Two of the three players selected Monday for induction into the NBA Hall of Fame were no-brainers (Hakeem Olajuwon and Patrick Ewing).  The third, however, is one of those types of players that can inspire legendary barroom arguments that go on for hours.  Half of the hardcore hoopheads in the world would tell you that Adrian Dantley definitely belongs in the Hall, and half of them would probably tell you that he doesn't.  And this is one of those discussions that makes sports so great, because you can make a very persuasive case on either side of the argument.

Here's what you can say about A.D.  He was one of the most unique players in NBA history.  In his day, there were very few 6'4" players that made their living almost exlcusively within 20 feet of the basket.  He made no bones about it; he wasn't going to beat you from deep, he was just going to take you off the dribble or knock you around in the post.  And if the shot didn't go in, he'd just clean up from the free throw line - over his career, he averaged over eight attempts per game, an impressive number by any measure.

Dantley operated with an efficiency that most players six inches taller were unable to duplicate.  Who could imagine a small forward scoring 25+ points a game and shooting 55% from the field?  Through the early 80's, he was arguably the most feared scorer in the NBA.  He finished his career as the ninth leading scorer in NBA history, and had he not suffered a couple untimely injuries he could easily have cleared the 25,000 point barrier.

Here's what you can also say about him.  He gained a reputation early in his career as being a guy who could rack up points for a bad team, but couldn't make them a winner.  Utah didn't make the playoffs until Darrell Griffith and Rickey Green made the leap to being all-star level players.  He wasn't regarded as even a moderately skilled passer, and his idea of defense was to score more points than the player he was assigned to guard.  He played for seven teams over his career, four of them by his 23rd birthday.  There are various accounts of why a young and talented player such as Dantley was traded so often, but it's known that he was dealt from Utah in 1986 because he and coach Frank Layden had issues co-existing.

His greatest success came when he finally landed with the Pistons, a team practically ready-made to suit his skills.  They had an elite point guard that knew how and where to get him the ball, a center that was content to roam the perimeter on offense and allow Dantley to work in the post, and big men who could cover for his defensive liabilities.  Even that didn't work out for him, as he was dealt to Dallas for Mark Aguirre just months before Detroit won the NBA championship - though it's widely believed that Dantley was dealt not because he didn't get along with most of his teammates, but because Isiah Thomas wanted to get his best friend (Aguirre) a championship ring more than he wanted to for Dantley.

Now, most who dispute his induction will point to the fact that Bernard King isn't in the Hall, and Dantley shouldn't be in before King.  That's not really a fair comparison, however, as a good portion of the case for King is based on 'what could have been'.  King was a fantastic talent (go watch game 5 of the 1984 Knicks/Pistons playoff series if you have any doubts about that), and had he not blown out both knees multiple times, and had he not had issues with drug abuse, he could have been one of the greatest players ever.  But, even though the NBA Hall of Fame is somewhat forgiving towards those types of injury issues, you can't hold the fact against Dantley that he has a completed case based on his on-court resume, while King's is based partially on unrealized potential.

Personally, I don't believe that Dantley was the most deserving player of those veterans not yet in the Hall of Fame to get the call - I'd go with Dennis Johnson in that category.  But I feel pretty confident saying that he would be in my top five, and that's good enough for me to say that Dantley earned his place in Springfield.  Still, it's one heck of an argument to have if you're into great sports debates.