someone glad to see me back??


well well.


aint life grand, thnx bud.

I think that before you figure out what everybody else's argument is, you should understand your own.

Is it Frye will be good enough to threaten the 5-6 PF's that you think are ahead of him in the eastern
conference to gain legitimate consideration for the all star team?

Is it that you wouldn't trade Frye for any number of players that have better numbers per 48 minutes

based on last season's numbers?

Is it that some PF's are putting up better numbers than Frye but weren't doing it in their sophomore

seasons so they don't count?

Is it that you think Frye will improve but all of the PF's that I think are better or similar will stay the same or get

worse?

Is it that some older PF's are going to dramatically decline this year and be passed by Frye? Even

though they're still putting up very good numbers.

Is it that even though some players are playing PF, you think their style of play disqualifies them as

PF's in your mind so you won't count them in this argument.

When you figure it out, let us know.

Sorry kid, nice try. It seems confusorama is all you have left.

Frye reaches a point in his second year that takes other guys 4-6 years to get to.

Nobody ever plateaus or declines. Sure you're right. Second year players tend to improve less than 6-7-8

year players. That's how it goes.

Where he will stand when? Now? Opening night? Christmas? The All Star break? 5 years from now?

You brought up the all-star game so I can only assume that that is when he's supposed to pass all of

these other PF's. I've never said that Frye will not improve, as you like to suggest, but that much

in 4 months? Sorry.

Why do you think you can take what Frye did last year and just extrapolate it to what he would do

averaging 35 mpg? It's just that easy huh? Personally I think it would show a lot of improvement

just to make that a reality. But you seem to think it just magically happens that way with no

adjustment necessary for the additional minutes played. Not likely. Maybe if you click your heels 3

times and keep saying it over and over again, like you have been, it'll come true.

Lemme get this straight: You think Frye will improve, and he will play 35 MPG, but you don't think his

numbers will improve?

How about his efficiency? Maybe his numbers stay the same but he gets more efficient?

How does it happen then? He improves but his numbers get worse?

Apparently your goal is just to say: No he's not!

It reminds me of the Monty Python where the guy pays for an argument and the arguer just keeps on saying:

"No it isn't!".

Is Frye going to get better, the same or worse?

Getting better or worse would impact his numbers, would it not? Getting more time impacts numbers does it

not? Please tell me how it works!

So why not sit back and think...for a second?

We all know the projection is not exact. It's very possible Frye will have better numbers than what I projected

considering the adversity under which he produced last year's numbers, just as it is possible that he will have

worse numbers.

Of course you have not stated whether you think that will happen, because you want to play devil's advocate

all weekend instead just simply saying what you think he will do. Clothe yourself in generalisms, that's a safer

way to play!

Again, you don't just extrapolate rookie averages over increased mpg. It will take improvement just

to accomplish that. But you want everyone to assume that that is a given and he will improve on top

of that. All within the first 4 months of the season.

Oh please tell me how it works! I don't think I get it!

It will take improvement just to accomplish what? Getting 35 minutes? Take a look at the lineup and revise

your thinking. 35 MPG's in the cards for Frye unless he gets worse, believe that.

And since by your own admission you think he will get 35 MPG, then you have to understand that will affect

his numbers:

If his production per minute stays the same he lands in the top 15.

If his production per minute gets worse he lands in the top 25.

If his production per minute gets better he lands in about the top 10.

Of course it takes a pair to say what one thinks will happen when you have guys like yourself around that

wanna ridicule, yet don't have that same pair to speak up and say what they think will happen, rather than just

saying what I think won't.

I do not rely on magic. I just say what I think will happen. Unlike others who feel so small they lie in wait,

hoping someone might actually say something so they can pounce! (Who might I be speaking of?)

His averages will get worse, better, or stay the same. Does it work like that? Please tell me! I am saying

what I think will happen!!! Why don't you do the same instead of chasing my tail!? What do you think will happen!! Why don't you speak up?!

Whatcha scared of?!?!

2.8 is significant enough to be the difference between being 5th per 48 mpg and 21st for all PF's.

So Murphy can't improve but Frye definitely will. Apparently Murphy peaked at age 26. Can you

restate that absurdity again?

You need to find a different method of argument other than to take everyone's words and exaggerate

them to absurdum.

Murphy is actually due a good season numbers-wise because he has Nellie to take advantage of his ability. I

don't think he will improve much as a player. However, if you think he is going to get many more rebounds

than what he has been getting, you must think he will be at Notre Dame next season.

The real question is whether Murphy will ever rehabilitate his putrid percentages. I don't think he will.

Again, I am not stating that it is a law that a 26 year old cannot get better, but I don't think Murphy will.

Apparently you think he will improve quite a bit and you would rather have him than Frye.

Why not just say what you think will happen instead of crawling all around my words looking for something to

hang on to?

Again, you don't just extrapolate rookie averages over increased mpg. It will take improvement just

to accomplish that. But you want everyone to assume that that is a given and he will improve on top

of that. All within the first 4 months of the season.

Again, tell me how it works? More minutes less numbers? Is that what you are saying?

It will take immprovement just to accomplish what again? Play 35 MPG? Why does that take improvement? I

thought the coach just had to put you in for 35. Is he in danger of fouling out night after night?

If you haven't noticed, IT is clearing space for Frye to get mucho minutes. He's looking to feature the kid.

I don't care what you assume. I don't want everybody to believe anything.

Here is what I am saying:

• I think that Frye will be improved from day one of this season. What is so crazy about that?


• I think Isiah Will give him 35 MPG. What is so crazy about that?


• I think he will better his per-minute rookie averages in scoring and rebounding, and he will be a better
  
  defensive player. What is so crazy about that?

Instead of actually saying anything, you want to mire yourself in semantics and minutiae that is frequently

wrong and/or irrelevant.

Talk big for a minute! What do you think he will do? Step up to the plate and hang it instead of clinging to my

words!

Even with that 1.6 minute disparity Harrington would still have a slight lead in scoring, more

assists, more steals and be more of a 3 pt threat. Oh since Frye rarely takes 3 point shots, if you

take their FG% for 2 pt goals Frye only has a slight .07 advantage.

Now you want to excuse pecentages because Harrington is another PF that plays like a small-forward, no

excuse me, is a small forward?

Yeah, Frye would be quite terrible, only scoring a point or less than Harington over 35, getting more

rebounds, shooting a better percentage, getting to line as or more often and shootinga better percentage

from there, and generally playing more like a real PF than Harrington.

Betcha Harrington will play Small forward in Indiana.

Here's another question you will never answer: Would you rather have your PF play more like Al Harrington

or Channing Frye?

Stronger off the defensive glass and gets more steals than Frye. And saying that he's a better

defensive player than Frye by no means implies that he's a good defensive player. Just better than

Frye. Try not to confuse the two.

Oh, I see now! He's stronger off the defensive glass! How about the offensive glass? How about overall

rebounding? Try to find something! Scrabble through those stats! Hey, he throws the ball in better too! Don't

forget about that!

How about Jamison's percentages? Worse. How often does he get to the line? Less than Frye. Who shoots

his free-throws better? Frye.

Oh, and buy the way, over our theoretical 35 MPG Frye scores more.

He's a better defensive player than Frye? I only have your word on that and that don't convince oohah.

Anyway, I don't know why we are even comparing them. Frye is a PF and Jamison is a small-forward. You

know why? Because that is the game he plays! Use them eyes.

Huh? First you say that you want your PF closer to the basket which apparently is why you disqualify

Jamison as a PF, but then you admit that Frye plays from the outside a bunch. You really like to have

it both ways don't you.

It's very nice when a PF can step outside and make shots. But when PF lives on the perimeter, he no longer

is a PF. The difference between Frye and Jamison is that Frye works from the inside out, and Jamison

works from the outside period. It's not having it two ways, its a keen observation of how it is. I don't live in

theory world, I live in reality town. Come give a vist one day would you chap? Just a short visit please.

As far as the "mold-fitting nonsense", you're the one trying to pigeonhole players into positions

based on their abilities with your "real PF" nonsense. But hey, who am I to stop you from finding

arbitrary reasons to eliminate Frye's competition at PF.

This previous snippet was so ridiculous I had to break it out by itself.

I am pigeon-holing players based on their abilities? What am I nuts?

I think I have really lost my mind, because I categorize players by how they actually play rather than some

arbitrary height that you have set, or their position on the scorecard (E.G. Kurt Thomas is not really a

center.).

Hmm Dirk is 7 foot, the scorecard says he's a PF but he shoots lots of 3's. To you his "style of

play" makes him a shooting guard. To most other people it makes him a PF with the added dimension of

being a great outside shooter.

Argument via absurdum again? Did you know that Nowitzki went into the all-star game as a center once? I

guess he's the center! AFter all, he is the tallest guy on the team!

You need to learn a new trick! Actually Dirk is the tallest small forward in the history of the game. You know

why? Because that is how he plays.

Islesfan, in all seriousness, I want to explain this to you: "Small Forward" does not mean "Under 6'8"". It is a

description of how a player plays. Same thing for shooting guard (Peja Stojakovic at 6'9") or power forward

(Mike Sweeteney 6'7"-8")

Again, you can't just extrapolate his rookie numbers to 35 mpg averages. It doesn't work that

way.

How does it work? How will it work? Hang it!!!

Randolph's numbers are based on 34.4 mpg. So you can nudge his numbers up a little to match your

beloved 35 mpg average. Sorry if you missed that, missed that, missed that.

So Randolph has a slight lead in scoring, assists and steals. Frye has a slight lead in rebounding

and blocks. Yeah, you really got me there.

If you're talking the SAT's, I'll take Frye every day of the week. When it comes to bball IQ, where

is the evidence that Frye is that much smarter than Randolph? Frye looked pretty damn confused out

there last year at times.

I did not miss that miss that or miss that. But you have. Intentionally.

So what you are really saying is that at 35 MPG, Randolph is not clearly better than Frye. Of course you

haven't taken into account Fryes better shooting percentages from the field and the line.

So to recap: Over 35 MPG Randolph scores 1 more point and gets about .6 more assists. All Frye does is

get more rebounds, blocks, shoots a significantly better percentage from the field, very significantly better

from the line, is smarter, better adjusted... what else do you need?

Yeah, Randolph is clearly better. You want him here don't you? Hey everybody! Islesfan want to trade Frye

for Randolph..or Troy Murphy...or Antawn Jamison..or Al Harrington...or Mehmet Okur! None of whom have

clearly better numbers over 35 mpg, nor do they play D, and all of whom (Except) Randolph live on the

perimeter. That's what he wants from his PF.

Yeah IF, those guys are all clearly better than Frye.

So Jason Collins started 70 games at PF?

Wait a minute, you claimed Jamison wasn't a true PF because you want your PF to play close to the

basket. Now Krstic isn't a true PF because he plays close to the basket.

Don't strain yourself reaching as far as you are. I'll just chalk it up to you continuing to do

whatever you can to eliminate Frye's competition at PF.

Ewing and Cartwright, which one is the PF? Or are they both centers? How about Sampson and Olajuwan?

How about Krstic and Collins? I'll handle this one: Both centers.

It is possible to start 2 centers. I know you don't believe it since in the program it says PF next to one guy,

but believe me, it is possible. No, it's not magic., no, it's not against the rules.

Your understanding of the game is so poor it is incredible! PF's and centers both play close to the basket.

But their style of play determines their true position. Get it?

Krstic is a center. I can't make you understand that, I can only explain it to you.

Frye has Weed in Scoring by 2 points, rebounds by 2 (although I expect his rebounding numbers to

go up

a little with Ben no longer there) and FT%.

Weed has Frye in Assists, Steals, Blocks, Turnovers and FG% minus 3 pointers.

Like I said, Weed is the better all around player.

Simply not true. Was true 5 yars ago, not true anymore. I see you had to qualify his FGP by stating : Minus 3

pointers. Yeah, that's what you want from your PF: a 3 point bomber/turn around fallawys!! That is why Ben

wallace was so happy with weed's play.

And you are just wrong:

Rasheed Wallace:
2005-06 DET 80 34.7 5.7 13.3 43.0 1.9 5.4 35.7 1.7 2.3 74.3 1.1 5.7 6.8 2.3 1.1 1.0 1.6 2.9 15.1

So to recap: Over 35 MPG: Frye gets more rebounds, scores more, shoots significantly better from the

field, even more significantly better from the line better, gets to the line much more (Because he is not

always shooting 3's and fallaways), gets about the same number of blocks (About .5 less), and gets .5 less

assists.

By the way, just because B Wallace is gone does not mean Weed's rebounds automatically go up. You

can't just extrapolate that, it doesn't work like that bud.--->or maybe you are just stating what you think will

happen? How dare you? Now you must inflict yourself with the ten-thousand paper-cuts of nonsense that

you have inflicted upon me (To no effect..., sorry Charlie!)

Actually from my very first post I said "15th to 18th". I named 16 that I said were better and

another 5 that I thought were similar. So why are you arguing when I say that I'd put him somewhere

in that range? What did you say about semantics the other day? I guess it's do what you say and not

what you do.

And then in another post you said 15th to 20th. Then you said about 15th. How am I supposed to know

which one you really mean? You can't figure it out either can you? Its called consistency slice, look into it!

And you are wrong. You can't just extrapolate his rookie numbers to 35 mpg averages. It doesn't

work

that way.

You're also wrong about my not thinking that Frye will improve. The fact that I'm stipulating his 35

mpg averages means that I think he will improve. If I didn't, those numbers would go down based on

extended playing time.

Please tell me how it does or will work then. Can you do that instead of telling me how it does not work? And

please explain to me again why just getting 35 MPG means Frye improved? If his numbers don't improve

with increased playing time, did he improve or not? Are you saying his numbers go down or not?

I think what you are really saying is: NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA!

As I have explained to you and explained to you and explained to you, if he maintains his rookie averages,

he lands in the top 15, yeah, right in front of your favorite sissy power forwards

You mean progress like PF's being able to step out to 3 point land? It's your "real PF" molds hoss,

not mine.

No, I mean progress where a player is not automatically pigeon-holed into a position based on his height,

but rather categorized by how he plays. (EG. Rashard Lewis, 6'10" small forward.) This concept is obviously

outside your scope of comprehension.

I understand how desperately you need to be right but go back to my first post again. 15-18. Check

it out.

So I have to use your first position, but not your second, third, fourth, or fifth positions?

You change positions more often than Paris Hilton!

Go back and "check it out", your position has been sliding all of over the place!!!

I've already told you more than once why that's completely inaccurate.

No you haven't except to say that somehow greater minutes somehow equals improvement. Yet somehow,

tis won't equate to better numbers. Which is BS.

Why are you so sure I wouldn't eat crow? Show me one example why you would believe that. If

proven wrong I always admit to it. You want to change this from a difference of opinion to questioning my

character? Ok, prove it or offer me an apology and we can continue this conversation.

The reason I am sure you won't eat crow is because I have seen your tap-dancing act in this discussion. I

have seen you change your position at least 3 times, so I am pretty certain you cannot admit when you are

wrong, like in the comparisons of Jamison, Okur, Randolph, etc.

You will get no apology, your character is revealed by your pedantry. I am not assisnating your character,

merely observing it. So why don't you prove me wrong and admit that you are?

In any case if I knew it would be this easy to get rid of you, I would have swatted you earlier!

I richly deserve to eat crow? Obviously this is personal for you.

Don't flatter yourself. Like I said, when a fly annoys you enough, you have to swat it!

I won't reply to you anymore if you refuse to actually say how you think Frye will do this season.

I am not expecting you to reply since I have trampled, pissed on, and set fire to your argument!

oohah






[Edited by - oohah on 01-10-2006 11:51 AM]

I am not expecting you to reply since I have trampled, pissed on, and set fire to your

argument

Wow, that's big talk. Very impressive. You're quite the tough guy. Now excuse me while I reply to

your nonsense.

Frye reaches a point in his second year that takes other guys 4-6 years to get to.

CHANGE OF SUBJECT

Nobody ever plateaus or declines. Sure you're right. Second year players tend to improve less

than 6-7-8 year players. That's how it goes.

Never said that. You're the one saying that Murphy won't improve. And not all 2nd yr players and 6th

yr players are the same. I think they both have room for improvement while you do not.

Lemme get this straight: You think Frye will improve, and he will play 35 MPG, but you don't

think his numbers will improve?

How about his efficiency? Maybe his numbers stay the same but he gets more efficient?

How does it happen then? He improves but his numbers get worse?

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? You think Frye can't improve while not EXACTLY

MATCHING OR EXCEEDING your 35 mpg projections???

Will his numbers improve over 35 mpg if he avgs 15pts and 7 reb? YES

Will his numbers improve over 35 mpg if he avgs 14 and 6? YES

Will his numbers improve over 35 mpb if he avgs 25 and 12? YES

Hell I think he could show improvement if his numbers stayed the same or got worse. Like if he showed

better post moves, if he became a better passer, if he showed better rebounding instincts and if he

played better defense. If that happened and his numbers for some reason stayed the same or declined

slightly I believe he would have improved.

We all know the projection is not exact. It's very possible Frye will have better numbers than

what I projected considering the adversity under which he produced last year's numbers, just as it is

possible that he will have worse numbers.

The problem is that you use projections and compare them to other players ACTUAL numbers. Suggesting

that Frye will improve while everyone else stays the same. At least you're acknowledging that Frye's

numbers can get worse. Glad to see I'm finally getting through to you.

Of course you have not stated whether you think that will happen, because you want to play

devil's advocate all weekend instead just simply saying what you think he will do

No, you just keep ignoring the fact that I think he will improve his game. Why else would I stipulate

your 35 mpg averages? Common sense baby. Or just learn to read since I spelled it out for you in my

last post.

Oh please tell me how it works! I don't think I get it!

It will take improvement just to accomplish what? Getting 35 minutes? Take a look at the lineup and

revise your thinking. 35 MPG's in the cards for Frye unless he gets worse, believe that.

Honestly, I doubt that you'll ever get it.

Where did I question whether or not he would get 35 mpg? I question his level of improvement and how

that translates to his numbers. You seem to think it's just a simple matter of extrapolating his

rookie numbers to 35 mpg.

Of course it takes a pair to say what one thinks will happen when you have guys like yourself

around that wanna ridicule, yet don't have that same pair to speak up and say what they think will

happen, rather than just saying what I think won't.

It takes a pair to make a guess??? Why are you so sensitive? I'm not ridiculing anything. I'm just

questioning the basis of your guesswork. If you can't handle that I suggest you stop posting on

message boards. Or grow a pair and stop being so sensitive.

I do not rely on magic. I just say what I think will happen. Unlike others who feel so small

they lie in wait, hoping someone might actually say something so they can pounce! (Who might I be

speaking of?)

Hmmm, everybody who has ever posted on a message board, including yourself and this board?

Murphy is actually due a good season numbers-wise because he has Nellie to take advantage of

his ability. I don't think he will improve much as a player. However, if you think he is going to get

many more rebounds than what he has been getting, you must think he will be at Notre Dame next season.

The real question is whether Murphy will ever rehabilitate his putrid percentages. I don't think he

will.

Again, I am not stating that it is a law that a 26 year old cannot get better, but I don't think

Murphy will.

Apparently you think he will improve quite a bit and you would rather have him than Frye.

If Murphy stays the same player he was the last couple of years, you're looking at a PF who scores 15

pts a night and is one of the best rebounders in the game. That's a fact. That's not "well if he

improves..." Until Frye does what you think is already a given, Murphy is the better player. Facts,

can you dig it?

Again, tell me how it works? More minutes less numbers? Is that what you are saying?

It will take immprovement just to accomplish what again? Play 35 MPG? Why does that take improvement?

I thought the coach just had to put you in for 35. Is he in danger of fouling out night after

night?

Reading comprehension. Show me where I ever said anything close to that.

Here is what I did say:

"I think it would show a lot of improvement just to make that (reaching the per 35 min averages that

you harp on) a reality."

Here is what I am saying:

I think that Frye will be improved from day one of this season. What is so crazy about that?

Never questioned that.

I think Isiah Will give him 35 MPG. What is so crazy about that?

Never even commented on that specifically but I did stipulate your 35 mpg projections so it would be

safe to assume that I wouldn't dispute that.

I think he will better his per-minute rookie averages in scoring and rebounding, and he will be

a better defensive player. What is so crazy about that?

This is what it comes down to. You seem to think that it's a given that he will better his per-minute

rookie averages to the point that you extrapolate them to 35 mpg averages. It doesn't happen that

way.

Now you want to excuse pecentages because Harrington is another PF that plays like a

small-forward, no excuse me, is a small forward?

It's not excusing percentages, it's comparing apples to apples. You seem to have a lot of trouble

with simple concepts like that.

Yeah, Frye would be quite terrible, only scoring a point or less than Harington over 35,

getting more rebounds, shooting a better percentage, getting to line as or more often and shootinga

better percentage from there, and generally playing more like a real PF than Harrington.

Show me where I said that Frye would be terrible for that or stop exagerrating.

There you go with the "real PF" stuff again. Unless a player fits your limited description of what a

"real PF" should be, he's not a PF no matter what everybody else says.

Here's another question you will never answer: Would you rather have your PF play more like Al

Harrington or Channing Frye?

Maybe its just me but I'm more concerned with how effective the player is rather than the style that

they play.

Oh, I see now! He's stronger off the defensive glass! How about the offensive glass? How about

overall rebounding? Try to find something! Scrabble through those stats! Hey, he throws the ball in

better too! Don't forget about that!

Umm, I was responding to this question:

"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."

What does offensive rebounding and throwing the ball in have to do with answering your question about

defense?

Anyway, I don't know why we are even comparing them. Frye is a PF and Jamison is a

small-forward. You know why?

Yeah, we all know why. Because you say so. Who cares what everybody else says, including the NBA.

Oohah says it is so, so it is. How can you doubt a grown man that refers to themself in the 3rd

person?

It's very nice when a PF can step outside and make shots. But when PF lives on the perimeter,

he no longer is a PF. The difference between Frye and Jamison is that Frye works from the inside out,

and Jamison works from the outside period.

Come on, Frye does not work from the inside out. He has one post move, the baby hook, that's it. You

need more than that to work from the inside out. Use them eyes.

It's not having it two ways, its a keen observation of how it is. I don't live in theory world,

I live in reality town.

That's hysterical. The guy who wants to use PROJECTED numbers to prove that a player is better than

another players ACTUAL numbers, says he doesn't live in theory world. Your entire hypotheis in

creating this thread is theory. You're a funny guy.

I am pigeon-holing players based on their abilities? What am I nuts?

I think I have really lost my mind, because I categorize players by how they actually play rather than

some arbitrary height that you have set, or their position on the scorecard (E.G. Kurt Thomas is not

really a center.).

I categorize players by the position that they actually play rather than what position I think their

abilities are typically geared towards. The way most people, including the NBA, do.

When Kurt Thomas plays offense against the other teams center and plays defense against the other

teams center, he's a center. Get it yet?

Did you know that Nowitzki went into the all-star game as a center once? I guess he's the

center! AFter all, he is the tallest guy on the team!

You need to learn a new trick! Actually Dirk is the tallest small forward in the history of the game.

You know why? Because that is how he plays.

How many times did he go to the all star game as a small forward? How many as a PF?

Frye has played center, so I guess he's a center. What are we arguing for then?

Show me ANYTHING from the NBA that has Dirk listed as a small forward.

Again, your lame argument consists of "Oohah says it is so, so it is".

So what you are really saying is that at 35 MPG, Randolph is not clearly better than Frye. Of

course you haven't taken into account Fryes better shooting percentages from the field and the line.

So to recap: Over 35 MPG Randolph scores 1 more point and gets about .6 more assists. All Frye does is

get more rebounds, blocks, shoots a significantly better percentage from the field, very significantly

better from the line, is smarter, better adjusted... what else do you need?

Yeah, Randolph is clearly better.

Never said that. I think Randolph is better because although his actual numbers are close to Frye's

projected numbers, Randolph has actually done it while Frye, as of yet, has not. Another simple

concept that I would hope that you would understand but most likely won't.

Hey everybody! Islesfan want to trade Frye for Randolph..or Troy Murphy...or Antawn Jamison..or

Al Harrington...or Mehmet Okur! None of whom have clearly better numbers over 35 mpg, nor do they play

D, and all of whom (Except) Randolph live on the perimeter. That's what he wants from his PF.

CHANGE OF SUBJECT


Not once, not twice, not even three times. But 4 changes of subject. That's gotta be some kind of

record.

Ewing and Cartwright, which one is the PF? Or are they both centers? How about Sampson and

Olajuwan?

How about Krstic and Collins?

How about Frye and Curry?

Well since we can categorize Frye as a center, we don't have to worry about where he stands as a PF.

Thanks for clearing that up. You should have just said that from the beginning.

Simply not true. Was true 5 yars ago, not true anymore. I see you had to qualify his FGP by

stating : Minus 3 pointers.

Again, that's not qualifying, that's comparing apples to apples. But if you feel that you need to

penalize Weed for being able to stretch defenses, just to help your argument, go ahead.

So to recap: Over 35 MPG: Frye gets more rebounds, scores more, shoots significantly better

from the field, even more significantly better from the line better, gets to the line much more

(Because he is not always shooting 3's and fallaways), gets about the same number of blocks (About .5

less), and gets .5 less assists.

Wow, you're playing loose and fancy free with those statistics. I guess when Frye is short in a

category it's the same but when he's ahead there's no qualification.

Weed has Frye in Assists, Steals, Blocks, Turnovers, FG% minus 3 pointers and has better range.

Like I said, Weed is the better all around player. You didn't say anything to dispute any of it.

Now you must inflict yourself with the ten-thousand paper-cuts of nonsense that you have

inflicted upon me (To no effect..., sorry Charlie!)

I wouldn't expect you to just give me the satisfaction but don't worry, I already have it.

And then in another post you said 15th to 20th. Then you said about 15th. How am I supposed to

know which one you really mean? You can't figure it out either can you? Its called consistency slice,

look into it!

I don't understand what the problem is. From the beginning I've put Frye in the 15-18 range. I've

given you 16 players I thought he was better than and 5 that I thought he was close to. He could fall

in anywhere in that range. Frye might do better than the top 15 and he might do worse than the 5

similar players. Again, what's the problem aside from you and semantics?

It's called consistency, understand what it means!

No, I mean progress where a player is not automatically pigeon-holed into a position based on

his height, but rather categorized by how he plays.

No, you just pigeon hole players by the style they play and skills in relation to YOUR definition of a

specific position.

Go back and "check it out", your position has been sliding all of over the place!!!

Again, you just don't understand the words range and around.

No you haven't except to say that somehow greater minutes somehow equals improvement. Yet

somehow,

tis won't equate to better numbers. Which is BS.

No it's not.

I've already explained that just meeting your projections with increased minutes will show improvement

while you think it's just everything staying the same.

The reason I am sure you won't eat crow is because I have seen your tap-dancing act in this

discussion. I have seen you change your position at least 3 times, so I am pretty certain you cannot

admit when you are wrong, like in the comparisons of Jamison, Okur, Randolph, etc.

How have I changed my position? Explain how I've done that not once, not twice but at least 3 times.

I've admitted when I've been wrong on this board. Show me where I haven't. You do understand that I

have to be proven wrong first before I admit to it, right? Another simple concept that you don't seem

to understand.

Jamison, Okur, Randolph all have better ACTUAL numbers than Frye's PROJECTED numbers. So how am I

wrong with those comparisons???

You will get no apology, your character is revealed by your pedantry. I am not assisnating your

character, merely observing it. So why don't you prove me wrong and admit that you are?

Not surprising. It takes a man of character to apologize and I know what kind of person I'm dealing

with.

As far as my character, as soon as I'm proven incorrect, I'll be more than happy to admit to it.

Always have, always will.

In any case if I knew it would be this easy to get rid of you, I would have swatted you

earlier!

More tough guy talk. I'm sure everybody is really impressed.

I won't reply to you anymore if you refuse to actually say how you think Frye will do this

season.

Whatever, I'll just take your silence as a concession that you know I'm right.