Whiteside: On top of being the guy who went from barely playing to actually being in the rotation when he got another shot in the league, it's a bit hard to improve on the year previous, when you weren't in the league that season.
Gobert: Went from under ten minutes per game to 26 minutes per game. Per 36, his numbers weren't up that much.
As I mentioned, I'm not philosophically opposed to players whose production went up because their minutes did winning the award. Again, they got an opportunity, and they made the most out of it. However, when you've got a player who posted better stats over last season across the board, including several career highs, went from being a good role player to an All-Star/possible cornerstone player,
and all that in the same amount of playing time as the year before...I think that's who has the edge in the Most Improved category. You can't attribute it to "Well, of course he put up better numbers, he's actually getting to play now"; Gasol came in, Rose came back and played 51 games, and Butler played great no matter whether the latter was in the lineup or not.
NovU wrote:I don't know. I get the feeling awards system is somewhat being abused to advertise the league stars.
Or, you know, the stars are the ones having the best performances (that's why they're considered stars, after all), and thus are the ones who are earning the most recognition and awards.
Who should be winning the awards instead? Benchwarmers averaging two points per game? Role players who aren't putting up big numbers, but have tremendous efficiency because they're not the focus of the defense and aren't called upon to do much?
To throw a Box Score Geeks-style analogy out there: Do you give the Academy Award for Best Picture to the best film? Or do you say "You know, it earned enough it at the box office, it has almost universally positive reviews, everyone knows it's the best picture, so there's no need to promote it. Let's give the Oscar to
The Hangover Part 84!"