Najee

Alex English played on teams that won 50 games in a season twice and went to the Western Conference finals once. Adrian Dantley played on teams that won 50 games in a season twice, went in the Eastern Conference finals twice and went to Game 7 of the NBA Finals. I would say AD has the advantage here.

In other words, you have an unfounded speculation based on the fact Dantley played for several teams. That's a poor argument -- not to mention one that's refuted by comments by former Pistons teammates Joe Dumars, John Salley and Dennis Rodman, who cited AD's discipline and work ethic as examples on how to model their careers.

These are two players with two different styles of play -- English was mostly a perimeter shooter on the wing, Dantley was mostly a low-post player. The closer a player moves closer to the basket, the more likely he is going to be double-teamed. The fact you're using one player's style of play as to determine why the lesser one is in the Basketball Hall of Fame and the better player overall is not is specious.

I have never heard anyone -- not even NBA scouts -- call English "a reasonably good defender." Both English and Dantley were average defenders at best, and neither was known for being defensive stoppers. Just because English may have been the better defender between him and Kiki Vandweghe (a poor defender) doesn't mean English was good overall.

No one is discounting English's scoring, however it does bear noting that English never averaged 30 points per game in a season despite playing in a Denver offense that played at an incredibly fast pace. Dantley had three full seasons where he topped 30 points per game.

English played with Vandeweghe for only four seasons, and most of English's best scoring seasons came after Vandeweghe was traded to Portland at the end of the 1983-84 season. Issel retired after the 1984-85 season and the season prior (also 1983-84) was the last year he was close to a 20-point-per-game scorer.

AD has the highest NBA career scoring average of a hall of fame-eligible player not yet inducted (his 24.3 average is ranked 14th all-time; English is 32nd at 21.47). Dantley shot .540 from the field for his career; English only had one meaningful season where he shot better than .540 from the field. Dantley has the higher career PER (21.5 to English's 19.9).

The only reason English is in the Basketball Hall of Fame is because of scoring ... something Dantley was better at doing. So if Dantley isn't a hall of famer for doing something with a proficiency only a handful of players in NBA history exceeded, then why is English (a lesser scorer than Dantley who did nothing else exceptionally well) a hall of famer? And that's not taking into consideration AD had a much stronger collegiate career than English and Dantley helped lead the U.S. men's team to the gold medal in the 1976 Olympics.

No one is saying English is undeserving -- just that no one can make a firm argument for him being in the Basketball Hall of Fame and yet excluding Dantley, considering that Dantley was both the better collegiate and NBA player who enjoyed greater team success. It illustrates the idiocy of the voting process of the Basketball Hall of Fame, which among other things doesn't seem to have a consistent criteria for inducting players.

BadBaronRudigor

Nice post even if I don't agree with all of it. Very strong arguments; and Dantley is a strong candidate.

English's Nuggets teams were consistent playoff teams, 9 consecutive years in the playoffs including the 8 years in a row where English scored over 25 ppg (even if he never scored 30). Dantley was in the playoffs less and doesn't get as much of the credit playing alongside Kareem and Isiah (though quite possibly he should).

Fair shot at my not posting negative quotes . . . I liked Dantley and didn't care for the quoters so I shouldn't have brought it up.

I do think the argument about style is valid. Dantley's style forced a particular brand of offense that hurt some of his teammates; on the other hand, I'd rather have Dantley taking the shot than just about anyone he ever played with except maybe Kareem but still, English seemed to complement other players more effectively whereas Dantley pretty much had to be the first option; I don't think it was just Isiah's friendship with Aguirre that caused friction between the two.

And while English was not all-defense; I think pretty much any contemporary observer would say that he had a clear defensive advantage over Dantley. (Will agree that Dantley had a greater college career, just not willing to see it as that big a deal for me. . . might be for HOF)That said, Dantley's advantage in efficiency and volume scoring is also clear (even clearer in hindsight) and I would rank the two very close in terms of value . . . I agree that if English is in HOF, Dantley has to be close, I am just not willing to concede it is a gross miscarriage of justice.

(Now the fact the Easy Ed McCauley is in HOF and Artis Gilmore isn't . . . that's a gross miscarriage of justice).

__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk

Najee

The 1980s Denver Nuggets were the equivalent of today's Washington Wizards -- an offensive-minded team with several high-scoring wing players with no semblance of a post game, and thus no real threat for a championship.

The Nuggets during this nine-year period averaged a mere 45 wins per season, despite having players such as Alex English, David Thompson, Kiki Vandeweghe, Dan Issel, Calvin Natt and Fat Lever dot its rosters. In that span, the Nuggets were knocked out of the first round five times and knocked out of the second round three times.

Adrian Dantley came much closer to playing on a championship team than English ever did. In fact, AD was thisclose to winning one ring and thisclose to appearing in another NBA Finals. In fact, AD played on as many division winners (1987-88 Detroit; 1983-84 Utah) as English did (1984-85; 1986-87) and once Utah started accumulating decent talent the Jazz also went to the second round twice (1983-84; 1984-85).

I find this to be a very odd argument where you're ruling in favor of English -- it's like you forgot AD played a major role in Detroit becoming a title contender during the "Bad Boys" era and instead focused on the early 1980s Utah teams that had lesser talent than Denver (but when the Jazz did start accumulating better talent it started winning as frequently as the mid-1980s Nuggets did).

If we're going on style points, then AD wins this battle. You're talking about a 6-foot-5 (if that) post-up small forward who scored at one of the highest clips in NBA history and shot a tremendous percentage from the field. In contrast, English was a conventional 6-8 small forward who scored in conventional means (corner/wing jump shot, drives, layups). I can find more English-types who have played well in the modern NBA than I can find Dantley-types.

I'm not quite getting the inference here, but you're making it sound like Dantley was a difficult player with whom to play. Keep in mind English played in an offense that was free-wheeling and allowed a lot of open shots -- and even then, his assists and rebounding averages are very close to AD's.

Quote the source; you're not getting points on unfounded speculation.

It IS a big deal for the Basketball Hall of Fame, because it shows how idiotic the thinking is. At worst, Dantley's NBA career equals English's career -- and it's on his NBA career solely that English was a third-ballot hall of fame inductee in 1997.

It's illogical to say English is a hall of famer and not AD when in fact both have similar bodies of work at worst, and if anything AD's body of work is arguably better (and when you factor in college and the Olympics, AD's work definitely is better than English's).

And college play is a factor, considering that there have been college-only players and college-only coaches who have been inducted and a lot of players' collegiate careers are cited in their inductions. In fact, the college careers of Pete Maravich, David Thompson and Bill Walton played a significant factor into their induction because their NBA careers weren't enough, IMO, to garner serious consideration.

Being one of the better players in men's college basketball history and one of the better players in NBA history should equal hall of fame-bound. Add in quality performances in the 1976 Olympics and this conversation should be a shut case.

In other words, you have no basis on what supposedly makes English a hall of famer and AD is not.

There is nothing at which English did in his career that he can say he did or accomplish that AD cannot match. In fact, in everything AD has the advantages individually and as part of a team on some level (the man even played a key role in one of the biggest upsets in college basketball history -- Notre Dame's 1974 win that snapped UCLA's 88-game winning streak).

Gilgamesh

I agree it is unfair for people to label AD as a "loser" but when it comes down to it people tend to only look at the win-loss record.

AD played in a finals and was no Mitch Richmond for sure but I can't really fault VC, Marbury and Pierce for not having teammates like Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Laimbeer, and etc. either. Which goes to show how flawed the presumption that AD was a loser is because can we blame AD for not having any quality teammates in his earlier days as a Jazz?

I agree. If English gets in. AD gets in. I think the 25,000 was significant in English securing his HOF spot. The 8 straight years of 2000+ points helped too. But when it comes down to it AD has a higher career scoring average and was a much more efficient scorer.

I'm with you bro. AD should be in if English is in. I wasn't really calling AD a loser cuz I think it is unfair as well but not having much team success has to be a factor of why he isn't in.

__________________
WE ARE ALL WITNESSES!

All hail KING JAMES!

Future of Canadian Basketball

1. Olu Ashaolu 2. Junior Cadougan 3. Theo Davis

EXPERIENCE THE 7EVOLUTION

Cristiano Ronaldo

Najee

IMO, the reason why Adrian Dantley is not in the Basketball Hall of Fame has nothing to do with his play but his dealings with the media. AD was known for being very outspoken and sometimes blunt in his opinions, and that didn't set well with the media.

That really came to surface during AD's contract talks with Utah in 1984-85, when he sat out and he was villified (not to mention Utah coach Frank Layden infamously giving AD 30 pieces of silver as a symbol for being a "traitor" to the organization).

Gilgamesh

The HOF has politics fo sure. Just look at the Wilkins debacle. If it wasn't for Chuck who knows if he would have ever made it. He didn't even make top 50 which is a joke.

__________________
WE ARE ALL WITNESSES!

All hail KING JAMES!

Future of Canadian Basketball

1. Olu Ashaolu 2. Junior Cadougan 3. Theo Davis

EXPERIENCE THE 7EVOLUTION

Cristiano Ronaldo

Najee

No, the Basketball Hall of Fame has idiots running the place. From what I understand, a lot of the "criteria" for selecting people include reading newspaper clips and basing the decision on what the media opined.