MIP?

[Hornets2013]

I know he's not playing as good as many of the names mentioned, hell any of the names mentined, but Austin Rivers has to be considered among the top most improved players if all you are doing is gauging a players performance this season vs. last season. How could he not?

I think Rivers has a legit chance next year if he really makes the impact he's capable of.

[RaisingTheBar]

When is this usually announced? During playoffs?

[demiurg]

I know he's not playing as good as many of the names mentioned, hell any of the names mentined, but Austin Rivers has to be considered among the top most improved players if all you are doing is gauging a players performance this season vs. last season. How could he not?

He went from terrible to below average. That's hardly award worthy.

[Davisistheman]

He went from terrible to below average. That's hardly award worthy.

Perhaps but isn't it a most improved award. I mean, to go from an Acura to a Ferrari is quite an accomplishment, but to go from a big wheel to and Subaru is an undeniablely larger improvement. I know he wont be considered for it but if the award is given for improvement shouldn't he be considered?

Tapatalkin

[JJackisangry]

I think Rivers has a legit chance next year if he really makes the impact he's capable of.

If he becomes a reliable finisher at the rim, adds a mid range shot and improves his 3 pt percentage to at least the 36 percentile area I think he could grab it. Easier said than done.

[All Metro]

green or stephenson

[kclaboy504]

Skip a whole year to make my point? No, you obviously didn't read my point. I didn't say he had those numbers last year. I said he's had comparable numbers to these before when he was given a comparable amount of playing time, which, as per your request, is shown to be factually accurate. That illustrates, not a guy who is some drastically improved player worthy of an award, but a guy who, again, was given the opportunity to play and was, again, a decent player (although I did say he is improved). Sorry if you don't see it that way but don't twist what I said. I supported it with facts like you asked and that's my opinion on it. He didn't play last year because he was on a great team. He has this year and has decent numbers, just like when he was with the Nets. Fact.

I see what your saying but the definition of the award is mip from last year to this year. Period. Other years do not matter.

[PELICANSFAN]

If he becomes a reliable finisher at the rim, adds a mid range shot and improves his 3 pt percentage to at least the 36 percentile area I think he could grab it. Easier said than done.

I liked what I saw in the Houston game when he started hitting the mid-range shots. If he works on that and becomes reliable, he could become a nice bench player.

[saintsinNO]

I see what your saying but the definition of the award is mip from last year to this year. Period. Other years do not matter.

Where is their objective criteria for the award and what is considered? A voter may very well see it as I do. And even if that is the case, more playing time isn't the same thing as improved. So if you extrapolate and compare to past evidence, it shows he really isn't TAHT much improved, but that he was given more opportunity. Dragic has way better improvement numbers and PER. Same with Bledsoe. Same with Stephenson (not PER). Same with Davis. All of there /40 stats have jumped and they all have very high efficiency ratings (outside of Stephenson). Green has seen these numbers before. I understand Phx is the surprise team and people like what Green has done (as do I), but MIP? Not a shot if I had a vote. These numbers are what his numbers have been when he gets playing time. There are other players who have improved greater amounts in much greater areas and are used more and more efficient. Again, just my two cents.

[Sovereign]

All I know is Davis went from being pretty good to reaching benchmarks set by guys like David Robinson and Shaq

[NOLa.]

Greg Steisma

[kclaboy504]

Where is their objective criteria for the award and what is considered? A voter may very well see it as I do. And even if that is the case, more playing time isn't the same thing as improved. So if you extrapolate and compare to past evidence, it shows he really isn't TAHT much improved, but that he was given more opportunity. Dragic has way better improvement numbers and PER. Same with Bledsoe. Same with Stephenson (not PER). Same with Davis. All of there /40 stats have jumped and they all have very high efficiency ratings (outside of Stephenson). Green has seen these numbers before. I understand Phx is the surprise team and people like what Green has done (as do I), but MIP? Not a shot if I had a vote. These numbers are what his numbers have been when he gets playing time. There are other players who have improved greater amounts in much greater areas and are used more and more efficient. Again, just my two cents.

Nah I totally hear u. That's just from what I understand about the award. Strictly last year to this year. I really like Stephenson making his jump coupled with being on the pacers makes it that much more impressive for me. I think dragic or Stephenson wins it tho. I'd vote for green tho if I had a vote.

[saintsinNO]

All I know is Davis went from being pretty good to reaching benchmarks set by guys like David Robinson and Shaq

Which is who would get my vote, all homer-ism aside. Jumping 7ppg, 1.8rpg, 1bpg and a PER of nearly 27? At the age of 20/21? I don't see how Green even compares to that.

[saintsinNO]

Nah I totally hear u. That's just from what I understand about the award. Strictly last year to this year. I really like Stephenson making his jump coupled with being on the pacers makes it that much more impressive for me. I think dragic or Stephenson wins it tho. I'd vote for green tho if I had a vote.

I get that is likely the biggest consideration, but if people can say in one breath "young players are supposed to get better so it doesn't count as much," then they can't also say "it's strictly a numbers game from last year to now." I'm not saying Green being considered is crazy or unwarranted, just don't think he is out front of the pack, but that's my opinion. Obviously a subjective subject and award so we'll see. I personally would just like to see it go to a guy who plays a bigger part than Green.

[da ThRONe]

I get that is likely the biggest consideration, but if people can say in one breath "young players are supposed to get better so it doesn't count as much," then they can't also say "it's strictly a numbers game from last year to now." I'm not saying Green being considered is crazy or unwarranted, just don't think he is out front of the pack, but that's my opinion. Obviously a subjective subject and award so we'll see. I personally would just like to see it go to a guy who plays a bigger part than Green.

I don't see how these are conflicting ideologies. It's about growth from one season to the next, whoever since you expect major growth from 2nd and 3rd year players it's less impressive when they make a big leap in one year.

[Kibner]

Just like MVP, it is a combination of narrative and stats.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

[MichaelMcNamara]

I think it is the stupidest award simply for this reason: Nobody knows what the heck they are voting for


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saintsinNO]

I don't see how these are conflicting ideologies. It's about growth from one season to the next, whoever since you expect major growth from 2nd and 3rd year players it's less impressive when they make a big leap in one year.

Because if it's strictly a numbers game from last year to this year then let it be that, but if you can discredit Davis' numbers with extrinsic evidence (i.e. his age and stage of his career) then you have to also do the same for Green (i.e. the fact that he's had similar production when playing this amount before).

[saintsinNO]

I think it is the stupidest award simply for this reason: Nobody knows what the heck they are voting for


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree 100%.

[da ThRONe]

Because if it's strictly a numbers game from last year to this year then let it be that, but if you can discredit Davis' numbers with extrinsic evidence (i.e. his age and stage of his career) then you have to also do the same for Green (i.e. the fact that he's had similar production when playing this amount before).

I wasn't talking specifically about Green and Davis just that those two frame of minds weren't conflicting.

[da ThRONe]

I think it is the stupidest award simply for this reason: Nobody knows what the heck they are voting for


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think all awards are subjective unless based on a set number. I don't see how MIP is any different than MVP as far as what constitutes a legit criteria.

[UptownFuz504]

Why isn't somebody like LBJ eligible? Didn't he raise his fg% for the third year in a row? What about Blake Griffin. He has a well rounded game now. He improved his overall game. Why is this award relegated to mediocre players only?

[Kibner]

Why isn't somebody like LBJ eligible? Didn't he raise his fg% for the third year in a row? What about Blake Griffin. He has a well rounded game now. He improved his overall game. Why is this award relegated to mediocre players only?

Because good/great players getting better isn't as good of a story.

[kclaboy504]

Because good/great players getting better isn't as good of a story.

Ding ding ding ding!!!!

[kclaboy504]

I get that is likely the biggest consideration, but if people can say in one breath "young players are supposed to get better so it doesn't count as much," then they can't also say "it's strictly a numbers game from last year to now." I'm not saying Green being considered is crazy or unwarranted, just don't think he is out front of the pack, but that's my opinion. Obviously a subjective subject and award so we'll see. I personally would just like to see it go to a guy who plays a bigger part than Green.

I agree. Honestly I don't think green is ahead of the pack for this award. Just a couple posters put him as their first pick as a personal choice.