"A year ago, I thought I was going to see him at the Bronx Zoo selling peanuts."
That's what former NBA guard and Duke star Austin Rivers had to say about Cleveland Cavaliers point guard Ty Jerome on his podcast The OffGuard. In a moment of honesty, Rivers revealed that he -- like most around the league -- thought that Jerome's future in the NBA was over.
There was evidence to support that conclusion. Jerome went from a first-round pick to needing a two-way contract to even stay in the league. He played well enough to earn a minimum standard contract from the Cavaliers, but then a nasty ankle injury last season limited him to just two games. With rookie Craig Porter Jr. seemingly replacing him in the Cavs' rotation, it was uncertain if another team would be willing to take a chance on Jerome or if, as Rivers somewhat jokingly described, he would be out of the NBA entirely.
Then this season happened. The Cavaliers coaching staff never lost faith in Jerome, and he earned the backup point guard job in training camp. Once the season began Jerome took off, dropping shot after shot and becoming one of the most valuable bench players in the entire NBA. He is an offensive wunderkind but also is near the top of the league in steal percentage.
That's why Rivers made a case for Jerome to be a strong candidate for Most Improved Player. Yet he is not the betting favorite; that is currently Cade Cunningham, a point forward having the best season of his career for the resurgent Detroit Pistons.
Yet the very idea of Cunningham winning Most Improved Player sent Rivers into a frenzy.
Should Most Improved go to stars?
The NBA provides very little criteria for their awards, so voters are left to fill in the blanks. For example, should Most Valuable Player go to the player most valuable to his team or playing the best basketball? Do you factor in the narrative? Team success? Their past performance? Minutes played or merely impact during those minutes?
It's similar for Most Improved Player. Should the award go to a player who went from barely in the NBA to a key rotation player who would start on many teams? That's perhaps the most sheer ground covered improving from year-to-year. Or should the award go to star players who went from good to great. Going from the 400th best player to the 80th is a massive improvement; is it more or less impressive than going from 80th to 30th?
Rivers clearly thinks the award should go to candidates like Jerome, who go from nothing to something. Jerome was on his way out of the league and now he's in line for an eight-figure annual contract.
Cunningham, to Rivers, was already expected to be good. The No. 1 player in his high school class, the No. 1 pick, a player everyone already thought highly of. This season Cunningham improved his scoring margin by...2.9 points per game. He is not averaging a career-best in rebounds, is a similar level of shooter, and while his assists have gone up so have his turnovers. He is better, without a doubt, but how much better? Does he mostly just have better teammates around him?
For Ty Jerome and other candidates like him, going from fringe NBA players to key contributors to a No. 1 seed is one incredible accomplishment. Rivers thinks those players should be the ones winning such an award -- not stars getting a bit better. He cared enough to start sweating as he blasted those who would vote for Cunningham, or did vote for Tyrese Maxey last season.
Will voters agree with Rivers? Will they continue to vote for the best overall player instead of the best improvement? Time will tell - but Ty Jerome has a compelling case to make.