Printable View
...is one of the most underrated achievements in NBA history. When people talk about greatest scorers ever, how many names are mentioned before we even get to this guy?
Also, during this run, he put up:
[B]57% FG, only 19.1 FGA, 6.4 RPG, 24.4 PER, 64% TS[/B]
And also led the league in these categories during the run:
[B]2x Scoring champ
4x OBPM
1x WS
3x OWS
1x PER[/B]
One of the craftiest scorers in NBA history and probably the most underrated SF's of the 80's in a position that was LOADED at that time.
Had the Pistons won the title in 88' like they should have he most likely stays in Detroit a few more years and gets one or two more rings along with a couple of Finals MVP. Funny how one bad call in game 6 if the Finals altered his career so much
From an old thread entitled, "The most unlucky player of all time."
[QUOTE=jlip]Adrian Dantley:
Plays for the Lakers with Kareem and is unable to win a title. The Lakers draft Magic in '79. Dantley is traded from the Lakers to the Jazz that summer. The Lakers proceed to win the title that season. After a few years of dominant individual scoring but nothing more than average teams in Utah he's traded to the Pistons. In '88 the Pistons come within a few plays of winning the championship with Dantley being a potential candidate for Finals MVP, but they lose to the Lakers. He's traded to the Mavs midway through the '89 season. The Pistons win the '89 title.[/QUOTE]
Dantley was a black hole. The reason the Pistons did better was because they traded him away for a more diverse Aguire.
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.
I think he has became underrated.
He has had his flaws, he was a black hole, he took along portion of the shotclock to get his shot off, he was considered to be an asshole of a teammate. Defensive reputation was poor. His huge volume scoring never formulated into a great team offense.
However the teams he was on were not great when he was in his volume scoring prime and you still have to respect his offensive game even if it was one dimensional. He could score the hell out of the ball and do it when everyone knew he was going to and still do it extremely efficiently. He was a great player.
NBA.com @NBAcom 2 hours ago
[I]On this date in 1980, @spurs' George Gervin wins his third straight scoring title[/I]
In length profile inside the link.
[url]http://www.nba.com/history/legends/george-gervin/index.html?cid=nbacomsocial_tw_sf23393044[/url]
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ce0SQtvWsAAKGFo.jpg[/IMG]
I have him around 70-80 goat but i can't put him top 50 or even top 60 .
Great scorer , efficient shooter but more ? Can you put him over Gervin or even Moncrief ?
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]...is one of the most underrated achievements in NBA history. When people talk about greatest scorers ever, how many names are mentioned before we even get to this guy?
Also, during this run, he put up:
[B]57% FG, only 19.1 FGA, 6.4 RPG, 24.4 PER, 64% TS[/B]
And also led the league in these categories during the run:
[B]2x Scoring champ
4x OBPM
1x WS
3x OWS
1x PER[/B][/QUOTE]
Average amount of wins during this 5 season run: [B]30[/B]
As we all know, AD was a key part of the Golden Era of SF's in the 80's. Bird was EASILY the best of that bunch. The main reason why is because Bird was THE ONLY ONE who combined great scoring and great all around ability into one. The other guys were great scorers on Bird's level or close. BUT their all around games weren't CLOSE to Larry Legend. AD falls in line with that. Even though I respect AD, I would also take Nique, King, and English over him.
AD was a black hole, but we can't deny his epic scoring ability. But it was the NATURE of his scoring that catches heat. If AD would have never got traded from the Pistons and won some rings, I think he would have been looked at a bit differently.
Even though Isiah was their best player, AD would have been the 1st or 2nd leading scorer on the team. But looking back, Mark Aguirre was a better fit for the Pistons. Aguirre is very underrated and he had the 2nd best scoring skillset of the 80's SF's after Bird.
[QUOTE=bizil]As we all know, AD was a key part of the Golden Era of SF's in the 80's. Bird was EASILY the best of that bunch. The main reason why is because Bird was THE ONLY ONE who combined great scoring and great all around ability into one. The other guys were great scorers on Bird's level or close. BUT their all around games weren't CLOSE to Larry Legend. AD falls in line with that. Even though I respect AD, I would also take Nique, King, and English over him.
AD was a black hole, but we can't deny his epic scoring ability. But it was the NATURE of his scoring that catches heat. If AD would have never got traded from the Pistons and won some rings, I think he would have been looked at a bit differently.
Even though Isiah was their best player, AD would have been the 1st or 2nd leading scorer on the team. But looking back, Mark Aguirre was a better fit for the Pistons. Aguirre is very underrated and he had the 2nd best scoring skillset of the 80's SF's after Bird.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
The thing with AD though... I don't think you can build a championship team with him as your best player.
Like you said, he's a black hole and he plays no defense. He doesn't make his teammates better.... And has no leadership abilities.
2nd tier SFs like Nique, Gervin, Melo, Paul George, King, etc can be the best player on your team and you can compete for a chip if you have a good enough team. I have a hard time building a team with Dantley as my best player....
Its not that Dantley is underrated.... His personal stats didn't really lead to team success, and people tend to look at team success as well as personal stats.
You think Kobe's 35/5/5 season will be considered great if his team won 20 games? You think Durant's 14 season would be considered great if he didn't win 50+ wins?
Guys like Tiny put up some ridiculous stats on bad teams.... People rarely mention him.
I think AD is rated fine.... Even overrated at times.
[QUOTE=hateraid]Dantley was a black hole. The reason the Pistons did better was because they traded him away for a more diverse Aguire.
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]
So kinda like Elgin Baylor?
[QUOTE=no pun intended]So kinda like Elgin Baylor?[/QUOTE]
:biggums:
No, Elgin Baylor took the Lakers to the Finals in his rookie season.
[QUOTE=Fire Colangelo]Agreed.
The thing with AD though... I don't think you can build a championship team with him as your best player.
Like you said, he's a black hole and he plays no defense. He doesn't make his teammates better.... And has no leadership abilities.
2nd tier SFs like Nique, Gervin, Melo, Paul George, King, etc can be the best player on your team and you can compete for a chip if you have a good enough team. I have a hard time building a team with Dantley as my best player....
Its not that Dantley is underrated.... His personal stats didn't really lead to team success, and people tend to look at team success as well as personal stats.
You think Kobe's 35/5/5 season will be considered great if his team won 20 games? You think Durant's 14 season would be considered great if he didn't win 50+ wins?
Guys like Tiny put up some ridiculous stats on bad teams.... People rarely mention him.
I think AD is rated fine.... Even overrated at times.[/QUOTE]
I agree! Dantley is rated just fine. He's in the HOF and students of the game know he was a prolific scorer. As u stated, I don't think he could be your best player on a title team. If the Pistons had Nique, King, or English on the Pistons as the 2nd best player (but clear #1 option), they may have won rings SOONER and LATER than they did. Those three were more decisive and PROMPT when scoring the rock. Dantley was TOO METHODICAL scoring the rock at times. It gives the defense time to set up.
And Dantley wasn't a freak athlete like Nique. Or explosive like King. Or had the silky smooth agility of English. Or was a big SF like Bird or Worthy. So Dantley didn't have any physical or athletic advantage on his opponents that differentiated him. He was a great player. But he wasn't AS UNIQUE as his peers at the SF. Once u couple that with an average at best all around game, he had more working against him that the other great SF's of the 80's. When u list the names, it's easy to see...
He was incredibly skilled, but I think he's generally pretty fairly rated.
It's possible to average 30ppg on 64 TS% and be the worst scorer in the league; most people don't understand that.
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=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.