Stats of players on losing teams should be taken with grains of salt. Failure to make the playoffs in a less competitive conference should be another unfavorable factor to discount those stats. I think Luis Scola is more deserveing for the MIP award. He played on a winning team in a more competitive conference and never missed a game. Not a focal point of team offense, he nevertheless improved significantly in several major statistical categories including points, FG%, FT%, rebounding, and minutes played.
not really disagreeing with the rest of your post but this particular argument has been debunked a few times here. You can't put up big numbers on a losing team when your teamates suck if you suck. the defense has focused on the only good player on the court.
He didn't miss a game last year, the conference was equally if not more competitive last year. He improved his scoring by 2.4 ppg and rebounds by 1.7 which would be expected when you play 6 more MPG. He definitely improved but "Most" improved? Hardly.
I remember Granger being a avg. player, now he's the cornerstone for the Pacers. At least some good news for their fans and Danny, I like his style - reminds me a little of Carmelo Anthony in his younger days.
Looks like the voters mailed this one in. Nothing about Granger "improved" since last year except for his number shot attempts (and as a result, his scoring avg). His shooting %s were almost exactly the same, along with most of his other stats.
The Pacers were 9-6 (0.600) without Granger and 27-40 (0.403) with him. Sure the sample sizes are different, but 15 games are not insignificant. It does not lend any credence to your argument that his teammates sucked, rather, it raises a question whether he made his teammates better. The fact is Scola wasn't a starter for more than half of the season in his first year with the Rockets. That is another solid evidence to demonstrate his improvement. By the way, he got 2.3 more rebounds per game (I hate it when people are not even careful with the simple stats), that's nearly 36% increase over his first-year rpg. Even with the consideration of increased playing time, both his points per minute and rebounds per minute saw increases. Definitely a strong candidate for MIP.
His point per minute rate went from 0.418478 (16.74 per 40) to 0.419614 (16.78). In other words, if he had scored three more points his rookie year, he would have posted a lower point per minute rate. The only significant improvement he made this year was in his defensive rebounding rate and free throw percentage. He improved, but shouldn't be considered a candidate for MIP (and in fact, except by you I don't think he was)
I am not claiming the increase in his ppm is significant, merely to suggest that a player's production is not necessarily a linear function of playing time. Apart from the different levels of competitions and stark contrast in team records, compared to Granger's, Scolar's improvements are across the board, so to speak. So yes, a strong candidate, and more deserving than Granger, IMO.
agree, for people who think lbj has always been great but its just too much a load for him to carry by himself but not with the help of mo he is able to do more for his team, although lbj his 3pointet is way better than b4, Granger has improve teh most.
