Adrian Dantley's 5 year run of 30.0 PPG (1980 - 1984)....

[QUOTE=hateraid]Dantley was a black hole. The reason the Pistons did better was because they traded him away for a more diverse Aguire. [/QUOTE]

I don't think that's really true, though. The Pistons were a bad call away from winning the finals with Dantley as their leading scorer. The Celtics and Lakers were on the decline after Dantley was traded, and the Bulls weren't championship material yet.

The reason Dantley was traded was because of the feud with Isiah, not because he was holding back the Pistons.

Another way to look at it is that the Pistons were on the verge of winning championships with Dantley, but they hadn't quite got past both the Celtics and Lakers. No reason to think they wouldn't have won with Dantley if there hadn't been personal issues between him and Isiah.

The Pistons were doing really well with Dantley, but did even better with Aguirre. Obviously the Pistons were very close to winning the title in 1988.

Aguirre was a better fit, or at the very least, the Pistons did better with him once they got him in 1989.

When they traded him, they were 32-13. They went 31-6 the rest of the regular season.

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/1989_games.html[/url]

[QUOTE=hateraid]Dantley was a black hole. [B]The reason the Pistons did better was because they traded him away for a more diverse Aguire.[/B]
He was great in the post and was hard to block. He was a sneaky scorer. But he played more like an undersized power forward. Kind of like a mini Kevin McHale. But once the ball went in it never went back out. I wouldn't say he was underrated, but at the same time not overrated.[/QUOTE]

Dantley/Aguire had [I]nothing[/I] to do with why they lost in '88 and won in '89.

The '88 team was a better team. They lost because Isiah got injured in game 6 and didn't play game 7. In '89, the Pistons were healthy and LA was without Kareem (retirement) and ravaged by injuries.








.

[QUOTE=jayfan]Dantley/Aguire had [I]nothing[/I] to do with why they lost in '88 and won in '89.

The '88 team was a better team. They lost because Isiah got injured in game 6 and didn't play game 7. In '89, the Pistons were healthy and LA was without Kareem (retirement) and ravaged by injuries.
.[/QUOTE]

How was the 88' team better? The 89' Pistons were dominant, winning 63 games (compared to 54 for the year before), and also had less problems getting to the Finals. The 89' Pistons only lost 2 games in the whole postseason (thanks to Jordan playing out of his mind), while the 88' Pistons were taken the full 5 games in the first round against the Bullets.

Isiah played in game 7, but was compromised by his injury and played like 30 minutes. He put on one of his greatest performances ever in game 6 when he got hurt in the 3rd quarter.

Kareem played in 89', his last game was losing to the Pistons in game 4. He really declined in his last season, his poor performance was the subject of a cover story by Sports Illustrated. Actually his last 2 seasons there was a pretty big drop. He did put on one last great performance in game 3 of the 89' Finals.

The Lakers really were done for when Magic got hurt in game 2. The Lakers went 11-0 in the Western Conference to reach the finals. It would have been a much better series, although I have a tough time seeing the Lakers beating that Pistons team even with a healthy Magic.

Riley overworked the team and had them basically do a sort of mini-camp in Santa Monica to prepare for the Finals, rather than rest.

Pistons peaked in '89, but should have won in '88 too. They got screwed.

[QUOTE=Collie]I actually think he was incredibly unique as a SF. He was like 6'4 tops and unathletic, but scored most of his points from the low post or high post around the foul line. Had a wide variety of unorthodox and sneaky moves that kept his defenders off balance. Couldn't jump much but didn't need to since he nearly never missed when he was close to the basket. Like Harden, he knew every trick in the book to draw fouls.

Nobody I can think of who played like him since.[/QUOTE]

Dantley was unique in those regards NO DOUBT!! But Nique could overwhlem u with great scoring skill AND freakish athletic ability. Bird and Worthy could overwhelm u with great scoring skill AND great size for SF's. King had great scoring skill AND great explosiveness. So when it comes to defending them, I think it was more of a chess match than it was with Dantley. Those guys didn't seem as predictable as Dantley. Those are the reasons why I consider them more unique than Dantley. EVEN THOUGH Dantley was very unique himself.

Yes, Dantley was somewhat of a black hole but if you look at the pure aspect of just scoring, few in the history of the game did it as well as he did. For proper context, these are the only players in history to average 30.0 or more over a 5 year run.

[B]Wilt - 41.7
MJ - 33.9
Baylor - 31.9
Barry - 31.8
KAJ - 30.8
Robertson - 30.3
Dantley - 30.0
[/B]

No one talks about Dantley when people talk about the best scorers ever but he PROVED that he was. Even stretching out to a 7 year stretch, he averaged 29.6, which is ridiculous. He just doesn't get the same credit as other GOAT level scorers. Few people today even know who he is.

cuz he aint no bernard king

[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]Yes, Dantley was somewhat of a black hole but if you look at the pure aspect of just scoring, few in the history of the game did it as well as he did. For proper context, these are the only players in history to average 30.0 or more over a 5 year run.

[B]Wilt - 41.7
MJ - 33.9
Baylor - 31.9
Barry - 31.8
KAJ - 30.8
Robertson - 30.3
Dantley - 30.0
[/B]

No one talks about Dantley when people talk about the best scorers ever but he PROVED that he was. Even stretching out to a 7 year stretch, he averaged 29.6, which is ridiculous. He just doesn't get the same credit as other GOAT level scorers. Few people today even know who he is.[/QUOTE]

No doubt Dantley was a beast! Great scorer and true alpha dog. But the other guys u listed are among the top 15-20 players of all time. Plus ALL of them were great all around players. And ALL OF THEM won titles except for Baylor. But in the case of Baylor he TOTALLY revolutionized the sport.

Another factor is AD playing in the Golden Era of SF's. And for many of those years playing in Utah. That Golden Era of SF's was CRAZY DEEP! U even had PF's like Tom Chambers who would swing often to SF.

I think AD joining the Pistons SHOULD have been the time to really stamp his career with some rings. He would have been on a bigger stage as the 1st or 2nd leading scorer on the Bad Boys. AD could score as good as any SF to EVER PLAY!! So even though AD's style of scoring catches heat, there are other factors that stopped him from reached greater levels of notoriety. Plus guys like Bird, Nique, Doc, and King were VERY ENJOYABLE to watch when it came to casual fans. AD's game or personality wasn't built for casual fans to enjoy.