like somebody else said, 2nd year players shouldnt be eligible for most improved

[2pac_Westside]

not sure who said it, but I read it in one of these threads

2nd year players in the nba should not be eligible for most improved player...a dude coulda been benched his whole rookie year, then actually got some pt the following year and put up some numbers..that doesn't mean he's most improved...just about everybody improves after their rookie year...

mike miller is somebody i'd call an exception ha

[southern_wonder]

then who would the award be for? thats what it was made for, you get better after your second year.

ROFL is your dumbass fukkin serious?

[KevJ]

it shoulda been al jefferson, not kevin martin.

people like kevin martin are a dime a dozen.

[Ichiro51rvd12]

Originally Posted by southern_wonder

then who would the award be for? thats what it was made for, you get better after your second year.

ROFL is your dumbass fukkin serious?

if u dont play at all, then its possible that u didnt actually get any better, u just never got the chance to play... thats his point... u need to actually have something from which to improve from to win most improved

[ReInCaRnAtioN]

ya i think its stupid, basicdlaly every rookie gets better second year, i think it should be lik eif ur scrub ur whole career then have a year when u avg 20 or something