The debate around the 2026 WNBA Most Improved Player award is getting absolutely bananas, largely because what “most improved” even means is totally up in the air. We’re talking about a definitional mess that could easily swing the vote to a bunch of different, deserving players. It’s not just about who put up bigger numbers this season; sometimes, it’s about evolving in ways that the stat sheet doesn’t scream about.
NaLyssa Smith’s Game Refinement Is Next-Level
Take NaLyssa Smith, for example. Before a season-ending injury, the Las Vegas Aces forward was building a seriously strong MIP case. Now, if you only glance at her top-line stats, you’d be scratching your head. This season, Smith averaged 11.7 points and 6.4 rebounds per game. Those numbers are actually lower than what she posted in her rookie (2022) and sophomore (2023) seasons with the Indiana Fever. So how’s that “improvement”? It’s not about boosting raw stats, it’s about optimizing and adapting. Since joining the Aces last season, Smith totally revamped her game into a supporting role, becoming an incredibly efficient, hard-working post partner for A’ja Wilson. She wasn’t insisting on being a primary option anymore, she was refining. At the time of her injury, Smith was converting 63.8 percent of her shots, which was the best mark in the entire league. She wasn’t doing “less,” she was doing different, and her overall game refinement makes her a legitimate, albeit unconventional, MIP candidate.
The Big Numbers Crowd: Leite, Mabrey, and Shepard
Then you’ve got the players who fit the traditional mold of MIP contenders: bigger roles and bigger numbers. At midseason, Edwin Garcia pointed out three players who were absolutely crushing it with increased opportunities: Jessica Shepard of the Dallas Wings, Marina Mabrey of the Toronto Tempo, and Carla Leite of the Portland Fire. Zack Ward also shouted out Leite’s growth for the Fire, and he even saw Mabrey’s special Toronto season coming from a mile away. Leite has shown a statistical leap, and Mabrey has put up career-best offensive numbers, scoring almost 21 points per game. She’s also draining over three 3-pointers per game at 38.5 percent and getting to the line 4.5 times per game. However, here’s the catch: both Leite and Mabrey have enjoyed vastly improved 3-point shooting seasons, and that’s where some skepticism creeps in. Advanced basketball analysts say it takes around 750 attempts for 3-point shooting percentages to truly normalize. You need a ton of volume to figure out if someone’s genuinely improved from deep or just on an extended hot streak. Leite, for instance, shot just 17.3 percent on 75 attempts last season with Golden Sta, so she’s nowhere near that 750-attempt threshold this season. Mabrey also dealt with injury issues over the second half of the season, which definitely throws a wrench into her candidacy.
So, what are we really looking at here? Do you go with the player who evolved her game in a nuanced way like Smith, or the ones who exploded statistically like Leite and Mabrey? It’s a tough call, and the league has to decide what kind of “improvement” they’re celebrating when these awards get handed out.
This article was created with AI assistance and published under Seattle On Tap’s editorial standards. See our Editorial Policy.
Originally reported by Swish Appeal.
Leave a Reply