Most Improved, A Review

Is there anything sillier than the NBA Most Improved Award?  The parameters of the award are confusing and the application is often incorrectly applied, no matter which standard most people would reasonably apply.  Here are the possible standards of “improvement”: 

-Good young player steadily improving

-Player with no previous expectations or who was considered a good player but becomes good out of nowhere

-Established player in his prime going from good to very good (i.e. peak season)

-Player who improves merely by getting more minutes

-A player who was considered a prospect craps out and then later becomes good 

These are rough approximations of standards for the award and they can overlap but they fairly encompass most scenarios.  I thought we could look back at the award’s history and see what value, if any, we can distill from this review.  The award itself came into to existence in 1985-86.  Previously, the NBA had created a “Comeback Player of the Year” but had abandoned the idea after a few years, allegedly because the NBA was tired of giving the award to players who had comeback from substance abuse.  Before we get to the Most Improved Award, let’s review the old Comeback Award to see if the award did yield potentially embarrassing results:

1980-81, Bernard King:  King did get the award after a tough year in Utah, reportedly due to substance abuse.  King did not suffer any public relapses aftewards and was hardly an embarrassing winner.  Had they kept the award, he probably would’ve gotten it again in 1987-88 when he came back from a devastating knee injury.

1981-82, Gus Williams:  Williams “came back” from sitting out the entire 1980-81 season in a contract dispute.  No drugs hear but not exactly an model award winner.

1982-83, Paul Westphal:  Westphal struggled with injuries his first year in New York.  In 1982-83, Westphal played in 80 games but was really just decent (14.5 ppg, 8.0 apg).  Still, after two injury plagued year, a decent season on a decent team was enough to get him the award.  His career ended after one more season.

1983-84, Adrian Dantley:  AD missed most of the previous season with torn ligaments in his wrist.  After his return, Dantley would continue to put up huge number for Utah before he was chased out of town after a contract dispute with management.

1984-85, Micheal Ray Richardson:  This was the award everyone refers to when discussing potential embarrassment factor.  Richardson was famous for his many drug relapses and was permanently banned only a few months later, when he went AWOL during the team’s Christmas party in 1985-86.

1985-86, Marques Johnson:  Johnson also made a comeback from struggling with substance abuse.  Unlike King or Richardson, Johnson didn’t really miss any major time with his problem but his game was off in 1984-85.  The return in 1985-86, however, was the end for Johnson,  He suffered several major injuries in 1986-87 and his career was over. 

The award did seem a little silly but it wasn’t really littered with drug rehab candidates.  Rather, it seems that the specter of Richardson’s problems set a long shadow on the NBA and the elimination of this award was the casualty.  Comeback and Most Improved actually overlapped for one season.  Starting in 1985-86, the Most Improved Award came into play, not as a replacement for Comeback Award, but as a totally separate award.  But when Comeback was dumped, the emergence of Most Improved made it look like a replacement.    

Turning back to Most Improved, I thought we could go through each winner and see how much he actually did improve on his PER of the previous season and where the player ended up the following season (we’ll call it “three-year PER”).  This would show how accurate the perception of the award is (namely that the winners usually aren’t very good).  Again, PER is not the only way to evaluate a player but it works very well in the context of evaluating a player against himself from year-to-year: 

1985-86, Alvin Robertson, PER 19.5, three-year PER: 15.3, 19.5, 18.5

1986-87, Dale Ellis, PER 19.0, three-year PER: 13.5, 19.0, 19.3

1987-88, Kevin Duckworth, PER 14.9, three-year PER: 9.1, 14.9, 13.9

1988-89, Kevin Johnson, PER 20.5, three-year PER, 15.5, 20.5, 22.8

1989-90, Rony Seikaly, PER 15.9, three-year PER, 10.8, 15.9, 15.2

1990-91, Scott Skiles, PER 17.8, three-year PER, 13.2, 17.8, 14.4

1991-92, Pervis Ellison, PER 19.9, three-year PER, 15.9, 19.9, 18.5

1992-93, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, PER 15.6, three-year PER, 12.6, 15.6, 16.7

1993-94, Don MacLean, PER 17.8, three-year PER, 14.0, 17.8, 11.7

1994-95, Dana Barros, PER 20.9, three-year PER, 16.0, 20.9, 15.6

1995-96, Gheorghe Muresan, PER 21.0, three-year PER, 17.4, 21.0, 16.7

1996-97, Isaac Austin, PER 14.2, three-year PER, N/A, 14.2, 16.3

1997-98, Alan Henderson, PER 18.4, three-year PER, 15.0, 18.4, 16.0

1998-99, Darrell Armstrong, PER 22.2, three-year PER, 15.7, 22.2, 19.5

1999-00, Jalen Rose, PER 16.7, three-year PER, 14.4, 16.7, 17.8

2000-01, Tracy McGrady, PER 24.9, three-year PER, 20.0, 24.9, 25.1

2001-02, Jermaine O’Neal, PER 18.1, three-year PER, 17.5, 18.1, 21.4

2002-03, Gilbert Arenas, PER 18.6, three-year PER, 17.0, 18.6, 16.0

2003-04, Zach Randolph, PER 19.6, three-year PER, 19.9, 19.6, 18.6

2004-05, Bobby Simmons, PER 16.1, three-year PER, 12.6, 16.1, 13.8

2005-06, Boris Diaw, PER 17.3, three-year PER, 10.0, 17.3, 13.0

2006-07, Monta Ellis, PER 15.0, three-year PER, 11.1, 15.0, 19.0

2007-08, Hedo Turkoglu, PER 17.8, three-year PER 14.2, 17.8, 14.8

2008-09, Danny Granger, PER 21.9, three-year PER 16.7, 21.8, 19.8 

The standard for the award seems to be constantly changing.  In the 1980s, we saw good young player notch the award based upon the natural improvement cycle.  In the 1990s, we saw more random selections: players hitting peak seasons (Barros, Skiles) or fringe guys establishing themselves briefly as useful players (MacLean, Austin, Muresan) but very few young lottery picks, except guys who really struggled as young players (Ellison and Abdul-Rauf).  It seems that in the 2000s there has been more of a focus on good young players in the natural improvement cycle like T-Mac and O’Neal. 

Some other notes on the selections: 

-Randolph, O’Neal, and Arenas really weren’t great choices, as their rate stats didn’t change much in the previous season and really their only improvement was in playing time and not ability.

-Turkoglu was also and odd choice, since he had plenty of previous seasons similar to his quasi-peak of 2007-08. 

-There is also something less than satisfying to me about awarding expected stars for natural development.  McGrady was a lottery pick and a good player who improved partly because of signing with Orlando and being given carte blanche to shoot.  No one was too surprised when he turned into an All-Star.  The same logic applies for Robertson, KJ, Seikaly, Rose, and several others.

-The true spirit of the award rests in young players with no expectations, who end up being valuable over the long term.  In that sense, Armstrong is probably the ideal award winner, since he was a real fringer for years before making his mark.  Unlike other fringers listed above, he ended up staying a good player for another decade in the NBA. 

So what have we learned?  Just that this award is amorphous in standards and rarely provides a truly satisfying winner.  The NBA won’t get rid of it because it’s another subject to get people talking.  In the end, however, I don’t see much utility in it.

Leave a Reply