The Most Improved Player (MIP) Award is a rather recent phenomenon. Whereas, for example, the first MVP Award was given in the 1955-1956 season, the first MIP was given out in the 1985-1986 season.
These awards are generally conceived in order to stimulate greater public interest in the NBA and the accomplishments of its players. The fact that the MIP was such a late add-on in the award landscape might suggest that it is, in some sense, not on par with the other awards.
Indeed, this award is something that we could probably do without. In terms of prestige, it does not measure up to something like MVP. When recounting a Hall-of-Fame player’s career, we think of his MVP selections and his similarly prestigious accolades. Receiving an MIP would not boost a player’s status or reputation to any significant extent. The award does continue to exist, though, outlasting the now-obsolete Comeback Player of the Year award.
It does have some value when betting on the NBA. It is fun to consider players who have improved greatly. So clearly, I do take there to be tension between the value that the award does possess, which suggests that we should care who receives the award, and its comparative lack of prestige, which suggests that maybe we should not care so much about the award.
Let’s explore this tension by examining more deeply what this award means.
A History of Unclarity
The history of the MIP has been one of unclarity.
Now, to be fair, the handing out of every award relies on some degree of subjective judgment. It is not objectively clear what, for example, the “valuable” in MVP means, but what I want to say is that MIP is unique for the extent to which it is unclear about its meaning.
On the surface, it seems simple: the player who has improved the most should receive this award. But what does improvement mean and how do you measure it? Is it the player who improves his point total by the greatest amount from one year to the next?
That seems to provide a simple method of determining who should receive the award. But what do we do if that player who has demonstrated this great statistical improvement has moved to a team where he has a greater role? Or to a team with an overall better offense? How do we extricate the player from the team and place a magnifying glass on his individual value as a player?
Moreover, could that player have simply been underperforming – are we sure that MIP doesn’t, in this way, reward players who have performed below their ability level?
Different Meanings of The Word
These are difficult questions.
In examining the history of the MIP, we can see this difficulty played out.
The Interesting Case of Tracy McGrady
Tracy McGrady is one of the few MIP recipients who is also a Hall-of-Famer, which further shows in a different light the lack of prestige accorded to this award.
McGrady received this award in the 2000-2001 season. This season was his fourth in the league and the first of eight consecutive seasons in which he amassed over 20 points per game.
His case is interesting because, on the one hand, he seemed to have earned his reward because he had scored 11.4 fewer points per game in the previous season. However, in the season in which he received MIP, he also started every game and averaged close to nine minutes per game.
Did he really improve, per se, or did he finally get the chance to showcase the talent that he possessed all along? After all, he did start every game, which means that his team clearly saw something in him before he ever received the MIP.
Let’s say that he did truly blossom instead of saying that he blossomed before but didn’t really get a chance to show it. Stars are going to become the stars that they already have the talent to become. Do we really need an award for a young player growing to become the player who he becomes known to be?
As much as McGrady did seem like the trivially obvious choice, it seems like his selection doesn’t do the award justice because it seems like a player shouldn’t get an award just for following his natural path of development.
Other Questions
The history of the MIP has featured other question marks. We’ve seen, for example, players receive the award who were merely fortunate to have found a good role on a team that suits them.
This question of whether the player has really improved undercuts the alleged value of the award, which is supposed to represent an individual achievement.
The history of the MIP is really also an implicit nod to teammates, coaches, schemes, teams and fate, the confluence of which can create the perfect storm of the so-called most improved player.
Current Developments
One new development of this award is that, starting this season, a MIP recipient will have had to play in at least 65 regular season games.
Another new development is more extensive. The award appears to prioritize scoring talent, as it’s gone to players who have even regressed defensively, in terms of defensive rating.
Just look at the last two awards: two years ago, it was star guard Ja Morant with his 27.4 points per game. Last year, Lauri Markkanen with his 25.6 points per game received the award.
These two trends are worth keeping in mind when you consider who to bet on to receive the award in this year and in future years.
