ElGee wrote:I'm confused. And I didn't see a Dantley argument from you, sorry. Just remember you saying "he should go and I'm nominating him even if it's a wasted act."
In 1984 Utah had a bunch of scorers on their team and finished with an 0.81 SRS and and +1.4 ORtg, all with near perfect health to said players and Mark Eaton. Their top 7 players missed 7 games combined!
In 1987 Dantley was added to the Pistons (for Benson and Tripucka). Note he wasn't an AS that year. Detroit's offense declined from +1.8 to +0.9. The defense improved - here's the rotational changes:
Laimbeer 2900 --> 2900
Isiah 2800 --> 3000
Cureton 2000 --> Green 1800
Johnson 2000 --> 2200
Dumars 2000 --> 2400
Mahorn 1400 --> 1300
Campbell 1300 --> Rodman 1200
Long 1200 --> Salley 1500
So an increase of Dumars, Salley and Dennis Rodman too the defense from +0.7 to -2.5...maybe it was Adrian Dantley? (Or is that supposed to be obvious?)
1988 Detroit is +6.9 without Dantley and +4.9 with him. How is that an indication that it's obvious he should be voted in? (The following year they loved him so much they traded him...the 5th time he was traded in 11 years. And they were SIGNIFICANTLY better following the trade.
The issue with Dantley isn't merely a single fuzzy stat. It's the combination of
(1) large-sampled in/out
(2) In different environments
(3) Over and over
(4) Combined with negligible (or bad) team changes with/without Dantley from year to year
(5) Combined with the eye test (he was a player who was deliberate in looking to score and finally kicked it out if in trouble)
(6) Combined with the reputation he had (traded 5 times despite the stats) and even being benched at one point in his career
Makes it hard to assume that this is a really good player. All I'm asking is why on earth people are assuming that. And if the answer is "stats," I think we've clearly seen enough to know that's a really bad assumption AND it's totally inconsistent with many votes in this project, or as I said, bring on Steve Francis and Shareef Abdul-Rahim!
I see 1984 differently.
I see Dantley leading a solid group of players, who don't necessarily fit his game if he's the number one option, to a solid record. (BTW, Mark Eaton is just about the worst offensive player to put next to Dantley, and he's probably the most offensively inept good player in NBA history as well).
They get to the playoffs, and Dantley performs well individually while Utah gets to the second round. That's about what I'd expect out of that team on average. If they overachieved a bit, they make a WCF appearance. They didn't this year. That's fine.
I also see '88 differently. The bottom line is the 1988 Detroit Pistons had a better SRS ranking than the 1989 and 1990 teams did (2nd in 1988, 4th in next two years), and the 1988 team came incredibly close to winning an NBA title. They beat Boston and nearly took down Los Angeles.
It's pretty clear Dantley couldn't be the best player on a contender. I think we can agree on that much. But as the number two guy? I know you wouldn't want him, and that's fine. No need for you to point to Dantley being traded by DET in '89 as your evidence that Dantley as a second guy is questionable- I'll point it out. I understand. Perhaps Dantley didn't have the personality to cut it on DET for long.
I'll take him though. Number two guys on title teams are going at this point, from Cunningham to Parish to Deke to Carter to Thompson. He's got the necessary talent, and I don't think he's Maggette-ing it up enough to warrant not taking him. Does he Maggette it too much? Probably to the point where it could get bad if he's the number one guy. I don't think he's such a bad apple as the number two guy though.
On my team, and differently constructed squad compared to DET, Dantley is next to prime Garnett, Dalembert, DeShawn Stevenson, and Kirk Hinrich. That's a contender, and it isn't loaded with talent. Dantley's 23 ppg from the block would be great for me.
