RealGM

I just watched the "Bad Boys" episode on ESPN's 30 for 30, and on a certain moment Aguirre said he was better than Dantley, who as you gentlemen already know, he was traded for, in the middle of the 1988/1989 season.

I suspect I know how the poll will go, but still, I'd be curious to hear more about this from you guys.

Depends on the role/circumstance. In general, Dantley I'd say. Can you imagine how good he'd be in today's league? His ball-stopping heliocentrism would be a perfect fit. Like a more scoring-oriented version of Harden who plays from the elbow and mid-post. Would have Jokic-like percentages from that paint-extended, non-RA paint, 4-15 feet area.

FrodoBaggins wrote:Depends on the role/circumstance. In general, Dantley I'd say. Can you imagine how good he'd be in today's league? His ball-stopping heliocentrism would be a perfect fit. Like a more scoring-oriented version of Harden who plays from the elbow and mid-post. Would have Jokic-like percentages from that paint-extended, non-RA paint, 4-15 feet area.

He was like 6'5 tops and played like an old school center. He legit wouldn't make the league, not even trolling. Not without completely changing his game.

Dantley was an exceptionally efficient offensive player and one of the best post-up players in the game at about 6'5". He carried the Jazz franchise for several years night-in, night-out and kept the Jazz in games against other star-tier players. I think Mark Aguirre's best days were in Dallas, and I tend to think he had a better supporting cast around him. I remember Aguirre being a bit streaky.

By the time those guys got to Detroit, the Pistons were going to win chips regardless. Dantley and Aguirre were later in their careers and cast as 6th men.

Catchall wrote:Dantley was an exceptionally efficient offensive player and one of the best post-up players in the game at about 6'5". He carried the Jazz franchise for several years night-in, night-out and kept the Jazz in games against other star-tier players. I think Mark Aguirre's best days were in Dallas, and I tend to think he had a better supporting cast around him. I remember Aguirre being a bit streaky.

By the time those guys got to Detroit, the Pistons were going to win chips regardless. Dantley and Aguirre were later in their careers and cast as 6th men.

The trade was made because Aguirre was Isiah Thomas's best friend.

RRR3 wrote:

FrodoBaggins wrote:Depends on the role/circumstance. In general, Dantley I'd say. Can you imagine how good he'd be in today's league? His ball-stopping heliocentrism would be a perfect fit. Like a more scoring-oriented version of Harden who plays from the elbow and mid-post. Would have Jokic-like percentages from that paint-extended, non-RA paint, 4-15 feet area.

He was like 6'3 and played like an old school center. He legit wouldn't make the league, not even trolling. Not without completely changing his game.

Why not? The front courts are smaller today and the paint is more open than ever. Jalen Brunson is tiny and uses great footwork and pivoting to be a top-tier scorer in today's game. I'm not even trolling when I say Dantley could legit probably put up 30+ ppg on 70% TS. He draws fouls like Jimmy Butler and scores in the paint like Jokic. Can't pass or rebound like him though.

FrodoBaggins wrote:

RRR3 wrote:

FrodoBaggins wrote:Depends on the role/circumstance. In general, Dantley I'd say. Can you imagine how good he'd be in today's league? His ball-stopping heliocentrism would be a perfect fit. Like a more scoring-oriented version of Harden who plays from the elbow and mid-post. Would have Jokic-like percentages from that paint-extended, non-RA paint, 4-15 feet area.

He was like 6'3 and played like an old school center. He legit wouldn't make the league, not even trolling. Not without completely changing his game.

Why not? The front courts are smaller today and the paint is more open than ever. Jalen Brunson is tiny and uses great footwork and pivoting to be a top-tier scorer in today's game. I'm not even trolling when I say Dantley could legit probably put up 30+ ppg on 70% TS. He draws fouls like Jimmy Butler and scores in the paint like Jokic. Can't pass or rebound like him though.

Brunson is not a post player and he's a point guard who is an elite ballhandler and terrific 3pt shooter, how is that comparable to a guy who played like Tim Duncan but was the size of a shooting guard? I don't doubt Dantley could make the league today and be good, but certainly not playing the way he did in the 80s.

It's Dantley. Pistons would have won with him if they hadn't moved him. Heck, they'd have won in 88 if Thomas was healthy (and I find Thomas to be incredibly overrated, so I don't say that lightly).

FrodoBaggins wrote:

RRR3 wrote:

FrodoBaggins wrote:Depends on the role/circumstance. In general, Dantley I'd say. Can you imagine how good he'd be in today's league? His ball-stopping heliocentrism would be a perfect fit. Like a more scoring-oriented version of Harden who plays from the elbow and mid-post. Would have Jokic-like percentages from that paint-extended, non-RA paint, 4-15 feet area.

He was like 6'3 and played like an old school center. He legit wouldn't make the league, not even trolling. Not without completely changing his game.

Why not? The front courts are smaller today and the paint is more open than ever. Jalen Brunson is tiny and uses great footwork and pivoting to be a top-tier scorer in today's game. I'm not even trolling when I say Dantley could legit probably put up 30+ ppg on 70% TS. He draws fouls like Jimmy Butler and scores in the paint like Jokic. Can't pass or rebound like him though.

He also had a solid set shot- he likely could have expanded his range out to the 3 point line

RRR3 wrote:

FrodoBaggins wrote:

RRR3 wrote:He was like 6'3 and played like an old school center. He legit wouldn't make the league, not even trolling. Not without completely changing his game.

Why not? The front courts are smaller today and the paint is more open than ever. Jalen Brunson is tiny and uses great footwork and pivoting to be a top-tier scorer in today's game. I'm not even trolling when I say Dantley could legit probably put up 30+ ppg on 70% TS. He draws fouls like Jimmy Butler and scores in the paint like Jokic. Can't pass or rebound like him though.

Brunson is not a post player and he's a point guard who is an elite ballhandler and terrific 3pt shooter, how is that comparable to a guy who played like Tim Duncan but was the size of a shooting guard? I don't doubt Dantley could make the league today and be good, but certainly not playing the way he did in the 80s.

Avoid using simplistic logic and analysis such as labeling players with rigid denominations like "post player" and "point guard." It lacks depth and doesn't really tell us much. And secondly, "played like Tim Duncan but was the size of a point guard" is also reductive and erroneously tries to simplify things, missing the minutiae, nuance, and detail of basketball.

Jalen's back-to-the-basket live dribble and footwork/pivoting are a huge part of his game. Watch the video below; Brunson is in many ways the best example of how skill and craft can overcome size. And that's what Dantley was all about. He played all over the paint, from the low-post to the mid-post, high-post, elbow, and nail area. He faced up A LOT. He could shoot and dribble.

Roscoe Sheed wrote:

FrodoBaggins wrote:

RRR3 wrote:He was like 6'3 and played like an old school center. He legit wouldn't make the league, not even trolling. Not without completely changing his game.

Why not? The front courts are smaller today and the paint is more open than ever. Jalen Brunson is tiny and uses great footwork and pivoting to be a top-tier scorer in today's game. I'm not even trolling when I say Dantley could legit probably put up 30+ ppg on 70% TS. He draws fouls like Jimmy Butler and scores in the paint like Jokic. Can't pass or rebound like him though.

He also had a solid set shot- he likely could have expanded his range out to the 3 point line

I agree but he wouldn't have to anyway. He could play the exact same way and he'd put up 30+ ppg on 65-70% TS. His scoring in the paint would be Jokic-like but with Jimmy Butler/Joel Embiid-level foul drawing.

Fun fact: Dantley and Embiid have the exact same career free-throw rate (FTr): .552

We don't have distance-based shooting percentages for the '80s but we do for the late '90s. We can compare '97 and '98 with today; the late '90s are stylistically, relatively close enough to the '80s. The 96-97 numbers are a little wonky because it was the first year they tracked the numbers. This is known.

1996-97 league averages
0-3 feet: 55.2% FG
3-10 feet: 43.7% FG
10-16 feet: 38.3% FG

1997-98 league averages
0-3 feet: 62.8% FG
3-10 feet: 37.6% FG
10-16 feet: 35.4% FG

2024-25 league averages
0-3 feet: 69.1% FG
3-10 feet: 45.1% FG
10-16 feet: 43.4% FG

That extra floor spacing has made it far easier to score in the paint. All areas of the paint - the rim, restricted area, paint-extended/non-RA paint, baseline/low-block, mid-post, high-post/elbow/nail. And those regions were Dantley's money spots. He'd eat. He'd feast.

Adrian had a 121 TS+ over 101 games between '83 and '84. 30.6 ppg. 56.3% FG, 85.7% FT [64.9% FTr], 65.4% TS.

2024-25 league average true shooting percentage is 57.4% TS. Adrian's 121 TS+ (21% above league average) would equate to 69.5% TS in today's league.

Peak Dantley was better than Peak Aguirre but Dantley was slowing down and Aguirre had 3pt range. Neither played great or even good defense. Aguirre was a few years younger and closer to peak. Dantley had to be the #1 option run the offense through guy, but Aguirre could be the 3rd/4th option player and fit in. The pistons simply moved to more guard centric offense w/o Dantley and they played faster. Having Rodman/Salley as finishers they could play more up-tempo.

Dantley had his chance the year before during the Finals. He would have been Finals MVP but he couldnt slow down James Worthy.

It’s Dantley, quite easily.

The player he was on the Pistons was effective but often gruesome to watch. The very definition of a black hole, strong as an ox in his legs and almost completely unstoppable without fouling him.

Younger Dantley was faster, played faster, and was very impressive. Aguirre never even approached that level. Dantley averaged 30 ppg four years in a row and lead the league in scoring twice! Six All-Star selections, too.

Not even close.

Teach!

Sent from my SM-A156U using RealGM mobile app

Great breakdown of Adrian's offensive game in Utah from 70sFan:

FrodoBaggins wrote:We don't have distance-based shooting percentages for the '80s

We don't have Dantley shooting data YET, but I am working on it

It's definitely Dantley, I don't see any case for Mark.

Warspite wrote:Dantley had his chance the year before during the Finals. He would have been Finals MVP but he couldnt slow down James Worthy.

Dantley didn't defend Worthy in 1988 finals, outside of occasional matchups.

Warspite wrote:Peak Dantley was better than Peak Aguirre but Dantley was slowing down and Aguirre had 3pt range. Neither played great or even good defense. Aguirre was a few years younger and closer to peak. Dantley had to be the #1 option run the offense through guy, but Aguirre could be the 3rd/4th option player and fit in. The pistons simply moved to more guard centric offense w/o Dantley and they played faster. Having Rodman/Salley as finishers they could play more up-tempo.

Dantley had his chance the year before during the Finals. He would have been Finals MVP but he couldnt slow down James Worthy.

The Pistons lost in 1988 because Thomas was playing on 1 foot after his game 6 injury. The Pistons only lost game 7 by a few points, despite Thomas being useless on D and literally hobbling on O. It had nothing to do with Dantley, who wasn't defending Worthy anyway.

Mark was better.