Why isn't Wesley mentioned for Most Improved?

[Hey]

http://espn.go.com/nba/notebook/_/page/Awards-101221/nba-awards-watch

Who does this Maurice Brooks think he is?

Honestly, Wesley averaged what, 5 points or something last year? This year as a starter he gets at least 20 per game. Does anyone on that list make that big of a jump?

 

[Nikolokolus]

http://espn.go.com/nba/notebook/_/page/Awards-101221/nba-awards-watch

Who does this Maurice Brooks think he is?

Honestly, Wesley averaged what, 5 points or something last year? This year as a starter he gets at least 20 per game. Does anyone on that list make that big of a jump?

He averaged about 9 points per game as a rookie (starter) and really the only thing that's changed between this year and last is a higher usage rate (which is to his credit) I doubt he'll get serious MIP consideration.

 

[Minstrel]

He averaged about 9 points per game as a rookie (starter) and really the only thing that's changed between this year and last is a higher usage rate (which is to his credit) I doubt he'll get serious MIP consideration.

Higher usage rate with better raw production and similar efficiency points to being better. His PER has gone up and his TS% is essentially steady on more shots. So he deserves serious MIP consideration on the merits.

Besides which, voters are hardly that sophisticated as to check usage rate and efficiency, etc. Shooting from 9 PPG to 20 PPG is usually what makes a MIP.

 

[THE HCP]

You'd think Love has MIP all wrapped up.

 

[Minstrel]

You'd think Love has MIP all wrapped up.

That's a good point. I think Matthews is a candidate, but behind Love right now. Love is much better than Matthews, but started way ahead of Matthews too.

 

[RR7]

He averaged about 9 points per game as a rookie (starter) and really the only thing that's changed between this year and last is a higher usage rate (which is to his credit) I doubt he'll get serious MIP consideration.

But what's really changed for Beasley? If you discredit Matthews because he has more opportunity, then you hav to realize the same thing is true with beasley, who is scoring more because he is playing more and getting more shots.

Or CJ Miles seeing a jump in usage.

Seems to be what happens with this award. Who got playing time and saw their scoring jump.

 

[Ed O]

It's a stupid award, IMO, because (as others have mentioned) because of the simplistic nature of the analysis done.

The list, though, is even more dumb. Miles is ahead in the race because he doesn't start?

Ed O.

 

[B-Roy]

He averaged about 9 points per game as a rookie (starter) and really the only thing that's changed between this year and last is a higher usage rate (which is to his credit) I doubt he'll get serious MIP consideration.

His PER is up 4. That's better than guys like Beasley who's PER actually decreased.

 

[MARIS61]

He is what he was.

 

[Nikolokolus]

His PER is up 4. That's better than guys like Beasley who's PER actually decreased.

Like I said the only thing that's really changed is his usage rate while his percentages have remained steady (and I said it was to his credit that he's been able to sustain them). Guys with low usage rates but high percentages don't always have a really high PER because it approximates productivity on a pace adjusted, per minute basis, Nic got dinged for that very reason his rookie year.