Let’s begin by stating the obvious: Nikola Jokic is a worthy MVP, and his two-year run has been nothing short of phenomenal.
Several players had strong, if not stronger, cases to win the award given the precedent over the last 40 years or so. He didn’t get this voter’s first-place vote, though, because the Denver Nuggets were not a contender — through no fault of his own.
Jokic ran away with the award last year and had an even better campaign this year, averaging 27.1 points, 13.8 rebounds and 7.9 assists. He’s almost some combination of Larry Bird, a touch of Magic and what we would’ve seen from a healthy Arvydas Sabonis if he came over to the states before his body was beat up.
But a vote for someone else wasn’t an indictment on his play, just as a vote for him wasn’t a shot at Joel Embiid or Giannis Antetokounmpo, the only other players who received first-place votes. In the interest of disclosure, Antetokounmpo got this vote — for reasons that appear to be validated by his performance in the playoffs to date.
The discussion throughout the season was disheartening, though.
How many times did we hear (or read) “it’s impossible to vote for someone else?”, given that his numbers and advanced stats were astronomically good? It’s not a turnoff that would affect a rational voter’s entry, but it stifles conversation and diversity of thought.
The NBA doesn’t give a guideline for how each voter should consider the award, which isn’t a problem considering how diverse a swath the voting bloc is. It also adds to the mystique of the award without sterilizing it. Each voter’s criteria probably changes depending on the uniqueness of the season and their own evolving sensibilities.
The lack of an overall dominant team created an opening of sorts, even though dominance doesn’t guarantee consideration it can streamline the candidates. A voter’s top-five ballot looked totally different from the 30-game mark to the 60-game mark to the finish, yet…