more gracefully in Detroit on a contender -did the trade kill his hunger? As before I don't think these are big questions in terms of immediate term influence on basketball because they were doing very well with Dantley (both in years previous, and that season with everyone healthy) but maybe these issues flare up in our hypothetical playoffs.

So to the repeat question the honest answer is I don't know (not least because I'm not sure they both/either again if it were played again), but I'm sympathetic to Dantley in terms of the "they got better after they moved him" argument.

[Moonbeam]

I think the Pistons would have won in 1989 with AD. They didn't have any real battles in the playoffs, and Dantley was a great playoff performer. Not sure about 1990 due to age. He may not have been injured and out for the playoffs in this hypothetical scenario. Tough call. Dantley was actually a year older than what bbref reports - he was nearly 34 at the time of the trade, so he was on the downswing. I think that coin toss Finals in 1988 was particularly heartbreaking for AD, who would have been a good FMVP candidate. Had they won, he may not have been traded...

As for how AD and Aguirre would rank today, it's tough to say. The 80s was an entirely different era. In terms of their peak play, though, I think both would be top 10, and Dantley would be top 5.

[Moonbeam]

So basically you feel they would be great scorers still but not top players because of deficiencies in their all around games?

Yes. Both were one-dimensional scorers with poor defense, like Melo (Anthony is also the best rebounder of the three).

Dantley, despite his incredible individual scoring numbers, was never really a good offensive anchor - he was known as a ball-stopper, and his teams were usually mediocre offensively.

Aguirre's teams (I mean in Dallas, in his prime), on the other hand, were usually excellent on offense (for example between 1985 and 1988, they were #2 or 3 in the league every year). Aguirre also shows promise of being able to develop a good 3-point shot, so I believe that he could be better/more valuable than Dantley in today's game (in the 80s, Dantley was IMO better).

I think it's hard to know whether Dantley could have led a great offense. I don't see why not. When I decomposed offensive win shares, Dantley's teammates were at or near the very bottom in both observed and expected offensive win shares. They were basically providing between 5 and 10 per year combined, which meant Dantley's supernova offense was necessary just to be merely average or decent at their best, and poor at their worst. A similar thing applies with Bernard King.

[GYK]

both of their primes were on super paced teams. What they however did was pretty impressive.
I think they can be replaced. If placed in today's era on the right team, the Suns seem like a great fit, they could be pretty great scorers. Top ten for sure. Fast break and post oriente scorers. Not a bad combo but with pace they could reach their numbers.

[Chicago76]

I think it's hard to know whether Dantley could have led a great offense. I don't see why not. When I decomposed offensive win shares, Dantley's teammates were at or near the very bottom in both observed and expected offensive win shares. They were basically providing between 5 and 10 per year combined, which meant Dantley's supernova offense was necessary just to be merely average or decent at their best, and poor at their worst. A similar thing applies with Bernard King.

There isn't much evidence of AD's ability/inability to lead an elite offense looking at before/afters or WOWY, but his style probably wouldn't have meshed well with an elite offense. He did take a lot of time setting up his moves and most elite Os either contain a big physically dominant C who can quickly take position and get a shot off while being relatively easy to feed or an elite facilitator. AD was neither. There is a likely a ceiling far below elite team O that an AD-led team could achieve.

As far as how many title the Pistons could have won with AD: personally, I think they would have gotten both of them. Dantley was young and effective enough in 1989. Provided he would have been willing to give up minutes and touches in 1990, the Pistons would have been fine...and I see now reason to believe he wouldn't based upon the fact that he did this for DAL for the 1989/90 season anyway. Aguirre didn't do a lot in the ECF and finals in 90 and Rodman was extremely important defensively. As long as there were enough minutes for Rodman, Dantley wouldn't have gotten in the way.

[Moonbeam]

I think it's hard to know whether Dantley could have led a great offense. I don't see why not. When I decomposed offensive win shares, Dantley's teammates were at or near the very bottom in both observed and expected offensive win shares. They were basically providing between 5 and 10 per year combined, which meant Dantley's supernova offense was necessary just to be merely average or decent at their best, and poor at their worst. A similar thing applies with Bernard King.

There isn't much evidence of AD's ability/inability to lead an elite offense looking at before/afters or WOWY, but his style probably wouldn't have meshed well with an elite offense. He did take a lot of time setting up his moves and most elite Os either contain a big physically dominant C who can quickly take position and get a shot off while being relatively easy to feed or an elite facilitator. AD was neither. There is a likely a ceiling far below elite team O that an AD-led team could achieve.

As far as how many title the Pistons could have won with AD: personally, I think they would have gotten both of them. Dantley was young and effective enough in 1989. Provided he would have been willing to give up minutes and touches in 1990, the Pistons would have been fine...and I see now reason to believe he wouldn't based upon the fact that he did this for DAL for the 1989/90 season anyway. Aguirre didn't do a lot in the ECF and finals in 90 and Rodman was extremely important defensively. As long as there were enough minutes for Rodman, Dantley wouldn't have gotten in the way.

I think Dantley was as effective a scorer as just about any big in history. He was lethal and could be deliberate, but he didn't prevent the Layden-helmed Jazz from playing at a high pace. He wasn't great offensively outside of scoring, but his scoring ability was so outlierish that it would be interesting to see the results of he had even average offensive talent around him. Looking at WOWY effects on teammate efficiency in 1983 and 1985, he didn't appear to "get his" at the expense of teammates. That said, I'm not sure how he would fare on today's game.

[penbeast0]

I always wanted to see Dantley on the Iverson Sixers . . . same issues with spacing but Aaron McKie starts instead of George Lynch most likely. Iverson's gambling defense was probably more valuable than Dantley's less athletic coverage; Iverson is a better facilitator; but an extra 10 points of efficiency out of your main scorer is pretty impressive.

Do they beat Shaq/Kobe/etc.? Probably not. Are they a better team with Dantley instead of Iverson? Probably but not certainly.

[Johnlac1]

If Detroit could come that close to winning a title with Dantley in '88, I can't see why they couldn't have done the same the following years.

[Chicago76]

I think Dantley was as effective a scorer as just about any big in history. He was lethal and could be deliberate, but he didn't prevent the Layden-helmed Jazz from playing at a high pace. He wasn't great offensively outside of scoring, but his scoring ability was so outlierish that it would be interesting to see the results of he had even average offensive talent around him. Looking at WOWY effects on teammate efficiency in 1983 and 1985, he didn't appear to "get his" at the expense of teammates. That said, I'm not sure how he would fare on today's game.

Pace can be a tricky argument to make in terms of "ball stopping" because it is a function of a lot of things outside of halfcourt offense: transition O, turnover, defense (good DRB ds and also bad Ds tend to play at a higher pace).

WOWY actually supports the notion that Dantley was a tough fit within an offense. This is all extrapolated to 100 poss data (assuming constant pace) wow Dantley and Wilkins. For King in 85 it was quite obvious that they sped things way up without him, so I assume D stayed roughly the same and scaled everything (offense and defense down) around those figures.

King 85: +6.9 pts/100
Wilkins 92: +4.4 pts
Dantley 85: +3.0
Dantley 83: +2.4

A high usage, high efficiency player should find it easier to improve a poor offense, and Dantley's teammates were by far the worst offensively. It's easier to take a group from bottom of the barrel to just below average (what Dantley essentially did) than it is for someone to take a below average offense to an above average offense (what Wilkins did).

[chrismikayla]

I think Dantley was as effective a scorer as just about any big in history. He was lethal and could be deliberate, but he didn't prevent the Layden-helmed Jazz from playing at a high pace. He wasn't great offensively outside of scoring, but his scoring ability was so outlierish that it would be interesting to see the results of he had even average offensive talent around him. Looking at WOWY effects on teammate efficiency in 1983 and 1985, he didn't appear to "get his" at the expense of teammates. That said, I'm not sure how he would fare on today's game.

Pace can be a tricky argument to make in terms of "ball stopping" because it is a function of a lot of things outside of halfcourt offense: transition O, turnover, defense (good DRB ds and also bad Ds tend to play at a higher pace).

WOWY actually supports the notion that Dantley was a tough fit within an offense. This is all extrapolated to 100 poss data (assuming constant pace) wow Dantley and Wilkins. For King in 85 it was quite obvious that they sped things way up without him, so I assume D stayed roughly the same and scaled everything (offense and defense down) around those figures.

King 85: +6.9 pts/100
Wilkins 92: +4.4 pts
Dantley 85: +3.0
Dantley 83: +2.4

A high usage, high efficiency player should find it easier to improve a poor offense, and Dantley's teammates were by far the worst offensively. It's easier to take a group from bottom of the barrel to just below average (what Dantley essentially did) than it is for someone to take a below average offense to an above average offense (what Wilkins did).

Thanks I always heard teams got better when AD left and always wondered whether it was fair to him

[Chicago76]

I think Dantley was as effective a scorer as just about any big in history. He was lethal and could be deliberate, but he didn't prevent the Layden-helmed Jazz from playing at a high pace. He wasn't great offensively outside of scoring, but his scoring ability was so outlierish that it would be interesting to see the results of he had even average offensive talent around him. Looking at WOWY effects on teammate efficiency in 1983 and 1985, he didn't appear to "get his" at the expense of teammates. That said, I'm not sure how he would fare on today's game.

Pace can be a tricky argument to make in terms of "ball stopping" because it is a function of a lot of things outside of halfcourt offense: transition O, turnover, defense (good DRB ds and also bad Ds tend to play at a higher pace).

WOWY actually supports the notion that Dantley was a tough fit within an offense. This is all extrapolated to 100 poss data (assuming constant pace) wow Dantley and Wilkins. For King in 85 it was quite obvious that they sped things way up without him, so I assume D stayed roughly the same and scaled everything (offense and defense down) around those figures.

King 85: +6.9 pts/100
Wilkins 92: +4.4 pts
Dantley 85: +3.0
Dantley 83: +2.4

A high usage, high efficiency player should find it easier to improve a poor offense, and Dantley's teammates were by far the worst offensively. It's easier to take a group from bottom of the barrel to just below average (what Dantley essentially did) than it is for someone to take a below average offense to an above average offense (what Wilkins did).

Thanks I always heard teams got better when AD left and always wondered whether it was fair to him

I don't think it's fair to assume that they get better when he leaves. IMO, Aguirre...Dantley. It really didn't matter. I think the Pistons were likely to win both of their titles. Aguirre wasn't that big of a piece for the second one when Rodman took more of a role. The Jazz got better after he left, but that was down to the emergence of Malone and Stockton. LA got Magic the year after Dantley left and Indiana and the Braves/Clippers were pretty awful no matter what.

The big takeaway for me on Dantley is that efficiency and high volume don't necessarily result in the impact you might anticipate. He was a SF who played a lot in the high post who was pretty money, but that can interfere with an offensive big and it doesn't really stretch the defense as much as a very effective outsider scorer/distributor/penetrator type. He wasn't a bad passer, just not prolific. He wasn't a completely terrible defender, just below average. He wasn't going to kill his team's defensive effort or anything. FWIW, Drexler's WOWY in 1992-93 is worse than Dantley's, so using that type of technique in isolation can be a bit flimsy. Drexler clearly had a lot of things he brought to the table in terms of scoring, penetration, distribution, solid D and rebounding, etc.

The Dantley issue is that he never really got a chance to play with a good cast with any degree of continuity until Detroit, when he was past his prime and had to deal with Thomas. Zeke was obviously a helluva pg, and he won my college team a national title, but the guy is a snake oil salesman. The guys I respect and like from those Pistons teams (guys like Salley and Dumars) loved Dantley while others (Thomas and Laimbeer) didn't seem to be such big fans. It would have been nice to see what he could do if he didn't spend most of his career having to carry as much off the load as he did. He might have become a better distributor and off the ball player.

Previously (like 6 or 7 years ago) I would have rated him over a guy like Alex English. Not anymore. I think he's definitely a HOF talent, but to get maximum impact out of hi unique skill set, a very specific set of team conditions would need to be met.

[Moonbeam]

I think Dantley was as effective a scorer as just about any big in history. He was lethal and could be deliberate, but he didn't prevent the Layden-helmed Jazz from playing at a high pace. He wasn't great offensively outside of scoring, but his scoring ability was so outlierish that it would be interesting to see the results of he had even average offensive talent around him. Looking at WOWY effects on teammate efficiency in 1983 and 1985, he didn't appear to "get his" at the expense of teammates. That said, I'm not sure how he would fare on today's game.

Pace can be a tricky argument to make in terms of "ball stopping" because it is a function of a lot of things outside of halfcourt offense: transition O, turnover, defense (good DRB ds and also bad Ds tend to play at a higher pace).

WOWY actually supports the notion that Dantley was a tough fit within an offense. This is all extrapolated to 100 poss data (assuming constant pace) wow Dantley and Wilkins. For King in 85 it was quite obvious that they sped things way up without him, so I assume D stayed roughly the same and scaled everything (offense and defense down) around those figures.

King 85: +6.9 pts/100
Wilkins 92: +4.4 pts
Dantley 85: +3.0
Dantley 83: +2.4

A high usage, high efficiency player should find it easier to improve a poor offense, and Dantley's teammates were by far the worst offensively. It's easier to take a group from bottom of the barrel to just below average (what Dantley essentially did) than it is for someone to take a below average offense to an above average offense (what Wilkins did).

1983 was a really weird season for Utah. It started with Dantley playing with John Drew, who was addicted to cocaine and playing miserably as his backup. Then Dantley got injured, and Mark Eaton's role slowly increased until he became a full-time starter after the Schayes trade. Utah became a good defensive team, and John Drew came back with his head on straight and the team had a nice finish. Lots of stuff outside of Dantley's control there. Dantley's teammates had a TS of .5105 in games he played, and .5260 in games he didn't. This was largely due to free throw rate. The rate of assists was essentially the same.

In 1985, though, his teammates had better efficiency in games Dantley played (.5254) than in games in which he didn't (.5131). Darrell Griffith was essentially promoted to option 1B for that season, and he was never an efficient player.

[Chicago76]

1983 was a really weird season for Utah. It started with Dantley playing with John Drew, who was addicted to cocaine and playing miserably as his backup. Then Dantley got injured, and Mark Eaton's role slowly increased until he became a full-time starter after the Schayes trade. Utah became a good defensive team, and John Drew came back with his head on straight and the team had a nice finish. Lots of stuff outside of Dantley's control there. Dantley's teammates had a TS of .5105 in games he played, and .5260 in games he didn't. This was largely due to free throw rate. The rate of assists was essentially the same.

In 1985, though, his teammates had better efficiency in games Dantley played (.5254) than in games in which he didn't (.5131). Darrell Griffith was essentially promoted to option 1B for that season, and he was never an efficient player.

Excluding 83 and looking just at 85, which admittedly is a pretty small sample...he didn't have the same impact as Wilkins in 92. Dantley was 28 that year. His team's Ortg ranking in 1984/85 was virtually the same in 81/82, 82/83, 85/86, and 86/87. The prior year (83/84) was the only one that would suggest that this year with only a part time Dantley represented a decline.

Wilkins in 91/92 was older at 32. The Hawks were 16th of 27 in Ortg that year. They rebounded to 10th the following year and were 12th in Wilkins' final year with the team at the age of 34. In the prior 5 years in Wilkins' age 27-31 years, the Hawks were 8th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 4th.

Taking into consideration history around those years, player ages, and the fact that it is much harder to improve something of superior condition, WOWY hurts Dantley's case.

Dantley may very well have improved his teammates scoring efficiency. I'm not arguing that. Actually, I would be shocked if he didn't, because his teammates were so bad offensively that it should be relatively easy to help them. That's the problem. Despite the strong numbers, it doesn't appear that they were helped that much. I don't think Dantley is a cancer or anything like that. I just think his skill set doesn't translate well to team impact, unfortunately.