Is Nikola Jokic the worst MVP?

WITH the Denver Nuggets still surging even after the Jamal Murray injury, there is little doubt Nikola Jokic will win the Most Valuable Player award. He has been a consistent presence in a season full of uncertainty, where your superstar scores 40 today and could disappear tomorrow just because of contact tracing.

How much should showing up count? A lot, considering the state of the league. You may have two bonafide superstars but if they can’t show up, your team will end up in the Play-In. Now that it seems indisputable, the next recourse is slander. Another hypebeast ‘analyst’ Nick Wright of Fox Sports circus show First Things First needed a hot take and after declaring Chris Paul should be the MVP but he won’t win the award, he now slanders Nikola Jokic as “the worst MVP in decades.”

‘Valuable’ defined

Wright’s bravado placed himself in a corner, especially after Jamal Murray called him “Nick Wrong” in a tweet. Wright earlier declared Chris Paul should be the MVP because of the turnaround the Phoenix Suns demonstrated. Citing the ambiguity of the award, he said it was not about posting the best stats or highest efficiency. It makes sense Paul’s transfer has made a team much better, even the performances of resident superstars like Devin Booker have vastly improved. Yes, that is value but is value only manifested in the face of change? Is he saying that in order for one to win an MVP, they should take on the challenge of rescuing a team from the pits? Following Wright’s logic, then Michael Jordan, who stayed with the Chicago Bulls (come on, the Wizards’ stint was an aberration that should not even be discussed), should not have won MVP at all once the Bulls started winning championships. Because how much improvement could you expect from a champion team?

Flawed argument

When Michael Jordan won the MVP in 1991, that was well-deserved because the Bulls won the title. So why should he win again in 1992 if we follow the idea of “valuable” as being able to turn fortunes around. The Denver Nuggets constantly improved from being a sleeper pick, to a dark horse, to shocking the highly favored LA Clippers and now being a legitimate contender. No, it’s not as sexy a narrative as being 26-39 before the bubble to having the league’s best record in a year but it is still a legitimate MVP win and it is not “the worst MVP in decades.” Perhaps the reason for Wright and other Jokic critics since he is not alone with this opinion, for them to call the MVP season the worst is they are expecting the Nuggets to get an early exit.

The Dirk Nowitzki precedent

Dirk Nowitzki won the 2007 MVP award after leading the Dallas Mavericks to the NBA’s best record. However, the Mavs were upset by the “We Believe” Golden State Warriors and Nowitzki received his award in a suit, instead of being suited up for a playoff game in front of an ecstatic home crowd. Critics assume the Nuggets will take an early exit, even though playoff performance has not and should not have bearing on the award. Joel Embiid or Chris Paul would likely have better playoff paths. But here we are again writing off the Nuggets. We did that last year, right?

Incidentally, The MVP voting in the 2000s were really skewered and there were a lot of “debts” that needed to be paid, which made the decisions even more sketchy. In the mid-2000s the most dominant players were Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett but they only won one once and the awards were given twice each to mediafriendly Steve Nash and Tim Duncan. Not that they were undeserving (especially not Timmy!) but Bryant and Garnett were lighting the league on fire while on bad teams. Kobe was no longer the best player in 2008 but they can’t let him retire without an MVP award. For an interesting awards race that could be settled without debate, see the battle for the scoring title between Steph Curry and Bradley Beal.