Oh Lordy...
Yes, changing the argument to suit your needs is definitely over my head. I'd be happy to discuss
which guys are in decline and who Frye might be passing in a couple of years but the topic that we've
been discussing in this thread was where Frye stood this year, specifically by the all star break.
You let me know what you want to talk about and I'll be here.
BTW, Webber was 20 and 10 again last year. That's some decline.
I am not even sure what your argument is. I say Channing Frye will be good enough to get real all-star consideration, and you say he won't. You won't say how good you think he will be this year except to compare him to CHarles Smith, whom you won't say how good you think he was.
Webber got 20/10 last year and it was commendable. If you had watched his career, you'd realize he is declining. He's ripe to get passed by the young bucks.
We are not discussing where Frye STOOD but where he will STAND. And as I have shown you one example at a time, if he simply stays in place and gets 35 MPG he enters the top 15 in power forwards.
All along I have said I believe he will improve, therefore in that same 35 MPG he will be a better player than last year, good enough so that he gets real all-star consideration (I am repeating myself because you seem to forget what I write from paragraph to paragraph).
Troy Murphy was 6th in the ENTIRE NBA in rebounding last year. Yeah, that is impressive. Frye was
not even close. And per 48 minutes he's still not close.
What I said: "He (Troy Murphy) isn't the scorer that Frye is"
What did you not understand?
Yes, Troy Murphy is a better rebounder. Not the gap that you are describing though. Per 48 Murphy averages 14.2, Channing Frye averaged 11.4, 2.8 less per 48. Significant but not ridiculous.
As I have stated and will now restate, I expect Frye to improve as a rebounder. I don't expect Murphy to. Frye is already a better offensive player. I think Frye is/will be better player this year. You go ahead and put Murphy on your squad, I'll take Frye.
There you go changing the argument again to suit your needs. We're not discussing how long it took
every other PF to get to where you think Frye is right now. We're discussing where Frye compares to
every other PF in the league RIGHT NOW, no matter if it's their 1st year or 20th year in the league.
Are Okur's numbers last year better or worse than the ones you projected for Frye? Yes they are. So
assuming they both stay the same, Okur will give you better production. It's really very simple, I
really thought you'd be able to keep up with the simple logic.
What does trading one player for another have to do with anything? Besides you just changing the
topic to suit your needs again. If you want to talk about trade value, we can do that but please let
me know when that's the topic. It gets very confusing with how often you change the topic.
Nobody is changing the argument., You just never got on board. You are more interested in sophistry.
To answer your apparent confusion, the point being made is that if Frye retains his rookie averages over 35 MPG he will be right in the same ballpark as Jamison, Harrington, and several more of the guys you put down as clearly better than him. In addition, he is way ahead of the curve, those guys took years to even sniff what he is ready to produce as a sophomore.
Okur's numbers will be better by 1 pt and half a rebound if Channing Frye maintains his rookie averages. However Okur played more than 35 MPG. Over 35 MPG their numbers are almost exactly the same, except Frye shoots better from the field and better (And more) from the line.
I'll take Frye over him, again: because I believe Frye will improve (Apparently you don't.), and because Okur really is the soft player that you wrongfully have accused Frye of being.
When did Frye become a good defensive player? Did they notify you about that?
There you go changing the subject again and talking about how long it took a player to get to a
certain point instead of staying on point and talking about where a certain player is RIGHT NOW. Is
it really that difficult for you to stay on the subject??? Frye is ahead of where Jermaine O'Neal was
after his rookie year. Does that mean that Frye is better than O'Neal RIGHT NOW? Didn't think so.
Where Al Harrington is RIGHT NOW: 18.6pts, 6.9 rebs, 3.1 assists, 1.12 stls per game.
That's better than the projected numbers that you keep bringing up based on 35 minutes a night. I'm
sorry that you keep missing and missing and missing that.
No argument change, If Frye maintains his rookie averages he will be right in the same ballpark as Al Harrington, except he will do it in year 2 except for year 7. And he will be a better rebounder, which apparently is important for Troy Murhy but not when Frye scores .8 points less than Harrington. Frye also shoots a better percentage than both, and he did it as a green rookie.
He will compare favorably, and that is if he does not improve, which I think he will and you do not.
Frye did not become a good defensive player, but I have never heard Harrington accused of bewing a defensive player, but why not throw it in with the kitchen sink of your no-stance argument? In addition, just because you insist on characterizing Frye as a terrible defensive player, that does not make it true. BACK IT UP!
Oh and by the way, Harring got 36.6 MPG, so Frye compares closely but favorably to Harrington at 35 MPG. More rebounds, better percentages, and just about equal in points. Sorry you missed that and missed that and missed that. You don't have to believe me. You don't have to do math. Just keep ignoring the numbers.
Jamison isn't a great defender but he's certainly better than Frye. Jamison is a better defender on
the boards, in the passing lanes and lightly better in the post. He's also undeniably the better
scorer.
Simple question, does shooting from 3 pt territory stretch the defense more than if you shoot from
15-18 feet? Who said anything about Frye not being a good shooter??
So a "real PF" isn't allowed to have the added dimension of shooting the 3. Ummm yeah, ok. Shame on
progress. Maybe all positions should be limited to what you think a "real" PG, SG, SF, PF and C
should be. God forbid they should break that mold because as soon as they do they might not be "real"
anymore.
I see no evidence that Jamison is a better defensive player. Please provide it because he has always been known as all offense and no defense.
The point is not that being able to shoot the three at PF is bad. It's nice but you want your pf closer to the basket more often than not.
You see it is the style of play that makes your position, not necassarily your height or what position the scorecard says. So I don't know what you are talking about with this mold-fitting nonsense.
Frye does play from the outside a bunch but at least he is not spotting up from 3 like a shooting guard! And he goes to the hoop way stronger than jamison, who looks to avoid contact. That is why Jamison averaged 3.6 Free throws to Frye's 3.5 even though Jamison played 16 more minutes per game.
You may call it progress then in the next breath say Frye is soft even though Jamison plays a much more finesse game than Frye.
Short answer: Antawn Jamison is a small forward no matter where the coach runs him. Frye is a PF.
Again, Frye's numbers over 35 MPG will be very close to Jamisons over 35 MPG, and in some cases favorable.
But don't let that reality let you give the kid any credit!
Again, his numbers are still slightly better than Frye's statistical projections.
If Randolph refuses to pass but still averages more assists than Frye, what does that make Frye? And
don't make Frye out to be some coach on the court. How many times do you have to see him out of
position to understand that?
No you are totally wrong. Frye's numbers project better over 35 mpg than Randolph with the exception of points scored, and assists which randolph has by one point and .5 assist. Check it out before you make totally wrong comemnts. Over 35 MPG frye gets more rebounds, shoots a better percentage, gets more free throws and shoots those better as well. Frye will get more blocks and have less turnovers too.
I am not making out Frye to be a "coach on the floor" but he is a smart player no matter what, if he looked confused at times, just read the quote on the front page of UK to find out why. On the other hand Randolph is a goddamn idiot, so if you like Frye please don't insult him by trying to say Randolph is in his brain league.
Collins started 70 games at Center. Krstic started a minimum of 70 games at PF. It's pretty self
explanatory. Duncan and KG can play center but they're used at PF. Frye and Krstic can play center
if they had to but they're used at PF.
I can totally understand why you would use Marbury playing forward as an example. Who cares if it's
never happened much less Marbury starting 70 games at forward in a season. It sounds good and dammit,
you're gonna use it no matter how little relevance it has.
Sorry dog, Krstic plays center. Why? Because that is the style he plays. He is a nice shooter, but he plays back to the basket plenty. I've explained how that works above. Similarly Duncan has been played at center through much of his career, but he is a forward.
The Marbury point was made in that way because you seem to have trouble with nuance. I need to exaggerate for you to understand, or so I thought. Apparently that does not work either.
He might be overrated but he's still the better all around player.
No he is not. Not by the numbers, and not by any other standard you can come up with. Maybe 5 years ago, but not anymore.
On the contrary, I believe that I've been pretty complimentary of Frye saying that he's about the 15th
best PF in the league. If you refuse to see that then that's your problem.
Sure, why backup what I'm saying by naming the players I think are better instead of just making
comments without backing them up. I thought you might actually appreciate the fact that I would come
out and name the players I think are better. Isn't that the definition of "hanging your ass out"?
And when the players I mention have better overall numbers than the ones Frye would put up if Frye
maintains his averages over 35 MPG, then it is most definitely true.
Is he 15th or 15th to 20th? I guess you want to allow yourself some lattitude to backtrack.
Well, you just changed you analysis of Frye from behind 15-20 other pf's to about 15th, so I guess in your eyes he is making progress! You did just change where you ranked him, just go back and read.
And you are wrong. If he maintains his averages over 35 mpg, he is top 15. Again, I think he will get better this year, which apparently, you do not.
The fact is, if Frye simply maintains his averages over 35 MPG, many of those guys are not clearly better. If he improves, as I think he will and you do not, he will be clearly better than many of those guys.
I thought you would be able to appreciate it when I laid out for you that many of those guys were not clearly better than Frye if he simply maintains his averages over 35 MPG, and actually if he improves at all he will clearly be better than many of them.
Head on! Just apply directly to your forehead!
Just check the numbers jack!
Same size as Frye. Very similar numbers with CV's being slightly better.
Just because CV is the same height does not make him a power forward. You might have heard of this guy named Earvin Johson, he was a 6'9" PG! I guess all players have to fit into your perfect little mold: If you are 6'9" and up you are a power forward no matter how you play.
It's called progress hoss, check it out.
Please go back and tell me where I said that wasn't good. I'll wait.
You've said very little up until this post. One thing you did say is that Frye was behind 15-20 other pf's if he does not improve, but now you have moved him to about 15.
Glad to see I have convinced you.
Yes, keep making things up. If you think it makes your argument look better, who cares if it's true
or not. Again, saying that he's around the 15th best PF in the entire NBA is pretty damn complimentary whether you want to see that or not.
That is if he does not improve at all, which again, apparently I believe he will and you do not believe that to be the case.
If he does improve as I think he will and apparently you don't, I'm sure you won't eat the crow which you you will deserve so richly.
'Nuff said
oohah
rebounding.
What I did say is that Okur took 4 years to get to the point that Frye will get to this upcoming season if Frye does not get any better and simply maintains his rookie averages. And Okur will almost certainly always be a bad defensive player. Sorry if that escapes you.
9/30/2006 9:36 PM