Why is Mark Aguirre not in the Hall of Fame?

[hawkfan]

Why is Mark Aguirre not in the Hall of Fame?

Great scorer, great numbers, and then he became unselfish and helped Detroit win 2 championships. Without him, the Pistons wouldn't have won those titles.

[magnax1]

Yeah, probably deserves it, but nobody really remembers him. Probably will take him a decade or two like it did Dantley.

[chocolatethunder]

Is this a joke? He was a really good player but not hall of fame caliber.

[hawkfan]

Is this a joke? He was a really good player but not hall of fame caliber.

Adrian Dantley got in, and he never helped a team win a championship.

Aguirre put up huge numbers and he helped a team win 2 championships.

If he had stayed in Dallas, he would be far ahead as the Mavs all time scorer.

Dude was a baller.

[L.Kizzle]

Adrian Dantley got in, and he never helped a team win a championship.

Aguirre put up huge numbers and he helped a team win 2 championships.

If he had stayed in Dallas, he would be far ahead as the Mavs all time scorer.

Dude was a baller.
AD scored over 30 ppg four straight seasons, was a multiple All-NBA team member and 6 time All-Star and would have won a title in Det if not for Zeke's injury.

Aguire has 3 All-Star appearances.

[icemanfan]

Why is Mark Aguirre not in the Hall of Fame?

Great scorer, great numbers, and then he became unselfish and helped Detroit win 2 championships. Without him, the Pistons wouldn't have won those titles.
Get Artis Gilmore in first and will talk.

[hawkfan]

Get Artis Gilmore in first and will talk.

I have no problem with Artis Gilmore getting in. Dude was a great scoring center.

[hawkfan]

AD scored over 30 ppg four straight seasons, was a multiple All-NBA team member and 6 time All-Star and would have won a title in Det if not for Zeke's injury.

Aguire has 3 All-Star appearances.

If he had stayed in Dallas, Aguirre would have had more All-Star appearances.

[Silverbullit]

Adrian Dantley got in, and he never helped a team win a championship.

Aguirre put up huge numbers and he helped a team win 2 championships.

If he had stayed in Dallas, he would be far ahead as the Mavs all time scorer.

Dude was a baller.

:no: :no: :no:

[momo]

Get Artis Gilmore in first and will talk.

Yea, I think both Artis and Aguirre both should be in... but I think I am a bit of a softy when it comes to the hall. I am not sure what the median opinion on them would be. Better than borderline?

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

He is not in the Hall because he lacks accomplishments. And he really doesn't have the career stats on his side either.

Oh, and Mark Aguirre ran himself out of town with the Mavericks. He was a good player under Motta. But his career points wouldn't have been much different than it is now had he stayed with the Mavs.

[Collie]

Same reason that Bernard King isn't in it.

[Rake2204]

Similar to the Bogues video I posted earlier today, I stumbled across some Mark Aguirre college clips and figured they'd be worth sharing in this thread (less than a minute's worth, but interesting to see rare young clips): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPkN-YO4dlo&feature=youtu.be

I tended to only recall the more grounded form of Aguirre when he was in Detroit.

[JMT]

Same reason that Bernard King isn't in it.

This. And rightly so.

[gtfomyface]

Adrian Dantley got in, and he never helped a team win a championship.

Aguirre put up huge numbers and he helped a team win 2 championships.

If he had stayed in Dallas, he would be far ahead as the Mavs all time scorer.

Dude was a baller.

this guy named dirk, i heard he was a good scorer :biggums:

[hawkfan]

this guy named dirk, i heard he was a good scorer :biggums:

Agreed. Dirk definitely would have passed him up.

Digging up this fossil of a thread.

[Owl]

Always good to see retro clips.

As for the general argument, it depends on where you think the HOF borderline should be but I don't think Aguirre should be in. Poor defender and inangiables. The only area in which he was particularly strong was scoring. And though the raw numbers are very impressive they should be taken in context (80's pace, how bad 80's SFs were at defense etc).

If he had stayed in Dallas, Aguirre would have had more All-Star appearances.
He didn't make the ASG in 89 which occured before his trade. His numbers were significantly down (except turnovers which were up). Aguirre had burned his bridges in Dallas in any case.


Same reason that Bernard King isn't in it.

This. And rightly so.
Aguirre took drugs? And missed the better part of his career because of injuries?

I assume you mean (or are agreeing) that they were just scorers. That much is largely true but King's peak is at least higher when it was suddenly derailed.

[JMT]

I assume you mean (or are agreeing) that they were just scorers. That much is largely true but King's peak is at least higher when it was suddenly derailed.

One dimensional players who did little to help their team except when the ball was in their hands. Maybe King's peak was higher, but his descent was much quicker. Neither belongs in the HOF.

BTW, there's only a difference of about 50 career games between them.

[Rake2204]

I've seen it referenced a couple of times in this thread now so out of legitimate curiosity, what did Aguirre do to burn his bridges in Dallas?

[ShaqAttack3234]

He was one of many high scoring small forwards, and in the old school specializing in posting up, as well as his mid-range game. Small forwards these days have become more like shooting guards, those positions have become interchangeable, with Carmelo being one of the exceptions as he has the post game, mid-range game and strength and is a throwback to the pure scoring 80's small forwards, except with vastly superior ball handling skills.

While in the 80's, small forwards were closer to power forwards in the way they played, Bernard King with his devastating turnaround with the quick release, Adrian Dantley also with the post game, and Worthy as well.

But if Adrian Dantley is in, then I think Aguirre has a case. Aguirre didn't seem to be as bad as Dantley was as far as holding the ball, and he was a much better perimeter shooter, which probably explains why he had more team success and seemed to fit in better.

Here are some things I found interesting about Aguirre and Dantley.

The 1988 Mavericks with Aguirre won 53 games and got to game 7 of the Western Conference Finals vs the Lakers.

The 1989 Mavs were not as good, but still at 25-19 with Aguirre, however they dropped to 11-20 with Dantley

The 1989 Pistons were 30-12 with Dantley, but 30-6 with Aguirre and 28-4 with Aguirre starting.

The Pistons had gone 54-28 and lost in the finals the previous year, however, just like the Mavs they had taken them to 7, so they were certainly championship material already, and there was the suspect foul call that benefited Kareem and the Lakers.

Either way, it's obvious that the Pistons improved noticeably with Aguirre and the Mavs fell off noticeably with Dantley.

Aguirre seemed much more willing to accept a lesser role. Detroit was stacked, not a team that relied on 1 or 2 stars, so this really benefited them. The go to guy would change depending on the night, or point in the game, they were known for their ride the hot hand approach. Isiah, Dumars, Vinnie Johnson, Aguirre and James Edwards were all guys you could go to and they would create their own shot. So they didn't need Aguirre to score 20+.

So 2 different teams being noticeably better with Aguirre than Dantley than Aguirre certainly helps Aguirre's case vs Dantley.

And a hall of fame 80's small forward who I believe Aguirre was better than is Alex English. Aguirre simply looks more impressive when I've watched him play. English is perhaps the biggest beneficiary of a system. He got in the hall of fame largely due to Denver's ridiculous pace which boosted his numbers. When Kiki Vandeweghe was his teammate, he was putting up equal, or better scoring numbers, and nobody would claim he is a hall of famer. English is a guy who I haven't noticed as much as other high scorers when I've watched 80's Nugget games. People have talked about being surprised at English's totals, and not realizing he's scored as much as he did by the end of a game. That can be a positive, it can mean a guy is scoring in the flow of the offense, but in English's case, it seems to be due to Denver and their opponents running back and forth and scoring so much.

But, it's the hall of accomplishments really. It's based more on a player's accomplishments rather than how great they were. So I understand guys like English(scored more points in the 80's than anyone), and Dantley(some of the best scoring/efficiency numbers ever) getting in based on their criteria. Though Aguirre has something neither do, a championship, 2 of them in fact.

[MasterDurant24]

One dimensional players who did little to help their team except when the ball was in their hands. Maybe King's peak was higher, but his descent was much quicker. Neither belongs in the HOF.

BTW, there's only a difference of about 50 career games between them.

So were George Gervin, Alex English, and Adrian Dantley. And Bernard King is up with them as one of the best pure scorers of all time, and I would say better than English in that regard. And as for his decline, he still managed to put up around 28 or 29 points, I forget exactly, in his second last year. Aguirre on the other hand was not good enough for the Hall of Fame unless you wanna put him in for his spot on the Bad Boys and his college career(Player of the Year, 2x All American). Not on the same level as King.

[Xiao Yao You]

Why is Mark Aguirre not in the Hall of Fame?

Great scorer, great numbers, and then he became unselfish and helped Detroit win 2 championships. Without him, the Pistons wouldn't have won those titles.

If they had kept Dantley instead of Aguirre they likely win still.


Aguirre didn't seem to be as bad as Dantley was as far as holding the ball, and he was a much better perimeter shooter, which probably explains why he had more team success and seemed to fit in better.

He had more range. There was no 3 point shot when Dantley came into the league. Dantley could hit 20 footers all night if you gave it to him. If you came out to guard him he'd give a head and shoulder fake and drive past you looking for an and 1.

Dantley led the worst franchise in basketball at the time to a division title to start their great run of playoff appearances. Aguirre was Isiah's buddy so to say he had more success after taking Dantley's rings and fit in better is a stretch. Dantley with the Jazz is certainly comparable to Aguirre with Dallas as far as team success.


When Kiki Vandeweghe was his teammate, he was putting up equal, or better scoring numbers, and nobody would claim he is a hall of famer.

They would be if he'd done it as long as English did.

[Shepseskaf]

Same reason that Bernard King isn't in it.
Wrong. Not in the same categories.

Bernard a superior player; someone who actually scored meaningful points rather than stat-pad. He also had 4 All-NBA appearances, and finished second in the MVP race (when it meant something) in '83-'84 to Bird.

King should be in, despite a shortened career, because his peak was so high. Aguirre was a standout player, but isn't HoF-worthy.

[Shepseskaf]

Get Artis Gilmore in first and will talk.
Artis is already in.

[ShaqAttack3234]

He had more range. There was no 3 point shot when Dantley came into the league. Dantley could hit 20 footers all night if you gave it to him. If you came out to guard him he'd give a head and shoulder fake and drive past you looking for an and 1.

Dantley had the nice set shot, but because of how he shot it, he needed to be more wide open than Aguirre, and as you mentioned, didn't have the same range, so I feel comfortable calling Aguirre the better perimeter shooter.


Dantley led the worst franchise in basketball at the time to a division title to start their great run of playoff appearances. Aguirre was Isiah's buddy so to say he had more success after taking Dantley's rings and fit in better is a stretch. Dantley with the Jazz is certainly comparable to Aguirre with Dallas as far as team success.

You don't think it says anything that the Pistons got significantly better with Aguirre replacing Dantley and the Mavs got significantly worse in the same year with Dantley replacing Aguirre?

Dantley's team success was nothing special. Utah was just 24-58 in Dantley's first season. I'll give him a pass for that because that was a bad team without a stable lineup, and their record sucks without Dantley in 12 of his 14 missed games I can account for(2-10).

The following year, Dantley didn't really miss any games playing 80 of 82, he averaged 30.7 ppg, and Utah was 28-54, I can give this a pass as well because Darrell Griffith at 20.6 ppg was their only other scorer in double figures, which especially for the 80's was unusual.

The next year, Dantley again played almost every game averaging 30.3 ppg in 81 games in addition to Griffith averaging almost 20 again. Ricky Green also became a quality player averaging almost 15 per game, finishing 6th in steals at 2.3 per game and 7th in assists at 7.8 per game. They didn't appear to have much depth beyond them, but finished just 25-57.

In '83, they had their best record of the Dantley era at 30-52, their winning percentage was better with Dantley(9-13) than it was without(21-39), but there's no real team success here to speak of.

They finally had a winning record by 1984 with Dantley playing virtually the entire season averaging 30.6 ppg in 79 games. But his cast doesn't look poor by this point. Darrell Griffith gave Utah a second 20 ppg scorer, John Drew, an all-star in '76 and '80, averaged almost 18 ppg in just 22 mpg off the bench, Ricky Green made the all-star team averaging 13 ppg, a league-leading 2.7 spg and 9.2 apg, good for 6th best in the league. Mark Eaton led the league in blocks per game at 4.3, and would win his first of 2 defensive player of the year awards the following season(and an additional one in '89) as well as make an all-star team in '89. And they had Thurl Bailey in his rookie year.

They had some success at 45-37 and they made it to the semifinals, but he didn't carry scrubs there, and this was about as much success as they'd have.

In '85, there was virtually no difference with Dantley out of the lineup, Utah went 28-27 with Dantley and 13-14 without him. They did make the semifinals again, but the West in the 80's was notoriously weak.

In Dantley's final season, Utah was 42-40 and lost in the first round with Dantley playing 76 games, not a big sample size, but they were 4-2 without Dantley. They traded him to make room for Karl Malone to develop, and Utah did their improve their record by 2 games after trading him.

So, I really can't see anything significant as far as team accomplishments. He wasn't in the best position for them, particularly early in his Utah career, but I can't really credit him with leading a team anywhere either.

Despite Aguirre playing on a team with a lot of talent such as Rolando Blackman, Derek Harper, Sam Perkins, Roy Tarpley and a young Detlef Schrempf, taking the '88 Mavs to a game 7 vs a loaded Laker team led by Magic in the second year of his prime and an excellent cast is more than Dantley ever did.

Dantley may have been an even more unstoppable scorer from what I've seen of his moves vs Aguirre's, but would he have been if he didn't take so long to work for his own shot? And there is no evidence to suggest that Dantley was more valuable to a team than Aguirre, if anything, there's evidence to the contrary.


They would be if he'd done it as long as English did.

That may be true, as I said most care about accomplishments when talking about hall of famers, not how great the player he was.

But the point of the Vandeweghe comparisons is that I don't think English's point totals mean all that much because of the team he was on. If he was on Atlanta in Nique's place for example, he might not even hit 25 ppg.

Longevity is nice, but I'd prefer the hall of fame if you had to get to a certain level of play. English was a nice player from what I've seen, but not the level I'd think of.

[L.Kizzle]

He was one of many high scoring small forwards, and in the old school specializing in posting up, as well as his mid-range game. Small forwards these days have become more like shooting guards, those positions have become interchangeable, with Carmelo being one of the exceptions as he has the post game, mid-range game and strength and is a throwback to the pure scoring 80's small forwards, except with vastly superior ball handling skills.

While in the 80's, small forwards were closer to power forwards in the way they played, Bernard King with his devastating turnaround with the quick release, Adrian Dantley also with the post game, and Worthy as well.

But if Adrian Dantley is in, then I think Aguirre has a case. Aguirre didn't seem to be as bad as Dantley was as far as holding the ball, and he was a much better perimeter shooter, which probably explains why he had more team success and seemed to fit in better.

Here are some things I found interesting about Aguirre and Dantley.

The 1988 Mavericks with Aguirre won 53 games and got to game 7 of the Western Conference Finals vs the Lakers.

The 1989 Mavs were not as good, but still at 25-19 with Aguirre, however they dropped to 11-20 with Dantley

The 1989 Pistons were 30-12 with Dantley, but 30-6 with Aguirre and 28-4 with Aguirre starting.

The Pistons had gone 54-28 and lost in the finals the previous year, however, just like the Mavs they had taken them to 7, so they were certainly championship material already, and there was the suspect foul call that benefited Kareem and the Lakers.

Either way, it's obvious that the Pistons improved noticeably with Aguirre and the Mavs fell off noticeably with Dantley.

Aguirre seemed much more willing to accept a lesser role. Detroit was stacked, not a team that relied on 1 or 2 stars, so this really benefited them. The go to guy would change depending on the night, or point in the game, they were known for their ride the hot hand approach. Isiah, Dumars, Vinnie Johnson, Aguirre and James Edwards were all guys you could go to and they would create their own shot. So they didn't need Aguirre to score 20+.

So 2 different teams being noticeably better with Aguirre than Dantley than Aguirre certainly helps Aguirre's case vs Dantley.

And a hall of fame 80's small forward who I believe Aguirre was better than is Alex English. Aguirre simply looks more impressive when I've watched him play. English is perhaps the biggest beneficiary of a system. He got in the hall of fame largely due to Denver's ridiculous pace which boosted his numbers. When Kiki Vandeweghe was his teammate, he was putting up equal, or better scoring numbers, and nobody would claim he is a hall of famer. English is a guy who I haven't noticed as much as other high scorers when I've watched 80's Nugget games. People have talked about being surprised at English's totals, and not realizing he's scored as much as he did by the end of a game. That can be a positive, it can mean a guy is scoring in the flow of the offense, but in English's case, it seems to be due to Denver and their opponents running back and forth and scoring so much.

But, it's the hall of accomplishments really. It's based more on a player's accomplishments rather than how great they were. So I understand guys like English(scored more points in the 80's than anyone), and Dantley(some of the best scoring/efficiency numbers ever) getting in based on their criteria. Though Aguirre has something neither do, a championship, 2 of them in fact.
It's fair to say that Dantley was not the same player in the late 80s as he was in the early 80s or even the mid 80s. Aguirre was consistent and never really fell off only his number ent down from joining a stacked team.

AD last all-star game was in 86, Aguirre was still an all-star the season he got traded for AD.

But at their peaks, AD was easily the better player.

[Owl]

Artis is already in.
He wasn't when that post was made though. This is a bumped thread.

Comparing Dantley and Aguirre after the trade is comparing apples and oranges. Aguirre went from a bad situation to good one where a good friend was the team leader. Dantley went from a very strong contender to a team that was falling apart at the seams (post Tarpley). Were also comparing a 29 and 32 year old.
Even if we were doing that, I'd suggest the fact that Dantley left the team on a 6 game winning streak means there's reason to think that there were factors other than the Aguirre-Dantley trade for Detroit's 2nd half boost in form.

The disparity between Dantley and Aguirre in shooting percentages (fg%, ts% whatever) is enough for significant separation between the two (even if we assume Dantley was more of a ball stopper) which is why Dantley is a HOFer and Aguirre isn't.

[JMT]

So were George Gervin, Alex English, and Adrian Dantley. And Bernard King is up with them as one of the best pure scorers of all time, and I would say better than English in that regard. And as for his decline, he still managed to put up around 28 or 29 points, I forget exactly, in his second last year. Aguirre on the other hand was not good enough for the Hall of Fame unless you wanna put him in for his spot on the Bad Boys and his college career(Player of the Year, 2x All American). Not on the same level as King.

You're presenting this argument as if I'm in support of Aguirre. I'm not.

Gervin is in as much for his role in the emergence of the ABA as anything else. English and Dantley? You could make an argument against them and I wouldn't balk, though Dantley does have the college success that the others don't. IMO half of the guys inducted in the past 15 years don't deserve to be in the Hall.

I would agree that King was likely a better player than Aguirre. And if you want to put him in the HOF because he was the same player as other guys who don't belong there, great.

[L.Kizzle]

You're presenting this argument as if I'm in support of Aguirre. I'm not.

Gervin is in as much for his role in the emergence of the ABA as anything else. English and Dantley? You could make an argument against them and I wouldn't balk, though Dantley does have the college success that the others don't. IMO half of the guys inducted in the past 15 years don't deserve to be in the Hall.

I would agree that King was likely a better player than Aguirre. And if you want to put him in the HOF because he was the same player as other guys who don't belong there, great.
Names please ...

[ShaqAttack3234]

It's fair to say that Dantley was not the same player in the late 80s as he was in the early 80s or even the mid 80s. Aguirre was consistent and never really fell off only his number ent down from joining a stacked team.

AD last all-star game was in 86, Aguirre was still an all-star the season he got traded for AD.

But at their peaks, AD was easily the better player.

I don't know exactly what the difference is between Utah Dantley and Detroit Dantley. I've seen much more of Pistons Dantley, I've seen several Jazz games with Dantley, but not enough to determine if there's a significant difference or not.

But I will say that I wouldn't go by all-star games, Those are often based on numbers, and his numbers declined instantly in the trade to Detroit simply because he was now on a contender.

1986 with Utah- 29.8 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 3.5 apg, 3 TO, 56.3 FG%, 36.1 mpg
1987 with Detroit- 21.5 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 2 apg, 2.2 TO, 53.4 FG%, 33.8 mpg

How much do you think changed in that one year from age 29 to 30? Isn't it just as likely that he didn't make the all-star team because his numbers and minutes dropped, which was because he joined a title contender as opposed to a mediocre team where the offense revolved around him?


I'd suggest the fact that Dantley left the team on a 6 game winning streak means there's reason to think that there were factors other than the Aguirre-Dantley trade for Detroit's 2nd half boost in form.

In Dantley's 2 1/2 seasons with Detroit, they had 6 other winning streaks of at least 6 games, but never had a stretch like the one they had with Aguirre, they 4 separate ones in '88 alone including a 10 game winning streak, yet finished with 54 wins, and they started the season 8-0 in '89, but weren't even on pace for 60 wins with Dantley in the lineup.

So a 6 game winning streak is a long way away from Detroit going 30-6 with Aguirre, or 28-4 with Aguirre starting.


The disparity between Dantley and Aguirre in shooting percentages (fg%, ts% whatever) is enough for significant separation between the two (even if we assume Dantley was more of a ball stopper) which is why Dantley is a HOFer and Aguirre isn't.

I'm not saying that we should ignore statistics altogether, but I don't agree with a conclusion being formed solely because of them. Particularly when comparing 2 players with very good numbers, one player happened to put up better numbers with less team success. Numbers can be deceptive, and from what I know about Dantley, I would say that his shooting efficiency numbers are deceptive because of his reputation for holding the ball, which is part of how I judge how efficient a player is when I watch him.

I'm not saying anyone should come to a conclusion that Aguirre helped his teams more either based on how the Pistons and Mavs fared before the trade, but I don't think it can be ignored either when two players who play the same position are traded straight up for each other and each team is a lot better with Aguirre.

[Owl]

In Dantley's 2 1/2 seasons with Detroit, they had 6 other winning streaks of at least 6 games, but never had a stretch like the one they had with Aguirre, they 4 separate ones in '88 alone including a 10 game winning streak, yet finished with 54 wins, and they started the season 8-0 in '89, but weren't even on pace for 60 wins with Dantley in the lineup.

So a 6 game winning streak is a long way away from Detroit going 30-6 with Aguirre, or 28-4 with Aguirre starting. The argument isn't that a 6 game win streak is vital it is that an 6 game streak (unended, because he was traded, could have been much longer) suggests that the Pistons were coming together in any case. My contention is that correlation is not the same as causation and that Aguirre's arrival is not necessarily the cause of some great improvement. Even if one found Dantley's departure to be beneficial which hasn't been proven it could be argued that it was for reasons that had nothing to do with Dantley including the emergence of Dennis Rodman, or Isiah trying harder, playing better, feeling happier when he's the top scorer (not saying this is the case just that there are many potential causes to the Pistons' "improvement").




I'm not saying that we should ignore statistics altogether, but I don't agree with a conclusion being formed solely because of them. Particularly when comparing 2 players with very good numbers, one player happened to put up better numbers with less team success. Numbers can be deceptive, and from what I know about Dantley, I would say that his shooting efficiency numbers are deceptive because of his reputation for holding the ball, which is part of how I judge how efficient a player is when I watch him.

I'm not saying anyone should come to a conclusion that Aguirre helped his teams more either based on how the Pistons and Mavs fared before the trade, but I don't think it can be ignored either when two players who play the same position are traded straight up for each other and each team is a lot better with Aguirre.
I wouldn't judge everything on numbers either but they don't lie (though they do need context). I'm not sure why Dantley is percieved to have had less team success in any case. His arrival in Detroit moved a team from being a first round out to Atlanta with an SRS close to average (+1.44), to an conference and then NBA finalist with SRS ratings of 3.52 and 5.46.

Traded "straight up" again ignores the age issue which is why Detroit had to send a pick with Dantley even though Aguirre was unsettled in Dallas. I assume your meaning is to say no other players changed hands to affect things. Still I think the age thing bears repeating because I don't think a fair comparison of their careers should expect Dantley to do at 32 what Aguirre is doing at 29.
I believe Dantley held the ball a little more and moved it on a little less but not nearly enough to compensate for bigger than 7.5% difference in true shooting percentage.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The argument isn't that a 6 game win streak is vital it is that an 6 game streak (unended, because he was traded, could have been much longer) suggests that the Pistons were coming together in any case. My contention is that correlation is not the same as causation and that Aguirre's arrival is not necessarily the cause of some great improvement. Even if one found Dantley's departure to be beneficial which hasn't been proven it could be argued that it was for reasons that had nothing to do with Dantley including the emergence of Dennis Rodman, or Isiah trying harder, playing better, feeling happier when he's the top scorer (not saying this is the case just that there are many potential causes to the Pistons' "improvement").

To me, there was nothing to suggest the Pistons were headed towards the type of second half they had, I wouldn't argue with anyone who still thinks they would've won the '89 title with Dantley, you could argue they should have won the '88 title, but there's one clear difference to me between the first half Pistons and second half. The Pistons with Aguirre went from being a title contender to among the greatest single season teams of all time in '89.

You can draw your own conclusions, you can't prove anything in these type of debates, it's all subjective.


I wouldn't judge everything on numbers either but they don't lie (though they do need context). I'm not sure why Dantley is percieved to have had less team success in any case. His arrival in Detroit moved a team from being a first round out to Atlanta with an SRS close to average (+1.44), to an conference and then NBA finalist with SRS ratings of 3.52 and 5.46.

Well, yeah, he was an upgrade over Kelly Tripucka, Dumars improved as well, they also added young players to their frontcourt like Salley and Rodman, both were rookies so the impact of each may have been minimal, but I'm sure it was a factor in their greatly improved defense.

In fact, the biggest difference between the '86 Pistons and '87 Pistons was defense. They went from the 7th best offensive team and the 15th best defensive team in '86 to the 9th best offensive team and 5th best defensive team in '87.

And few would attribute a greatly improved defense to Dantley who was never known for his defense. The '87 Pistons were starting to play more like the bad boys, while they had been more of an offensive-minded team that could even be called run and gun prior to '87. The area where you'd expect the Pistons to improve with Dantley, they declined.


Traded "straight up" again ignores the age issue which is why Detroit had to send a pick with Dantley even though Aguirre was unsettled in Dallas. I assume your meaning is to say no other players changed hands to affect things. Still I think the age thing bears repeating because I don't think a fair comparison of their careers should expect Dantley to do at 32 what Aguirre is doing at 29.
I believe Dantley held the ball a little more and moved it on a little less but not nearly enough to compensate for bigger than 7.5% difference in true shooting percentage.

Yeah, I can't ignore their ages, most players are declining by 32 and a year or 2 removed from their primes, though Dantley was never a guy whose game was based on athleticism at all. His numbers didn't change all that much from the start of his career until the end either, he was scoring a little less by his final year, but some of Detroit's younger players were improving as well and they certainly had gotten more talented overall from Dantley's first year there.

[Owl]

Well, yeah, he was an upgrade over Kelly Tripucka, Dumars improved as well, they also added young players to their frontcourt like Salley and Rodman, both were rookies so the impact of each may have been minimal, but I'm sure it was a factor in their greatly improved defense.

In fact, the biggest difference between the '86 Pistons and '87 Pistons was defense. They went from the 7th best offensive team and the 15th best defensive team in '86 to the 9th best offensive team and 5th best defensive team in '87.

And few would attribute a greatly improved defense to Dantley who was never known for his defense. The '87 Pistons were starting to play more like the bad boys, while they had been more of an offensive-minded team that could even be called run and gun prior to '87. The area where you'd expect the Pistons to improve with Dantley, they declined.
I'd argue the defensive improvement came because as you noted the pace was significantly slowed down. Dantley gave them a halfcourt option, which allowed them to more or less retain their offensive efficiency (despite Thomas having fall offs, which would be small in isolation but cumulatively are quite significant, in all offensive areas except turnovers which went up .5 per game), whilst the slowdown helped their D.

In any case I don't love arguing the relative importance of different players based on team performance (and changes therein), largely because there are so many different possible causes and intertwining factors for different outcomes. I know I know wins are the ultimate measuring stick for teams but using as anything more than a supporting point for evaluating players (especially ranking players, outside the context of their teams) requires a degree of confidence in what caused what that cannot often be justified.

P.S. Last para isn't aimed at anyone, just me saying why I sometimes don't like/enjoy this specific aspect of debating players merits.

[bizil]

Aguirre played in the greatest era of SF's ever. Looking back u had Bird, Doc, Nique, King, Marques Johnson, English, Worthy Dantley, Mark, Kiki, etc. Most of those guys other than Bird or Marques weren't regarded as great all around players. But all of those guys could dominate a game scoring the rock. No other position in the L offered as much scoring firepower.

What made Aguirre standout is the fact that he along with Bird had the most complete scoring skillsets of the bunch. They had the most consistent three point range of the bunch. Both were great midrange shooters and postup guys. And they used their tremendous scoring skillsets to setup their slashing game. I think Aguirre was a better slasher than Bird though. I think Pierce's scoring skillset is very similar to Aguirre's. The only difference in Pierce is more athletic and has a better all around game.

Mark isn't in the HOF simply due to not having enough accolades. He played in the deepest era of SF's ever. All Star game wise, voting makes no distinction between SF and PF. All NBA teams make no distinction between the positions either. I think the top three SF's of that golden era (once Doc slowed down ) were Bird, Nique, and King. After that, u could make a case on who ranked where. Mark did get two rings playing a lesser role by choice on Detroit though. If u are a student of the game, u know Aguirre's greatness. But he just wasn't HOF material. Because it takes accolades and shit like that. But in terms of peak value and the numbers he accumulated, he played like a HOF caliber SF.

[unknowns8]

Similar to the Bogues video I posted earlier today, I stumbled across some Mark Aguirre college clips and figured they'd be worth sharing in this thread (less than a minute's worth, but interesting to see rare young clips): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPkN-YO4dlo&feature=youtu.be

I tended to only recall the more grounded form of Aguirre when he was in Detroit.


dope clip... what was the tune you dropped in ya video, it's really familiar to me but can't recall it atm:hammerhead:

[Xiao Yao You]

Dantley had the nice set shot, but because of how he shot it, he needed to be more wide open than Aguirre

And he was left wide open because if you guarded him he'd blow by you looking for an and 1.


Dantley's team success was nothing special. Utah was just 24-58 in Dantley's first season. I'll give him a pass for that because that was a bad team without a stable lineup, and their record sucks without Dantley in 12 of his 14 missed games I can account for(2-10).

That team was probably as bad a team as you could find outside AD.


They traded him to make room for Karl Malone to develop, and Utah did their improve their record by 2 games after trading him.

They traded him because they chose their shitty coach Frank Layden over Dantley who was blackballed by the organization until recently.


Despite Aguirre playing on a team with a lot of talent such as Rolando Blackman, Derek Harper, Sam Perkins, Roy Tarpley and a young Detlef Schrempf, taking the '88 Mavs to a game 7 vs a loaded Laker team led by Magic in the second year of his prime and an excellent cast is more than Dantley ever did.

The Mavs were loaded and a lot better coached.


AD last all-star game was in 86, Aguirre was still an all-star the season he got traded for AD.

That was because of a much reduced role once he went to Detroit. He was still at the top of his game when he got traded there. They got him because they were a perimeter team. He was their post up guy not the inside/outside force he'd been inUtah.


Dantley does have the college success that the others don't

Also played for a legend in high school at Dematha and was the leading scorer for the gold medal winning USA team in '76.


The area where you'd expect the Pistons to improve with Dantley, they declined.

He was expected to improve their inside game and that's what he did.


What made Aguirre standout is the fact that he along with Bird had the most complete scoring skillsets of the bunch. They had the most consistent three point range of the bunch.

The 3 wasn't a big part of the game than though.


I think the top three SF's of that golden era (once Doc slowed down ) were Bird, Nique, and King.

It was Bird and everyone else. Dominique was next based on hype and Bernard because he did it in NY but you could certainly make an argument for others there.

[Rake2204]

dope clip... what was the tune you dropped in ya video, it's really familiar to me but can't recall it atm:hammerhead:
It is actually called "Unlimited" by Rjd2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5l_0qEwK28

[bizil]

And he was left wide open because if you guarded him he'd blow by you looking for an and 1.



That team was probably as bad a team as you could find outside AD.



They traded him because they chose their shitty coach Frank Layden over Dantley who was blackballed by the organization until recently.



The Mavs were loaded and a lot better coached.



That was because of a much reduced role once he went to Detroit. He was still at the top of his game when he got traded there. They got him because they were a perimeter team. He was their post up guy not the inside/outside force he'd been inUtah.



Also played for a legend in high school at Dematha and was the leading scorer for the gold medal winning USA team in '76.



He was expected to improve their inside game and that's what he did.



The 3 wasn't a big part of the game than though.



It was Bird and everyone else. Dominique was next based on hype and Bernard because he did it in NY but you could certainly make an argument for others there.

It doesn't matter if the three ball wasn't a big part of the game. That is no excuse. U can't take that away from Aguirre or Bird that they were ahead of the curve. The only other guy of the golden era SF pre Mullin and Pippen that eventually used the three as a nice tool was actually Nique. English, Dantley, Bernard, and the others didn't really use it at all. But they didn't need to either and I'm not knocking them. But I stand by my statement, Bird and Aguirre had the most complete scoring skillset of the golden era SF's.

It was indeed Bird and everybody else to a degree. But u gotta realize, King and Nique were both All NBA first team guys. Both were scoring champs. Both finished 2nd in the MVP race behind Bird at one time or another. Dantley, English, Kiki, Worthy, Aguirre, Marques, etc. didn't get to that level. And if it called for getting 50 or 60 points in a game, Bird, Nique, and King were on another level than the rest.

Bird's size and shooting touch made him unique. King's combo of midrange game, post game, and baseline explosiveness as a package made him unique. And Nique took the mantle from Dr. J as the premier freak athlete alpha dog in the L. That made Nique special. All of the those golden age 80's SF's all were great alpha dog type guys. But Bird, Nique, and King had certain elements that the others couldn't top.

Bird himself said himself, King, MJ, and Nique were the best scorers in the L. He said other guys were great, but that himself and the other three were more ruthless than even the other great scorers. Getting 40 points is a great game. Getting around 50 and up is an epic game. U saw Nique dropping 47 in a playoff game on Boston in a game 7 for example. It seemed Bird, Nique, King, and MJ had a certain presence that set them apart for other scorers. It was similar to how Gervin, Dr. J, and Thompson were in the previous era. Or how Barry was.

[L.Kizzle]

One thing I wanna know is, if Aguirre was better or at least on the level of a King, Dantley, Marques Johnson or English why wasn't he making the All-NBA teams with those guys?

From 1980 to 1986, at least one of those four made an All-NBA Team either first or second. Mark never made an All-Nba team. Even the season he dropped over 29 a game. He also only has 3 All-Star games compared to those guys who have more. Some would even argue than Rolando was better than him as a Maverick as he made four All-Star appearances.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

From 1980 to 1986, at least one of those four made an All-NBA Team either first or second. Mark never made an All-Nba team. Even the season he dropped over 29 a game. He also only has 3 All-Star games compared to those guys who have more. Some would even argue than Rolando was better than him as a Maverick as he made four All-Star appearances.

Partly because it is the same reason why left Dallas and why hr Dallas will never hang his number in the rafters. He rarely made players around him better, and he was all about himself.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'd argue the defensive improvement came because as you noted the pace was significantly slowed down. Dantley gave them a halfcourt option, which allowed them to more or less retain their offensive efficiency (despite Thomas having fall offs, which would be small in isolation but cumulatively are quite significant, in all offensive areas except turnovers which went up .5 per game), whilst the slowdown helped their D.

Possible, but I don't think it accounts for them going all the way from poor to elite and their defensive improvement continued with Aguirre until peaking in the 1990 season, at least statistically when they were tied with Houston for best defensive rating, 1st in opponents FG% and 1st in opponents ppg(don't really like this stat).


And he was left wide open because if you guarded him he'd blow by you looking for an and 1.

He did have some nasty fakes, but that's separate from what I was talking about which was simply who the better shooter was.


That team was probably as bad a team as you could find outside AD.

Which is a valid excuse for Dantley's teams finishing with such horrible records, but there's no team success to credit him with during those years when they were failing to win 30 games, either.

I would expect a bigger decline in '85 in the games without Dantley, their winning % was about the same with or without him.


The Mavs were loaded and a lot better coached.

I never denied that, but it's still some legitimate team success, they took the Lakers to 7, and they were certainly loaded and well coached. That was the same year Detroit lost to LA in 7, and they were also loaded and well coached.


One thing I wanna know is, if Aguirre was better or at least on the level of a King, Dantley, Marques Johnson or English why wasn't he making the All-NBA teams with those guys?

From 1980 to 1986, at least one of those four made an All-NBA Team either first or second. Mark never made an All-Nba team. Even the season he dropped over 29 a game. He also only has 3 All-Star games compared to those guys who have more. Some would even argue than Rolando was better than him as a Maverick as he made four All-Star appearances.

Aguirre wasn't as good as prime/peak Bernard King, that I feel confident saying. I'm just not sure Dantley did anything to deserve to be ranked over him.

As far as all-nba teams? They're not definitive, and numbers play a role. Dantley made only 2 all-nba second teams. But he did have better numbers than Aguirre, not dramatically better than Aguirre's peak season statistically, but consistently better, even if they were put up on consistently worse teams. English's teams without looking them up had a similar amount of team success, maybe more on a year to year basis(though none were as good as the '88 Mavs), He had 3 all-nba second teams, but as I said, numbers play a role, and his numbers were inflated due to Denver's style of play.

When I've watched English, I haven't seen anything to conclude he should be ranked over Aguirre. I've seen games where I barely notice him and he ends up scoring his average of 25-30.

[senelcoolidge]

Is this a joke? He was a really good player but not hall of fame caliber.

There have been many guys like this. Good players, but not Hall of Famers. Looks at Chris Webber, McGrady, and Vince Carter. All had really good careers but are not Hall of Famer's, or shouldn't be.

[Xiao Yao You]

It doesn't matter if the three ball wasn't a big part of the game. That is no excuse. U can't take that away from Aguirre or Bird that they were ahead of the curve.

Can't take it away from them but it's also not that big of an argument to their greatness especially for Aguirre. Bird held the record for 3's in a season before Griffith broke it in consecutive seasons.


The only other guy of the golden era SF pre Mullin and Pippen that eventually used the three as a nice tool was actually Nique. English, Dantley, Bernard, and the others didn't really use it at all. But they didn't need to either and I'm not knocking them.

They grew up with no 3 ball so it's not surprising they didn't change their games.


King and Nique were both All NBA first team guys.

Sure and Dominique was there because of the highlights not because he was actually anything other than a high scoring small forward like the others. King had a great season in NY which certainly helped him. If he did it in Denver or Utah he probably doesn't get recognized as much.


Both were scoring champs. Both finished 2nd in the MVP race behind Bird at one time or another. Dantley, English, Kiki, Worthy, Aguirre, Marques, etc. didn't get to that level. And if it called for getting 50 or 60 points in a game, Bird, Nique, and King were on another level than the rest.

Dantley and English won scoring titles. Dantley more than once. He scored 57 I believe in a game. Arguably the greatest low post scorer per inch ever. One of the best ever at getting to the foul line. He was one of 4 guys to make 800 FT's in a season. Not sure if anyone else joined that list. Once of the most efficient scorers ever. Bird didn't put up the scoring numbers of the others either.


Bird's size and shooting touch made him unique.

Why is Bird in this conversation? You talk Bird you talk Magic and Lebron not high scoring small forwards.


And Nique took the mantle from Dr. J as the premier freak athlete alpha dog in the L. That made Nique special.

Flash doesn't make him better. 2 points is 2 points. Dr. J was a well rounded player. Dominique was never anywhere near him.


It seemed Bird, Nique, King, and MJ had a certain presence that set them apart for other scorers.

Again MJ and everyone else you want to talk scoring. Scoring wasn't what made Bird great.

[bizil]

Can't take it away from them but it's also not that big of an argument to their greatness especially for Aguirre. Bird held the record for 3's in a season before Griffith broke it in consecutive seasons.



They grew up with no 3 ball so it's not surprising they didn't change their games.



Sure and Dominique was there because of the highlights not because he was actually anything other than a high scoring small forward like the others. King had a great season in NY which certainly helped him. If he did it in Denver or Utah he probably doesn't get recognized as much.



Dantley and English won scoring titles. Dantley more than once. He scored 57 I believe in a game. Arguably the greatest low post scorer per inch ever. One of the best ever at getting to the foul line. He was one of 4 guys to make 800 FT's in a season. Not sure if anyone else joined that list. Once of the most efficient scorers ever. Bird didn't put up the scoring numbers of the others either.



Why is Bird in this conversation? You talk Bird you talk Magic and Lebron not high scoring small forwards.



Flash doesn't make him better. 2 points is 2 points. Dr. J was a well rounded player. Dominique was never anywhere near him.



Again MJ and everyone else you want to talk scoring. Scoring wasn't what made Bird great.

Sure Dantley and English won scoring titles, I know this! But King and Nique finished 2nd in MVP voting, something the other two NEVER did! King and Nique have made the All NBA first team, something the other two NEVER did! I'm just pointing out the fact the best often times have the accolades to back up their standing. During a nice amount of that golden era, Bird, Nique, and King were the most accomplished in terms of solo accolades combined with their scoring exploits!

I'm no fool! I know Bird is amongst the most well rounded players ever. I know he's known for much more than scoring. But scoring was a huge part of what made Bird special. Bird is known as arguably the greatest shooter of all time. He's the guy who put the three point shootout on the map. I've heard numerous NBA guys say they wanted to pass like Magic, shoot like Bird, dribble like Isiah, and jump like Mike!

When u thought of great shooters in the L during that golden era of the L, the first guy thought about was Larry Bird. Sure that doesn't mean he wasn't great at other things. But the most PREMIUM asset in bball is a true alpha dog. Bird happened to be arguably the greatest alpha dog EVER at his position. And before MJ came around, arguably the premier alpha dog EVER on the perimeter. He just happened to be an epic all around player to go with it!

[bizil]

Can't take it away from them but it's also not that big of an argument to their greatness especially for Aguirre. Bird held the record for 3's in a season before Griffith broke it in consecutive seasons.



They grew up with no 3 ball so it's not surprising they didn't change their games.



Sure and Dominique was there because of the highlights not because he was actually anything other than a high scoring small forward like the others. King had a great season in NY which certainly helped him. If he did it in Denver or Utah he probably doesn't get recognized as much.



Dantley and English won scoring titles. Dantley more than once. He scored 57 I believe in a game. Arguably the greatest low post scorer per inch ever. One of the best ever at getting to the foul line. He was one of 4 guys to make 800 FT's in a season. Not sure if anyone else joined that list. Once of the most efficient scorers ever. Bird didn't put up the scoring numbers of the others either.



Why is Bird in this conversation? You talk Bird you talk Magic and Lebron not high scoring small forwards.



Flash doesn't make him better. 2 points is 2 points. Dr. J was a well rounded player. Dominique was never anywhere near him.



Again MJ and everyone else you want to talk scoring. Scoring wasn't what made Bird great.

I often times wonder if u troll? When it comes to being a freak athlete alpha dog, it entails much more than flash. It means that chances are u can score in ways most guys aren't capable of even thinking about. It entails being able to put the pressure on the defense both in transition and in the halfcourt. It means u can make defenses collapse and get to the line. It means defense have to alter their defense to defend. It means u can challenge the premier shot blocker in the L, and actually have the ability to make them a poster child and get them in foul trouble.

That freak athlete alpha dog stuff is not just for shits and giggles. It's a facet and type of player that is very unique and special. Sure it looks great on the highlights. But guys like Baylor, Hawkins, Doc, Nique, Hill, and Lebron prove that it's an awesome weapon to have in your disposal. Guards like MJ, Kobe, T Mac, Vince, Thompson, Wade, Carter, Rose, Westbrook, and Drexler prove this out as well. So being known as a freak athlete alpha makes u a player that can do shit u can't teach. Im not saying this makes u better than a guy who's an average to good athlete. But when u have a guy like Bron, MJ or Kobe who's epic all around AND are freak athletes, it makes them quite frankly TRULY the total package in every sense!

[Xiao Yao You]

Bird happened to be arguably the greatest alpha dog EVER at his position.

He also played the 4 so he really shouldn't be in this conversation at all.


But guys like Baylor, Hawkins, Doc, Nique, Hill, and Lebron prove that it's an awesome weapon to have in your disposal. Guards like MJ, Kobe, T Mac, Vince, Thompson, Wade, Carter, Rose, Westbrook, and Drexler prove this out as well. So being known as a freak athlete alpha makes u a player that can do shit u can't teach. Im not saying this makes u better than a guy who's an average to good athlete. But when u have a guy like Bron, MJ or Kobe who's epic all around AND are freak athletes, it makes them quite frankly TRULY the total package in every sense!

Call me a troll all you want. Dominique doesn't belong with those names. He was just a high scoring small forward. He never lived up to the hype as far as I'm concerned. Athletically he should have been up with these guys but he just wasn't. His hopping around the floor never impressed me. Same as Carmelo today.

[magnax1]

While I do think Aguirre should probably be in the HOF, it's also quite clear that Dantley was better then him. The whole comparing teams record things never works because it's nearly impossible to put into context. Just think how many times that year when Billups was traded to the Nuggets you heard about how much of an improvement he caused, when in reality he was a downgrade that got lucky that a couple of guys had their best years up to that point.
While Aguirre probably wasn't a downgrade, Dantley just got unlucky that when he was traded to the Mavs, Tarpley, who seemed to me the best player on the Mavs during their conference finals run (from the little I saw) was injured when he got there. That's actually probably what caused the difference between Dantley and Aguirre's records that year.
As for the Jazz playing just as well in 84 as 85 when Dantley was out half the year, it is true. However, Bailey came into his own in 85, Stockton was one of the best backups in the league and their defense improved from 12 to 1st in the league. However, despite all their improvement as a team, their offense fell from 9th to 21st (2nd to last) in the league in 85.

[Xiao Yao You]

Stockton was one of the best backups in the league

He was one of the best players in the league unfortunately the Jazz weren't smart enough to trade Rickey Green when he was worth something instead losing him in the expansion draft, and let John loose on the league.

[bizil]

He also played the 4 so he really shouldn't be in this conversation at all.



Call me a troll all you want. Dominique doesn't belong with those names. He was just a high scoring small forward. He never lived up to the hype as far as I'm concerned. Athletically he should have been up with these guys but he just wasn't. His hopping around the floor never impressed me. Same as Carmelo today.

This is why I think Nique is arguably the most disrespected all time great of all time. For one, the most PREMIUM asset in the sport is being a alpha dog scoring threat. It manifests itself in different ways. U have great all around perimeter players like MJ, Bird, Kobe, T Mac, Hondo, Barry, Bron, Wade, West, Drexler, etc who are also alpha dogs. U have PG's like Magic, Isiah, Big O, Frazier, Payton, Paul, DWill, Nash, etc. who can turn into tremendous alpha dogs if that what the team needs.

But then u have guys like Doc, Nique, Baylor, English, Gervin, Aguirre, Vince, etc. that are true alpha dogs as well. They may not be the all around threat the other guys are, but AT THE MOST PREMIUM ASSET IN THE SPORT, they are right there with the best. So if u are great at the most PREMIUM ASSET, it can supercede many things.

When it comes to Nique, he was an epic alpha dog and very good to great rebounder for a SF. I bet u can't name 10 SF's EVER who have averaged at least 25 points and 9 boards in a season. Guess what, Nique has done that. So if anything, u have a SF who was a great scorer AND great rebounder. Nique wasn't a one dimensional player at all. Just because he wasn't as great all around as Bird DOESN'T mean he sucked all around.

[bizil]

He also played the 4 so he really shouldn't be in this conversation at all.



Call me a troll all you want. Dominique doesn't belong with those names. He was just a high scoring small forward. He never lived up to the hype as far as I'm concerned. Athletically he should have been up with these guys but he just wasn't. His hopping around the floor never impressed me. Same as Carmelo today.

Bird goes down in history as a SF. When u are running with McHale and Parish, Bird was the 3 man. Sure Bird played a lot of 4. But MJ played plenty of SF and some PG as well. U have primary positions and secondary positions. Bird's secondary spot was PF. I would rather have LB at SF where he can use his size advantage, have more room to use his epic passing, and have the three ball at his disposal. Bird to me was more of a SF than a PF to begin with anyway. He just happened to be 6'9 and 230 pounds, which happened to be the size of many PF's during that era.

[KevinNYC]

If Bird played the 4 what did McHale play?

Also it's not clear that Detroit wins the titles it won with Aguirre with Dantley.

When they traded Dantley he was their leading scorer. However, Detroit got better offensively AFTER they traded Dantley even though Aguirre's scoring went down and his numbers lower than Dantley's. They were scoring something like 5 points a game after they traded Dantley. That's because Dantley killed ball movement. He dribbled and dribbled and dribbled and when he did pass it was usually way late in the shot clock. Also the way he played did help the spacing for the guards. Another reason they won two titles after they traded him was the trade freed up minutes for Dennis Rodman.

[bizil]

If Bird played the 4 what did McHale play?

Also it's not clear that Detroit wins the titles it won with Aguirre with Dantley.

When they traded Dantley he was their leading scorer. However, Detroit got better offensively AFTER they traded Dantley even though Aguirre's scoring went down and his numbers lower than Dantley's. They were scoring something like 5 points a game after they traded Dantley. That's because Dantley killed ball movement. He dribbled and dribbled and dribbled and when he did pass it was usually way late in the shot clock. Also the way he played did help the spacing for the guards. Another reason they won two titles after they traded him was the trade freed up minutes for Dennis Rodman.

Great points! I also think Aguirre could score in more ways than Dantley. Mark had more range, was a better slasher, and was still a beast on the block like Dantley was. Mark was also a better passer than Dantley too. And as u stated, AD was the ultimate ball stopper, even though he was still a great player. Aguirre in my book was the final piece to get those rings. Im not saying they couldn't have gotten it done with AD. But when u have a comparable scorer in Mark who had a more complete offensive skillset AND a better all around game, plus was best friends with your HOF PG, it was a natural fit and a great trade.

[Xiao Yao You]

Just because he wasn't as great all around as Bird DOESN'T mean he sucked all around.

He didn't suck but he wasn't in a class above the others despite the hype to the contrary.


If Bird played the 4 what did McHale play?

Initially he was the 6th man and Bird started at the 4 and later when Mchale would go to the bench Bird would play 4 next to Parish. Bird was a forward. McHale was a post player. Not sure why everyone gets so hung up on positions. You can play or you can't. Bird could play!


Mark had more range, was a better slasher, and was still a beast on the block like Dantley was. Mark was also a better passer than Dantley too.

He had more range but again at that time that wasn't a huge factor. To say he was a better slasher when AD was so adept at drawing fouls is highly arguable too and AD got plenty of assists as well so he could pass.