Any Rumblings About Frye

[AzStevenCal]

Where is the substance to that response? I watched a lot of Suns games during the season.


Who said that Frye does what he wants? I said that he camps out at 22-23 feet from the basket on every offensive set like a Shooting Guard. And that this past season, a lot of opposing teams stopped sending their Center out to guard him when he was playing Center (which was every 4th quarter, with Plumlee and Len on the bench).

Geez, guys. If you are going to disagree with a post, offer a meaningful alternative opinion. Convince people otherwise.

I didn't notice that happening very often although I can't say I watched for it specifically. However, I would point out that Channing took almost as many two point shots as he did three point shots (346 to 432). He spends a lot of time at the three point line but he also posts up and he takes the occasional midrange shot too.

Steve

 

[SirStefan32]

To introduce some facts into the discussion:
http://vorped.com/bball/index.php/player/shotchart/865-Channing-Frye/season/2013-2014-REG

Over 80% of his shots are outside the paint, while 55% are from behind the three point line.

For the sake of comparison, Kevin Love takes over 40% of his shots inside the paint, and only 34% of his shots are threes.

Hell, Dragic's breakdown is 47%+ paint, and 27% from three.
Gerald Greene's breakdown is 21% paint and 50% three.
Klay Thompson- 25% vs. 42%

Channing Frye is indeed a 7-foot tall shooting guard.

 

[elindholm]

Over 80% of his shots are outside the paint, while 55% are from behind the three point line.

Channing Frye is indeed a 7-foot tall shooting guard.

And yet the claims that he never ventures into the paint, or shoots only threes, are obviously false.

 

[AzStevenCal]

To introduce some facts into the discussion:
http://vorped.com/bball/index.php/player/shotchart/865-Channing-Frye/season/2013-2014-REG

Over 80% of his shots are outside the paint, while 55% are from behind the three point line.

For the sake of comparison, Kevin Love takes over 40% of his shots inside the paint, and only 34% of his shots are threes.

Hell, Dragic's breakdown is 47%+ paint, and 27% from three.
Gerald Greene's breakdown is 21% paint and 50% three.
Klay Thompson- 25% vs. 42%

Channing Frye is indeed a 7-foot tall shooting guard.

That's not really the point of contention here, it's whether he does nothing else but camp out at the three. Clearly he takes the bulk of his shots from distance. And that's his job. He picks up a big man assignment on defense and he pulls the opposing big man out of the key on offense. As far as I can tell, that defines a Stretch Power Forward.

Steve

 

[SirStefan32]

And yet the claims that he never ventures into the paint, or shoots only threes, are obviously false.

That's not really the point of contention here, it's whether he does nothing else but camp out at the three. Clearly he takes the bulk of his shots from distance. And that's his job. He picks up a big man assignment on defense and he pulls the opposing big man out of the key on offense. As far as I can tell, that defines a Stretch Power Forward.

Steve

"Never"/ "nothing" is obviously a Bill Walton-type hyperbole, but the point is true. He takes less shots in the paint and takes more threes than most shooting guards.

I suppose we need to define exactly what a stretch four is, but regardless of how you define it, when you look at these "Stretch fours" (even if we include the SFs that Steve included in one of his earlier posts), it is clear that Frye and his camping at the three point line is outside the norm. I admit I haven't looked at every single "Stretch four", but in the sample I looked up, Ryan Anderson in 2012/2013 was the closes thing to Frye at 50.6% threes and 26.6% in the paint. Matt Bonner was at 60%, but only 153 shots.

I am not going to speak for BC and others, but for me, the problem is not that Frye sits at the three point line like a shooting guard- I understand that a player like that can be useful- occasionally, for a couple of minutes, even an entire game (Spurs employed this against OKC in one of the last games just to confuse them), but not as a full-time thing (Almost 30 minutes per game.)

EDIT:
I should probably add a caveat here- full-time stretch 4 can work just fine on full-time basis if you have a dominant low-post scorer. Rudy Tomjanovich proved that with Robert Horry, and Matt Bullard. Rudy also had Otis Thorpe there to balance things out. If you have the most dominant low post player and the best defensive player in the league, you can get away with using 6'9 shooting guards as your full-time power forward rotation. if you have Alex Len and Miles Plumlee in their first and second year in the league, you just can't do it.

 

[AzStevenCal]

"Never"/ "nothing" is obviously a Bill Walton-type hyperbole, but the point is true. He takes less shots in the paint and takes more threes than most shooting guards.

I suppose we need to define exactly what a stretch four is, but regardless of how you define it, when you look at these "Stretch fours" (even if we include the SFs that Steve included in one of his earlier posts), it is clear that Frye and his camping at the three point line is outside the norm. I admit I haven't looked at every single "Stretch four", but in the sample I looked up, Ryan Anderson in 2012/2013 was the closes thing to Frye at 50.6% threes and 26.6% in the paint. Matt Bonner was at 60%, but only 153 shots.

I am not going to speak for BC and others, but for me, the problem is not that Frye sits at the three point line like a shooting guard- I understand that a player like that can be useful- occasionally, for a couple of minutes, even an entire game (Spurs employed this against OKC in one of the last games just to confuse them), but not as a full-time thing (Almost 30 minutes per game.)

Yes, he does. In that regard he is very good at his job. If your job is to shoot from distance so that the opposing big has to leave the key, I'd think you'd want to do it often. I'm not entirely convinced his job is good for a basketball team but it would explain why he looked to be dragging us down yet all the stats about lineups always reflected well on him. We played much better when he was on the court, even when we were swearing at the guy for bricking threes and letting the other big guys push him around.

Steve

 

[elindholm]

it is clear that Frye and his camping at the three point line is outside the norm.

I am not going to speak for BC and others, but for me, the problem is not that Frye sits at the three point line like a shooting guard- I understand that a player like that can be useful- occasionally, for a couple of minutes, even an entire game (Spurs employed this against OKC in one of the last games just to confuse them), but not as a full-time thing (Almost 30 minutes per game.)

I wouldn't mind if he took 100% of his shots from three-point range, if

(a) he shot a higher percentage (37% is pretty mediocre for a volume three-point shooter), and

(b) he could compete against true PFs on the defensive end (which he sort of can, on a good day, but generally speaking doesn't do well).

Although I am prone to exaggerate from time to time, I think hyperbole is really counterproductive once you start taking about nuances.

We all agree that Frye shoots a lot of threes -- so what's the point of showing that he takes more threes than so-and-so?

We all agree that he's more effective shooting threes than trying to back down big guys in the post -- but what's the point of saying he has "no post game," when in fact he can make defenses pay for putting a guard on him (which Marion, for example, couldn't)?

What's the point of rehashing the bullet points of a century-old primer on basketball positions (PF must play inside, PG must always look for teammates' shots first) when anyone who's paying attention can see that the game has evolved tremendously?

Frye isn't great and he isn't terrible. Debating about the concept of a "stretch four," what its precise meaning is, and whether such a player could fit in with a contending team doesn't change anything. He is a 6' 11" basketball player who does not use his height to his advantage, but who does some other things pretty well. There's nothing inherently wrong with what he does; the problem is that he's not especially good at it.

 

[SirStefan32]

Yes, he does. In that regard he is very good at his job. If your job is to shoot from distance so that the opposing big has to leave the key, I'd think you'd want to do it often. I'm not entirely convinced his job is good for a basketball team but it would explain why he looked to be dragging us down yet all the stats about lineups always reflected well on him. We played much better when he was on the court, even when we were swearing at the guy for bricking threes and letting the other big guys push him around.

Steve

Well by all means then- let's just sign Matt Bonner and play him and Frye together. Don't allow them to cross the three point line. If 100% of their shots are behind the three point line, by your logic, the Suns should be an instant contender.

 

[SirStefan32]

I wouldn't mind if he took 100% of his shots from three-point range, if

(a) he shot a higher percentage (37% is pretty mediocre for a volume three-point shooter), and

(b) he could compete against true PFs on the defensive end (which he sort of can, on a good day, but generally speaking doesn't do well).

I agree, except that I would add that these "good" days are very few and far between.

Although I am prone to exaggerate from time to time, I think hyperbole is really counterproductive once you start taking about nuances.

I think hyperbole can be effective at making a point. I do also admit to using it perhaps a bit too much.

We all agree that Frye shoots a lot of threes -- so what's the point of showing that he takes more threes than so-and-so?

The point is to show just how bad his shot selection is. We all know that Noah, for example is a very good passer for a big man, but I think pointing out that he averages 5 assists per game is effective at showing just how good of a passer he is. We all know Kyle Korver is an outstanding 3 point shooter, but stating that he shoots 46% from three shows just how good of a shooter he is. By the same token, just because we know that Frye's shot selection is terrible, it doesn't mean there is no need to look at just how bad it is.

We all agree that he's more effective shooting threes than trying to back down big guys in the post -- but what's the point of saying he has "no post game," when in fact he can make defenses pay for putting a guard on him (which Marion, for example, couldn't)?

For every shot he attempts in the paint, he attempts four outside the paint. If you are right and he can, indeed, punish defenses for putting a smaller player on him, I'd still argue that he sure as hell is not doing a whole lot of punishing.

What's the point of rehashing the bullet points of a century-old primer on basketball positions (PF must play inside, PG must always look for teammates' shots first) when anyone who's paying attention can see that the game has evolved tremendously?

Of course the game has changed, but that doesn't mean that everything that is not "traditional" is good and should not be debated.

Frye isn't great and he isn't terrible. Debating about the concept of a "stretch four," what its precise meaning is, and whether such a player could fit in with a contending team doesn't change anything.

It's fun to talk about. It's a very slow off season, so why not debate the concept of a stretch four. In all the years I've been on this board (and the previous one, for that matter), I've learned a lot from other people and from researching stuff while discussing/ arguing different stuff.

He is a 6' 11" basketball player who does not use his height to his advantage, but who does some other things pretty well. There's nothing inherently wrong with what he does; the problem is that he's not especially good at it.

Fair enough, but if you were to listen to some on this board, you would think Frye was actually a good, productive player. Hell, some have credited him with the Suns' success this year. Don't ask me who, as I can't remember, but several people have said that he is the key to the Suns' success.

 

[elindholm]

For every shot he attempts in the paint, he attempts four outside the paint. If you are right and he can, indeed, punish defenses for putting a smaller player on him, I'd still argue that he sure as hell is not doing a whole lot of punishing.

I'm not a big Frye fan by any means, but in fairness, opposing defenses usually respect his inside game enough to put a decently sized player on him.

Of course the game has changed, but that doesn't mean that everything that is not "traditional" is good and should not be debated.

I think it gets too complicated. You need people who can score inside and people who can score outside, end of story. Traditionally, inside scorers were PFs or centers, and outside scorers were guards (or SFs, I guess). But the league wasn't, overall, so big as it is now: Bill Russell was listed at 6' 9" and was a dominant defensive "big man," Truck Robinson led the league in rebounding at 6' 7" (1977-78, 15.7 per), etc., with guards not a whole lot smaller -- so it was easier to define people by how they played rather than what size they were.

I guess there are some advanced statistics that show that the Suns were more effective last season when Frye was on the floor. If so, I think that must be because Bledsoe and Tucker are both pretty poor outside shooters. You need shooting somewhere, and if your PF can provide it, that's better than nothing.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Well by all means then- let's just sign Matt Bonner and play him and Frye together. Don't allow them to cross the three point line. If 100% of their shots are behind the three point line, by your logic, the Suns should be an instant contender.

Well, the key is drawing the opposing big man out of the key. Frye shot it well the first few months and he was very successful in opening the key for our penetrators. He stopped shooting it well but for some almost unfathomable reason, the other bigs kept coming out on him anyway (for the most part) in addition to the occasional double team.

I don't know that Frye helped us all that much the last couple months of the season but for some reason his +/- numbers individually and in the various 3 and 5 man units were still pretty good. Nowhere near as good as they had been in December but nowhere near as bad as they should have been based on what Channing was actually doing out there.

I really disagree that he has a poor shot selection. They were the shots he was supposed to take. If you don't like them I think your problem is with Jeff's offense rather than Channing. Well, I guess you could still put it on Channing if you felt that Jeff was just making the best of a bad situation and I really can't argue that. But I'm not sure we have a player on our roster that "forced" fewer shots. In fact, as his confidence dipped late in the season he frequently started passing out of those shots which caused someone else to have to take a less than ideal shot.

Despite what I've said, I really hope we don't have to rely on Frye this season. Of course, if you'll look at the old threads I was one of the few here to say something similar before the season too. I was surprised by all the posters that were expecting us to be so improved because of his return. It seemed like most posters had forgotten just how much Channing had hurt us in the past. It turns out I was both wrong and right. I was wrong that he wouldn't help us but I was right that most of the board would forget their excitement and turn on him before the season was over.

Steve

 

[AzStevenCal]

Well by all means then- let's just sign Matt Bonner and play him and Frye together. Don't allow them to cross the three point line. If 100% of their shots are behind the three point line, by your logic, the Suns should be an instant contender.

BTW, it's not really my logic. I am not advocating for the stretch four. I'd much rather have a balanced team with big men that can score inside and wing players that can shoot from distance and drive to the basket when the lane is open. I do think it's valuable to have a big man that can stretch the floor but I'd far rather it be an additional strength rather than it being the only reason the guy sees the court. Give me someone like Garnett in his prime that can do it all. Or better yet, give me someone like a young Duncan that is such a threat from mid-range and closer that he draws a double team often before the ball is even rotated to his side of the court.

Steve

 

[BC867]

Truck Robinson led the league in rebounding at 6' 7" (1977-78, 15.7 per), etc., with guards not a whole lot smaller -- so it was easier to define people by how they played rather than what size they were.

Actually, Rich Kelley playing Center alongside Truck Robinson, but getting less minutes, averaged more rebounds-per-minute than Truck on the Suns. But Kelley was caught up in the Suns tradition of developing the Power Forward as the key big man on the team. Right to the present.

Granted, we are not the only team who does that. But for 4 1/2 decades, we have been the longest and most consistent. Jerry Colangelo, who was there from the start, chose to set it in stone.

 

[BC867]

Referring to Frye as a Stretch-4 is very incomplete when evaluating the effectiveness of it.

Through all of this past season, Channing Frye split his time between starting Power Forward and backup Center. He was also our closing Center most nights (when the game was on the line). All he offered the position was the hope that his 3-point shots would fall. Which, to make it worse, they stopped doing.

It certainly wasn't Plumlee or Len getting the majority minutes at Center. And if it wasn't Frye, it was Markieff Morris. That's even worse.

This debate of how the Suns use their Power Forwards go way beyond Channing Frye as a Stretch-4.

And while that was going on, our two star players were Point Guards.

The whole concept of the Suns roster wasn't innovative. It was dysfunctional.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Referring to Frye as a Stretch-4 is very incomplete when evaluating the effectiveness of it.

Through all of this past season, Channing Frye split his time between starting Power Forward and backup Center. He was also our closing Center most nights (when the game was on the line). All he offered the position was the hope that his 3-point shots would fall. Which, to make it worse, they stopped doing.

It certainly wasn't Plumlee or Len getting the majority minutes at Center. And if it wasn't Frye, it was Markieff Morris. That's even worse.

This debate of how the Suns use their Power Forwards go way beyond Channing Frye as a Stretch-4.

And while that was going on, our two star players were Point Guards.

The whole concept of the Suns roster wasn't innovative. It was dysfunctional.

It was a great season. I enjoyed it a lot. I thought Hornacek was brilliant getting way more out of this team than anyone can imagine.

I think the term "dysfunctional" is a horrible mischaracterization of the team and season. Honestly i am tired of the same complaining about the same thing year after year.

 

[SirStefan32]

It was a great season. I enjoyed it a lot. I thought Hornacek was brilliant getting way more out of this team than anyone can imagine.

I think the term "dysfunctional" is a horrible mischaracterization of the team and season. Honestly i am tired of the same complaining about the same thing year after year.

I think BC and I will stop complaining when the Suns win it all by playing small ball.

 

[Mainstreet]

Referring to Frye as a Stretch-4 is very incomplete when evaluating the effectiveness of it.

Through all of this past season, Channing Frye split his time between starting Power Forward and backup Center. He was also our closing Center most nights (when the game was on the line). All he offered the position was the hope that his 3-point shots would fall. Which, to make it worse, they stopped doing.

It certainly wasn't Plumlee or Len getting the majority minutes at Center. And if it wasn't Frye, it was Markieff Morris. That's even worse.

This debate of how the Suns use their Power Forwards go way beyond Channing Frye as a Stretch-4.

And while that was going on, our two star players were Point Guards.

The whole concept of the Suns roster wasn't innovative. It was dysfunctional.

I think it is called, making do with what you have. The Suns do not have a true banger at the FC position and it's not for a lack of trying.

 

[BC867]

I think the term "dysfunctional" is a horrible mischaracterization of the team and season.

Why not address the two situations I cited? A "Stretch-4" who plays more time at Center (from 23 feet out). And our two star players sharing the same position, Point Guard. If that is not dysfunctional, what is?

Honestly i am tired of the same complaining about the same thing year after year.

JC, as a Suns fan since the 1970's, so am I. So am I! An entertaining, but unbalanced, team that has never risen to the point of serious Championship contender.

If Frye stays at the "4" and plays alongside strong role-playing Centers, it might work. Even then, we can't be sure it would last. Other teams have already begun compensating by putting their Center on our Power Forward down low brcause Frye plays soft and out of the post.

And even if the Suns could afford what both Bledsoe and Dragic will command while playing the same position, both of them want to be the player on the court running the team. It is highly probable that we will not wind up with both of them.

'Sorry I offended you, but the team to which I have given my heart for the past 40+ years indeed has a legacy of being dysfunctional. Out of balance. And I am tired of it as well as you are.

 

[Superbone]

I think BC and I will stop complaining when the Suns win it all by playing small ball.

I really don't think that will be enough.

 

[Superbone]

JC, as a Suns fan since the 1970's, so am I. So am I! An entertaining, but unbalanced, team that has never risen to the point of serious Championship contender.

So, the two times we were in the NBA Finals we weren't a serious championship contender. OoooK.

 

[BC867]

So, the two times we were in the NBA Finals we weren't a serious championship contender. OoooK.

C'mon, the first time we were a Cinderella team. 'Hardly a strong contender.

So that leaves one time in 45 years. One time in three years does not make a strong contender, let alone in 45 years. Not OK!

 

[BC867]

I think BC and I will stop complaining when the Suns win it all by playing small ball.

Now if that is not an oxymoron, nothing is.

 

[Phrazbit]

The Suns were a serious championship contender in 76, 93, 94, 95, 2007, 2010.

It does not matter if the 76 team was a Cinderella team, they LITERALLY contended for the title.

 

[Superbone]

The Suns were a serious championship contender in 76, 93, 94, 95, 2007, 2010.

It does not matter if the 76 team was a Cinderella team, they LITERALLY contended for the title.

Thank you.

 

[Superbone]

C'mon, the first time we were a Cinderella team. 'Hardly a strong contender.

So that leaves one time in 45 years. One time in three years does not make a strong contender, let alone in 45 years. Not OK!

Who said anything about over a period of time?

...team that has never risen to the point of serious Championship contender.

You're smart enough not to use the word "never". You yourself just invalidated your claim.