Better player: Adrian Dantley or Mark Aguirre?

[bledredwine]

Dantley easy.

[tsherkin]

2024-25 league average true shooting percentage is 57.4% TS. Adrian's 121 TS+ (21% above league average)

Just to clarify for those who don't know, 121 TS+ doesn't mean +21% rTS.

In 1983, he was at 124 TS+, posting 66.1% over 53.1%, which is +13 rTS. A point of TS+ mostly (roughly) equates to +0.5% over league average in terms of rTS%. A shade under.

Dantley, particularly Utah Dantley, was very good. He had a decent first step, a middie, and could make a quick move from a face-up. He was EXTREMELY adept at jockeying for position off-ball, getting hi-los, and otherwise deep positioning for quick running hooks. He often did this against much larger players.

He'd be fine in today's game. His problem was more that he wasn't any kind of consequential playmaker and he had some defensive issues. Strong base, excellent timing, excellent sense of positioning, big motor. RELENTLESS.

He'd be a monster of a scorer in today's game, particularly with so much MORE space to work with due to the perimeter shooting. Especially compared to Utah. Look at 70sFan's video and how packed those paints were around him and what he was doing anyway.

Watch on YouTube

I have them disabled, or I'd +1 the hell out of this. Brunson has a wonderful guard post game. He knows how to use his huge butt and low center of gravity, and his footwork is excellent. It's one of my favorite things about watching the Knicks, because he's a nice blend of old school and new school.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Dantley had the better career.

But Aguirre was better for that Pistons squad.

Fit and chemistry can make those subtle differences and push a team over.



[Note: Joe Dumars growth definitely helped. Heck, check out how his 1989 splits improved after the Dantley-Aguirre trade. He was ready for a larger role. Was Dantley inadvertently (or overtly) fighting it? Would it have happened either way? What we do know is that the Pistons won back-to-back titles with Aguirre... with a team driven by its defense and guard play. It was even more pronounced in the playoffs.]

[Uncle Mxy]

Dantley was a Bad Boy. Aguirre wasn't.

[tsherkin]

Dantley was a Bad Boy. Aguirre wasn't.

This is a shockingly meaningless statement.

[GSWFan1994]

I wonder which modern/current player has a similar playstyle to Dantley. Nobody like him I guess?

[MavsDirk41]

Dantley. 6x all star and 2x all nba.

[IamBBAnalysis]

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.

Aguirre definately approached that level. He averaged near 30 ppg one season and had an extremely versatile offensive game. Post up, long range, running the break. He just didn't draw fouls like very hard to watch Dantley.

[MrGoat]

I'm taking Aguirre. Too many people only look at player efficiency numbers rather than team efficiency numbers with the player. Aguirre had 3 point range and trading him for Dantley killed the Mavs' offense. The Jazz frequently had a bottom feeder offense with Dantley, the Mavs usually had an elite offense with Aguirre

[tsherkin]

I'm taking Aguirre. Too many people only look at player efficiency numbers rather than team efficiency numbers with the player. Aguirre had 3 point range and trading him for Dantley killed the Mavs' offense. The Jazz frequently had a bottom feeder offense with Dantley, the Mavs usually had an elite offense with Aguirre

Who did he play with in Utah who mattered?

Now compare that to the offensive help Aguirre had in Dallas.

[tihsad]

Dantley was the better career player, but both had personality problems. Both of them are overrated per simple glance, and likewise traded for lesser players for a reason (Adrian in particular). AD was the work horse in mid 80s Utah and a low tier MVP candidate. AD alienated his situation in Utah to where he was sent to Detroit for Kelly Tripucka (a much lesser player) and chump change. Eventually AD was sent from Detroit to Dallas for Aguirre (a slightly younger and lesser player) because he burnt his bridges in Detroit as he aged (no, it wasn't that evil mastermind Isiah Thomas - Dantley pissed off the coach and GM). Aguirre put up massive (often empty) numbers in Dallas, but was reviled by fellow players and the fanbase. Aguirre ended up in Detroit, and wisely recognized he'd share minutes with Rodman at SF despite his higher profile. They won two championships, which they might not have won had they kept AD - and that's that.

[Xatticus]

I'd take Aguirre. Aguirre is who you take if you are trying to build a team. Dantley was just a dude you could throw the ball to on every possession if you didn't have an offense. He piled up stats on some awful teams. Dantley wanted to dominate the offense. He saw other talented teammates as threats and he was run out of Utah and Detroit because he was an insufferable pain in the ass.

[cupcakesnake]

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.

Every successful helio-style player is a much better playmaker than Dantley. Is there any such thing as a non-playmaking heliocentric player?

[ryan in Maine]

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.

Every successful helio-style player is a much better playmaker than Dantley. Is there any such thing as a non-playmaking heliocentric player?

Jaylen Brown sometimes but he's worked on it and has a pretty good two man game with a few guys.

[HotRocks34]

Just from remembrances of watching both play I personally would go with Aguirre but I totally respect Dantley.

I still wonder what the Mavs could have been had Tarpley not had his issues.

[cupcakesnake]

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.

Every successful helio-style player is a much better playmaker than Dantley. Is there any such thing as a non-playmaking heliocentric player?

Jaylen Brown sometimes but he's worked on it and has a pretty good two man game with a few guys.

He's not a helioccentric player at all though. A helio is someone who the entire offense runs through on nearly every possession. Steve Nash, Lebron James, James Harden, Luka, Magic.

Jaylen is a secondary scorer who's main job is driving against a 5-out defense, usually after a primary action (like a Tatum pick & roll).

It's impossible to build that kind of offense around a pure scorer who isn't playmaking. This has basically been understood since 1967 when the Sixers finally tried to figure out why there offense wasn't good from just asking Wilt to score on every possession.

[ryan in Maine]

Every successful helio-style player is a much better playmaker than Dantley. Is there any such thing as a non-playmaking heliocentric player?

Jaylen Brown sometimes but he's worked on it and has a pretty good two man game with a few guys.

He's not a helioccentric player at all though. A helio is someone who the entire offense runs through on nearly every possession. Steve Nash, Lebron James, James Harden, Luka, Magic.

Jaylen is a secondary scorer who's main job is driving against a 5-out defense, usually after a primary action (like a Tatum pick & roll).

It's impossible to build that kind of offense around a pure scorer who isn't playmaking. This has basically been understood since 1967 when the Sixers finally tried to figure out why there offense wasn't good from just asking Wilt to score on every possession.

Then your answer might be no, there's no such thing lol.

[tmorgan]

Sounds like Anthony Edwards wants to give breaking your theory a try.

[Xatticus]

Just from remembrances of watching both play I personally would go with Aguirre but I totally respect Dantley.

I still wonder what the Mavs could have been had Tarpley not had his issues.

Or if they didn't dump Schrempf and Ellis.

[Cavsfansince84]

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.

I'm not going to go too much into how good he'd be in today's league but Dantley did plenty of face up from about 15 ft, had one of the most reliable mid range jumpers in the entire league, was good at drawing fouls/ft shooting, could run the floor well and could finish with both hands at a high level. So its not clear how well he'd translate to today's league but I think its fair to think that if he's practiced 3's from a young age he'd be a decent to good 3 pt shooter and do just fine. His offense was not limited to playing like an old school center at all.