The NBA this year has a particularly interesting MVP race, between Oklahoma City Thunder guard Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and Denver Nuggets center Nikola Jokić. Gilgeous-Alexander is leading a young Thunder squad to the best record in the league, while also being on track to win the scoring title. Jokic on the other hand is averaging a 30 point triple-double a night.
But as the debate rages on, there’s an underlying problem that keeps creeping into the conversation: voter fatigue.
The Most Valuable Player award is not supposed to go to the most exciting player, nor the best new storyline. Its qualifications lie in the name. The award answers the question at the end of the season: who is the most valuable? Yet, time and time again, voters get tired of giving the award to the same guy and decide to hand it to someone else just for the sake of variety.
That’s not how it should work.
Jokić is the most impactful player in the league, and one of the most fundamentally sound players of all time. However, there’s a real chance voters will snub him because he’s already won the award three times.
That’s the problem. Players getting punished for being consistently unbelievable.
We’ve seen this play out before, most notably with Michael Jordan in 1997 and LeBron James in 2011. Both were the best players in the league. Both played for the best teams in the league. And both lost the MVP race because voters seemingly got bored of their dominance.
In the 1996-97 season, Jordan led the Chicago Bulls to a 69-13 record while averaging 29.6 points, 5.9 rebounds and 4.3 assists per game. Jordan was the de facto best player in the league on the best team. Yet, the MVP trophy went to Karl Malone, who averaged 27.4 points, 9.9 rebounds and 4.5 assists per game while leading the Utah Jazz to a 64-18 record.
Why?
Because voters decided Jordan already had enough MVPs. Malone got 986 total points in the voting (63 first-place votes), while Jordan finished with 957 (52 first-place votes). That’s what voter fatigue looks like — splitting hairs to justify snubbing the best player in the game.
Jordan took it personally, proceeding to dismantle Malone’s Jazz in the NBA Finals and secure his fifth championship. When it mattered most, Jordan proved yet again that he was the best player in the world. But he should have had the MVP trophy to go with it.
Next year, Jordan took it personally once again, as he beat Malone in the MVP race in 1998. Jordan then in game six of the finals that year, famously hit the game winning shot to clinch his sixth title, after stripping the ball from Malone on the other end of the floor.
Then there’s LeBron in 2011. James had just taken his talents to South Beach, and despite being the most dominant player in the league, he finished third in MVP voting behind Derrick Rose and Dwight Howard. LeBron averaged 26.7 points, 7.5 rebounds and 7.0 assists per game while leading the Miami Heat to a 58-24 record. Meanwhile, Rose averaged 25.0 points, 7.7 assists and 4.1 rebounds while leading the Bulls to a 62-20 record.
Rose had an outstanding season and was a rising star, but LeBron nearly out-did him in every single major category. He was more efficient, more versatile and played for a team that — despite the “superteam” label — was still figuring things out. The Bulls won four more games than the Heat that year, but that wasn’t enough of a gap to justify giving Rose the award over James. Voters wanted a fresh narrative, and Rose provided it.
When their respective teams met in the Eastern Conference Finals of that year, LeBron led the charge in knocking off the D-Rose led Bulls in just five games, while leading the Heat in points, rebounds, assists, steals and minutes per game.
Sounds pretty valuable to me.
At some point, the MVP award stopped being about identifying the best player and became about finding the best new story. Whether it was Rose’s electric rise in 2011 or the desire to finally give Malone his first nod in 1997, the pattern remains the same. Voters get fatigued seeing the same name on the ballot and look elsewhere, even when the numbers and impact don’t justify it.
It’s an issue that keeps repeating, and now Jokić may be next.
If the MVP is about the best player, then it should go to the best player. Not the most interesting storyline. If the voters think Gilgeous-Alexander is the most valuable player in the NBA, then by all means cast your ballot for him, but don’t just say “oh it’s actually his turn to win it now.”
If Jokić is that guy — and right now, he is — then he should win.
Period.
