What's so laughable about that? The disparity between the number of first round votes that Hedu received on one hand and Rafer on the other speaks loudly enough. I don't understand - even as a Rafer hater - how you anyone could ignore the fact that Rafer's play in '07-'08 is much improved over '06-'07.
I agree Rafer has made an improvement and that seemed to be most evident in his finishing ability (which was real bad last year) starting around December or January. However, this is such a stats-oriented award and if you look at Rafer's numbers in 06-07 compared to this year, it's very hard to make any case at all. If someone gave him a first place vote, I would guess it was a Chronicle writer or Rockets broadcaster.
This kinda reminds me of the Orlando scenario of old. Magic got Tmac and Grant Hill. Grant Hill was supposed to be the bigger catch but Tmac ended up being better and ended up producing a lot more. The improvement in his first year as a Magic netted him MIP award. Fast forward.... Hedo ends up winning MIP in his first year as a Magic, and deservedly so, while their supposedly bigger catch, Rashard, has been disappointing. I doubt the Magic thought that Hedo would end up being better and producing more than Rashard. If they did then the $100 million contract looks even more absurd.
Ive said it before, ill say it again. Its a joke that Aldridge and Gay can finish in the top 3. They are sophomores. The inherent nature of not being a rookie is that you improve. It doesn't make sense to reward someone for doing what any good rookie does during his 2nd year. It just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the award. Am I crazy?
Yeah. I dont know why I thought this was his first season as a Magic. *bonks himself on the head* I think the rest of my post still stands.
Once again, the voters that hate you (Shaq with a second place vote?) have confused "most improved" with "player given more minutes than last season." Hedo's a fine choice, but if you look at the honest-to-goodness improvement both in terms of on the court ability and production, Paul is the clear winner.
Well, okay, then tell me what you meant. Ya know, your post was so damned ambiguous it's almost impossible for you to remark, lest complain, about any response to it, except to explain yourself. Now, please remove your tounge from the inside of your cheek, and explain what you meant by your post.
Really? Much improved, are you sure? Because his stats are nearly identical when you factor in the WHOLE year, and don't just look at the winning streak. DD
