This seems to be a popular comparison around here, so let's take a closer look by comparing what Frye has done so far to what Rasheed did his rookie year.

Just a couple of notes before I get into this.

* First, Rasheed was 21 during his rookie year, while Frye will be 22 for the duration of this season. So any potential differences from age (e.g. developmental level, 'ceiling,' etc.) should be negligible.

* Second, there do not appear to be any drastic differences with respect to the two players' teammates that would have a big impact on their stats. Rasheed's Bullets had Chris Webber and Juwon Howard, but Webber only played 15 games that season and Rasheed averaged 27.5 mpg, playing in 65 games and starting in 51 of those. Frye currently averages 24.1 mpg.

* Third, this comparison will be flawed to the extent that Frye has only played in 11 games so far, making for a small and biased sample size. So take this with a certain grain of salt.

Here's how they measure up.

Frye vs. Rasheed (1996, rookie season)

            pts/40   eFG%   FT%     AsR    ToR    Usg    RbR    PER
Frye        22.9     51.2   86.7    7.2   11.4   23.8   14.7   24.2
Rasheed     14.7     51.1   65.0   10.5   12.8   16.4   10.0   11.8

So statistically, thus far, Frye's rookie season blows Rasheed's out of the water. One thing that has a big impact on Frye's better numbers is that he's just had more opportunities to score. Frye is averaging 18.6 FGA and 4.5 FTA per 40 minutes, while in Rasheed's rookie season he only managed 12.6 FGA and 2.7 FTA per 40.

So let's try to eliminate scoring opportunities as a differentiating factor. The closest Rasheed has ever come to Frye's per 40 FGA is in the 2002, well into his prime days with Portland, when he averaged 17.4 FGA and 3.7 FTA per 40. So let's compare Frye's numbers so far with Rasheed's 2002 season, keeping in mind that this will come close to normalizing scoring opportunities while also comparing Frye as a rookie to Rasheed as a seasoned vet.

Frye vs. Rasheed (2002, comparable usage rate)

            pts/40   eFG%   FT%     AsR    ToR    Usg    RbR    PER
Frye        22.9     51.2   86.7    7.2   11.4   23.8   14.7   24.2
Rasheed     20.5     51.3   73.4    9.0    7.7   21.8   12.8   19.3

Frye still comes out looking better in his 12 games as a rookie thus far than Rasheed did in one of his best seasons, when he was a main cog in the offense of a successful team.

Now just for fun, let's compare Frye's numbers so far with Rasheed's career averages and Rasheed's career highs for each individual stat.


Frye vs. Rasheed (career averages)

            pts/40   eFG%   FT%     AsR    ToR    Usg    RbR    PER
Frye        22.9     51.2   86.7    7.2   11.4   23.8   14.7   24.2
Rasheed     18.4     51.5   70.9   10.6   10.0   20.0   11.8   17.5

Frye vs. Rasheed (career bests)

            pts/40   eFG%   FT%     AsR    ToR    Usg    RbR    PER
Frye        22.9     51.2   86.7    7.2   11.4   23.8   14.7   24.2
Rasheed     20.5     56.5   76.6   14.3    7.7   21.8   14.0   20.9

Frye ends up looking significantly better than Rasheed's career output so far. Even if we compare Frye's numbers so far to Rasheed's career bests, Frye comes out looking comparable, even better overall. Of special interest is that it appears as if Frye may already be a much better rebounder, shooter, and scorer, and overall much more efficient and productive, as is attested by Frye's PER. Rasheed has a comparable eFG% to Frye largely because of his ability to hit the 3; his midrange jumper and free throw touch are worse than Frye's. The one area where Rasheed has the advantage is ball handling and passing, as his assist rate and TO rate numbers have been slightly better than what Frye has shown thus far.

Overall? Again, it's early, and it's a very real possibility that Frye's current numbers might end up being significantly more impressive than his eventual season averages. Still, this kid looks like he may be special. If he can keep up his current levels of production, we can just forget about the Rasheed comparisons, because in that case Frye will already have shown to be significantly better than Rasheed. The one caveat to this conclusion is defensive ability, which is of course much harder to measure with currently available stats.

Great post. Those are very interesting stats. I've always felt Rasheed could average many more PPG and RPG if he had the desire. He probably does affect the game more on defense, especially altering shots, than Frye does, which these stats don't take into account, though. But overall it's a huge edge for Frye in the small sample of games he's played (as you acknowledged).

Are the stats available to do a Brad Dougherty (sp?) comparison? Whether or not they are, I suspect that VERY FEW players will have better stats than Frye has. 14/6 in only 24 mpg on a very high FG% is simply excellent.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 11-27-2005 5:44 PM]

I really am hoping Frye can have a great rookie season, but it will be tough because after awhile the teams will start making adjustments to keep the ball out of Frye's hands(i.e. Foul trouble, double teams, Etc) so other Knicks have to step up their game so Frye is not the only Knicks' option.
I love the way he is playing, his shot is looking sweeter and more accurate than Houston's well almost!, but he still needs to work on all aspects of his game.

Posted by nyk4ever:

Good post with the numbers and everything Tom, you always seem to be good with statistics but I disagree with the comparison. Frye and Sheed are totally different players. At this point Frye is nothing but a mid-range shooter. Rasheed has always been a very good a lowbox scorer, something Frye hasn't been able to show yet(11 games, I know) and Sheed has always been able to get his own shots when the midrange shot wasn't there.

Of course there are some qualitative differences in how all players put up the stats they do. This is not something that must necessarily elude statistical analysis-- rather, we do not currently have stats that measure things like this, but we could create such stats if someone would put in the required thought and effort. (There is some movement in this direction, e.g. on 82games.com)

In any case, what my analysis has compared is not so much how Rasheed and Frye play, but rather how efficient their output on the court is, as measured mostly by sophisticated analysis of traditional box score stats (eg PER falls into this category) and some related kinds of stats (like rebound rate). There are always different kinds of angles you can take, for instance using adjusted +/- numbers, but those are not readily available at the moment. So no, no one evaluation of player quality (including subjective evaluations too) is going to be perfect or all-encompassing. But the measures used above are still of good quality, and Frye really demonstrates significant advantages in certain categories (like PER) that cannot be ignored or written off. The biggest critique that could be leveled against this analysis is the small and biased sample size we have for Frye so far, but we'll just have to wait for the games to be played before we can get around that.

Frye can score down low too dont get it twisted he is NOT kurt thomas.. he has shown some GREAT post moves he just doesent get the plays ran for him... but they should start cuz he delivers

Posted by nyk4ever:

Good post with the numbers and everything Tom, you always seem to be good with statistics but I disagree with the comparison. Frye and Sheed are totally different players. At this point Frye is nothing but a mid-range shooter. Rasheed has always been a very good a lowbox scorer, something Frye hasn't been able to show yet(11 games, I know) and Sheed has always been able to get his own shots when the midrange shot wasn't there.

I think people are using the comparison becuase of the jumpshot, which is ok for now, but I wouldn't be going nuts here with the Rasheed comparisons.

I am not trying to be smart but watch the games more carefully. Frye actually gets about 1/3 of his points in the paint. What's more impressive is his offensive rebounding. He doesn't bring the ball down, he looks to get his position and score above the rim.

Posted by bobs3304:

No offense, and this is a solid post, but Rasheed just has way more of an impact on a game than Frye has right now.

That could change, but stats don't tell the whole story - not by a longshot.

Gees, No Offense, but would it be that Rasheed has 10 yrs experience over Frye's 12 games, that would certainly put Rasheed way over the top in having more impact than Frye does.

BTW: Good research on the initial post of this thread, it should be more appreciated, the effort that was put into it. Good JOB!

^ I think Sheed and KG have alot more in common than Frye and KG.

As I've said, Frye is Rasheed without the weed. What they have in common is their versatility to play inside or outside, and they can both run the floor.

Posted by bobs3304:

No offense, and this is a solid post, but Rasheed just has way more of an impact on a game than Frye has right now.

That could change, but stats don't tell the whole story - not by a longshot.

Bob you are not serious about comparing Wallace career to that of Frye's? Are you?