We have done another deep dive into the awards market in the NBA. I just went down the

list of previous most improved players. Like if you go back and look at the winners of

this, you can't find any sort of history. If you're looking at like the mid 90s and early

2000s, other than like the early 2000s, it's everybody just change teams like Tracy McGrady

went to the magic, your man on the one to the Pacers. Well Gilbert Reen is didn't

what the war is, but then Zach Randolph had more of a just bigger role from nothing to

a big role suddenly in Portland. It's either it's not just like you played and you were

good. It was you did nothing, which is always how I thought of the most improved player

award more. Where it's a guy that went from getting maybe 10 minutes of game to they

just look great and camp. They get out there and they their role continues to grow as

the season goes on. Like that's what I always think of his most improved as opposed to

Julius Randall winning and John Morant where you're like these guys have already been good.

They're already good players. They just went to better. It's there are a couple on here

though. I have to at least point this out. The only time in the history of the award that

a guy's average less than 10 points a game was Ike Austin with the heat in 1997 9.7 points

and 5.8 rebounds. And that was your most improved player in the NBA in 1997. What are the

improved from me? That was the most improved player. Right. I will how low was the bar. She is.

I can't imagine it was very high. Yeah. Yeah. I'm with you. So I think a couple of things we've

we've unearthed here as a result of this analysis. We think Anthony Edwards is like a viable winner,

but we have a couple questions like is he already too good, but he's a viable winner. He's the

favorite. He should be the favorite I think. We've uncovered that the Mitchell trade could potentially

really upset the nix ability to field a winner of this award because Mitchell will just essentially

...