Frye It Up

Did a little study on Channing Frye for your question about The Buffet Of Goodness.  

I compared Frye, Zach, Chris Wilcox and Shareef for the last 2 seasons.

Offense per 100 possessions while on the floor
Frye  -  105.7
Zach -  105.1
Wilcox  -  112
Rahim  -  108.5

Offense per 100 possessions while off the floor
Frye  -  106.2
Zach -  102
Wilcox  -  107.5
Rahim  -  106.8

Defense per 100 possessions while on the floor
Frye  -  109.2
Zach -  112.8
Wilcox  -  113.9
Rahim  -  108.5

Defense per 100 possessions while off the floor
Frye  -  112.1
Zach -  111.2
Wilcox  -  113.1
Rahim  -  106.3

So based upon the above Frye had the greatest impact of the 4 on his contribution to his teams defense.  His team was 3 points per 100 possession better defensively with him on the floor.  Wilcox was next best (0.8 points better), then Zach (1.6 points worse), then Rahim (2.3 points worse).

Wilcox had the greatest impact of the 4 on his contribution to his teams offense.  His team was 4.4 points per 100 possession better offensively with him on the floor.  Zach was next best (3.05 points better), then Rahim (1.65 points better), then Frye (0.5 points worse).

Overall per 100 possessions the net Plus/Minus score for the four
Wilcox  +3.6 points
Frye  +2.5 points
Randolph  +1.45 points
Rahim  --0.65 points

When Frye was on the floor the opponents FG% was 0.95% lower than when he was off the floor.
When Randolph was on the floor the opponents FG% was 1.4% higher than when he was off the floor.
When Wilcox was on the floor the opponents FG% was 0.90% higher than when he was off the floor.
When Rahim was on the floor the opponents FG% was 1.10% higher than when he was off the floor.

When Frye was on the floor his teams FG% was 2.15% lower than when he was off the floor.
When Randolph was on the floor his teams FG% was 0.70% higher than when he was off the floor.
When Wilcox was on the floor his teams FG% was 3.30% higher than when he was off the floor.
When Rahim was on the floor his teams FG% was 0.85% higher than when he was off the floor.

So from all of that Frye is clearly the best defender of the 4.  When he is on the floor his teams defense improves.  Rahim was the worst defender, followed closely by Zach.

On the offensive end Frye was the least effective of the 4.  Zach's individual numbers are better than Wilcox and Rahim, but because of the demands placed on all the players and the other contributors on the team, Wilcox was the overall most effective offensive player of the 4.  Clearly Wilcox helped Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis become very effective, through setting better picks, and help create spacing and pace.  Wilcox clearly help Allen and Lewis much more than Zach helped Roy, Jack, Aldridge.  Frye did the least to help, so obviously he didn't contribute much as the other 3 passing the ball, setting picks, spacing the floor, etc.

Overall of the four Frye did more to help his team than Zach and Rahim, but not as much as Wilcox.

Another way to look at things is look at Wins and Losses when the player was on the floor.  During a players stint on the court did his team win for that "x" minute stretch of time.

Over the last 2 years the Sonics were 76-95 with Wilcox on the floor, a .444 winning %. Overall the Sonics had a .402 winning % during those 2 years, so they were .042 better with Wilcox on the floor.  That equates to 6.89 wins over 2 seasons.

The Kings were 81-103 with Rahim on the floor, a .440 winning %.  Overall the Kings had a .470 winning % during those 2 years, so they were .030 worse with Rahim on the floor.  That equates to 4.92 losses over 2 seasons.  The curse of Shareef Abdur Rahim lives.  He can put up good numbers individually, but he always makes his team worse.

The Blazers were 98-136 with Zach on the floor, a .419 winning %.  Overall the Blazers had a .323 winning % during those 2 years, so they were .096 better with Zach on the floor.  That equates to 15.74 wins over 2 seasons.  Obviously Zach didn't have much help the last 2 seasons, so he was critical to have on the floor.  The Blazers would have been bad on an historical scale without Zach, because they were pretty bad with him, and he was the most important player both seasons.

The Knicks were 93-128 with Frye on the floor, a .421 winning %.  Overall the Knicks had a .342 winning % during those 2 years, so they were .079 better with Frye on the floor.  That equates to 12.96 wins over 2 seasons.  Frye was much better in 05-06 than 06-07.  He helped the Knicks a lot, and without him they would have been much worse defensively.  Brown utilized his skills well, Thomas not so well, but overall Thomas won more games.