This NBA regular season finished with one of the most remarkable statistical accomplishments in league history: a center averaging a triple-double. Nikola Jokić has once again redefined what’s possible as a big man.
Jokić’s legacy will likely affect future generations in one of two ways: he’ll be remembered as the trailblazer who reimagined what it means to play center. Jokić proved that a big man can orchestrate the game with the creativity and control of a point guard. Additionally, he’ll be seen as a singular phenomenon, an unreplicable mix of strength, skill, and a basketball mind unlike any other.
The latter seems more likely, even in an era stacked with amazing frontcourt talent, the Serbian is in a league of his own. His basketball IQ, versatility, and unselfishness allow him to affect the game in ways only a handful of players in NBA history ever could. He has shattered traditional beliefs—such as the idea that centers shouldn’t initiate fast breaks—by being the Nuggets’ best decision-maker in transition. Jokić’s ability to dissect defenses and consistently generate high-quality shots for teammates has made Denver’s offense elite for many years. What’s more, the versatility of his game makes it easy for his teammates to flourish alongside him. However, despite this historic season, Jokić is unlikely to win MVP.
Jokić Set to Fall Short of MVP Despite Historic Season: Did the Criteria Shift?
Due to the Nuggets’ struggles, Jokić had to carry a heavier offensive load this year. That added responsibility led to his most statistically impressive regular season, which ended with him averaging a triple-double. No one—not even the most optimistic fans—could have reasonably expected that. Especially since he also maintained his elite efficiency throughout the year, while fixing one of his few offensive weaknesses by becoming one of the league’s most effective three-point shooters.
Should this not be more than enough to earn the MVP? Not really, because context matters at least for the ones who don’t base their analysis solely on the boxscore. As great and historic as these offensive numbers are, it does not automatically make this Jokić’s best regular season; many aspects beyond the boxscore explain why the team’s success has not matched that statistical achievement. It is up to the professionals covering this league to analyze the on-court tape in combination with the data provided through stats to give an accurate analysis.
The Triple-Double Season Came at a Cost
The Serbian superstars’ historical triple-double came at a cost. The price for these incredible numbers led to one of his worst defensive seasons in recent years, his lethargic effort on that end led to a disappointing team defense.
Meanwhile, probable MVP winner Shai Gilgeous-Alexander hasn’t matched Jokić’s offensive impact, but he’s played a key role on the league’s best defenses. His consistent effort on that end helped the Thunder avoid major fluctuations in performance and secure the top seed in the Western Conference with ease. That said, media members like Chris Mannix have overstated SGA’s defensive impact (minute 3:25).
He mainly serves as a cog in a system anchored by Lu Dort, who usually takes on the toughest perimeter assignments, followed by Jalen Williams. SGA often defends the weakest perimeter threat. Still, his length makes him a disruptive help defender. He frequently jumps passing lanes and racks up steals thanks to his instincts and amazing wingspan.
Same Voters, Different Results
Russell Westbrook earned the 2017 MVP award after becoming the first player since Oscar Robertson to average a triple-double. At the time, voters such as Rachel Nichols and Chris Broussard stated they voted for Westbrook purely because of his historical achievement. Broussard explicitly noted that even a small statistical drop (9.9 assists instead of 10) would have changed their vote. Rachel Nichols’ quote on The Jump (minute 0:45-2:30)
Chris Broussard’s quote on Undisputed (minute 5:00-5:10)
If that precedent was set, the same voters should, in theory, recognize the even more improbable nature of Jokić’s season. He achieved a triple-double as a center—a feat that seemed even more unthinkable. Moreover, Jokić did so with greater efficiency while having a lower usage rate than most other stars due to his unique style of play. If a historical achievement was enough to win the MVP back then, it should be now. By all accounts, Jokić has a clear MVP case.
However, some of those same voters have shifted their criteria. Notably, Rachel Nichols and Chris Broussard have said they are voting for SGA. Now, the triple-double and a player’s importance to a team don’t seem to matter at all, with focus solely being on team success. It’s a reflection of the inconsistent and often contradictory standards used in MVP voting.
The Boxscore is NOT Everything
Arguably, SGA is a more than deserving winner of the award. However, those who once elevated historical statistical accomplishments above all else cannot reasonably ignore Jokić’s performance this year. Doing so highlights a deeper issue: a lack of analytical integrity among some high-profile voters, especially those who criticize modern analytics while relying almost entirely on traditional box score stats. It would be understandable if they would at least admit that their reasoning for voting Westbrook in 2017 was based on incredibly flawed logic and focusing too much on an arbitrary boxscore accomplishment. Yet of course, their arrogance will not allow that, meaning that they have to resort to arguments necessary of huge amounts of mental gymnastics to explain why it makes sense that they voted Westbrook in 2017 and not Jokic now.
Just like with Westbrook, Jokic’s season does not become fundamentally different if he had averaged 9.9 assists. If this slight statistical drop had led to more consistent defensive effort and more wins, allowing a seamless regular season, without ending with a desperation move by ownership, firing the coach and GM to spark life into this team, Jokić’s MVP chance could have been higher.
Are New Voters Needed?
This growing inconsistency in MVP criteria is what many former players have criticized. Thankfully, the current voters haven’t made any egregious mistakes in recent years. However, Jokić likely losing out on the MVP highlights this inconsistency. Allowing high-profile media members to decide on these important awards based solely on reputation and popularity, rather than analytical ability, makes it all the more likely that soon we will have undeserving award winners.
The hope is that MVP voters will eventually establish clear and consistent standards. Until then, MVP candidates will continue to be judged not solely by on-court performances, but also by narrative-driven bias.
Photo credit: © Ron Chenoy-Imagn Images
The post Jokić Set to Fall Short of MVP Despite Historic Season: Did the Criteria Shift? appeared first on Last Word On Basketball.