Well Deserved Greatness or the Most Debated Award in Sports History?

By: Andrew Ferguson

There’s officially no more denying it, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander has entered basketball royalty. After leading the Oklahoma City Thunder to its third consecutive season as the Western Conference's number 1 overall seed, SGA earned his second straight NBA MVP award with 83 out of 100 votes, while continuing the Thunder's push toward becoming the NBA's next dynastyand looks to go back-to-back as NBA Champions. SGA’s silky mid-range game locked up thepersonal award consecutively as the 14th player in league history to do so.

What are the voters looking at? The numbers are just ridiculous: SGA finished the year averaging 31.1 points, 6.6 assists, 4.3 rebounds, 1.4 steals per game,

and elite shooting efficiency at 55.3% from the field. A big reason the Thunder finished with the best record in the league once again. But despite all of the numbers and success, some still think this MVP award comes with questions. Not because SGA wasn’t lights out all year, but because some Serbian guy in Denver drafted during a Taco Bell commercial continues to put up videogame numbers and triple doubles on a nightly basis by the name of Nikola Jokic.

Here’s where the debate starts getting interesting:

Jokic averaged a triple double over the season and carried the Nuggets (Greg Jennings style) on his back to lock in the 3 seed in the Western Conference. The Joker finished with 27.7 points, 12.9 rebounds, 10.7 assists and shot an impressive 56.9% from the field. At this point, Jokic is expected to have a triple double and his performances are boring. Right?

Is he doing too much or is he not appreciated as much anymore? Meanwhile, SGA’s case is centered around elite scoring and being a two way defensive player while his team dominates around him. Whether voters will admit it or not, team success has always been factored in MVP voting which is where the controversy really heats up. SGA voters tend to point to the ‘winning matters’ mentality like having a better team record, stronger defense and good plus/minus minutes.

However, Jokic supporters counter with his historically dominant stats, taking on more responsibility in the offense, higher on/off the court impact for his team and the overall fact that Denver’s offense is completely revolved around him. The plus/minus debate became especially present this season. When SGA and Jokic are on the floor for their respective teams, they both have offensive efficiencies over 127 (points per 100 possessions). Take SGA off the court and the Thunder’s number drops to around 102. But Jokic’s on/off numbers were somehow even crazier. Take the Crunchwrap supreme demon off the court and Denver’s number drops to 86.3, 18 points lower than the Thunder without SGA and 41 points entirely. Denver often looked borderline dysfunctional without him, which only fueled arguments that he remained the league’s most valuable individual player for their team.

So what actually matters more? The best player? Or the best player on the best team? History Says ‘Team Success’ usually wins and here’s proof: Past MVP winners almost always come from top seeds. Steph won 73 games, Giannis and Embiid locked up MVPs the year they were 1 seeds and even Jokic’s MVP years came with Denver near or at the top of the standings. Fair or not, voters consistently treat winning as part of “value” when considering who wins theMVP. And this year, Oklahoma City checked every box by having the best overall record with a top tier offense and defense while able to go 24-10 in clutch games throughout the season. The MVP voters are just foaming at the mouth reading this about the Thunder when considering their first place vote.

The NBA (and Adam Silver) also loves a fresh storyline. Whether people admit it or not, voter fatigue is real. Jokic already has multiple MVPs. At some point, the standard becomes: “Are we really just going to give it to Jokic again?” The sense is you really need to outperform the field entirely to earn another MVP award. If the race feels close, voters often lean toward a newer face. But is SGA really the face of the NBA or future standards for the award? As fascinating as the SGA vs. Jokic debate is, the scary part for the rest of the league is neither player is going anywhere for at least a few years. OKC’s core is still very young, Denver remains dangerous, and the next era of MVP battles may already be forming in front of us. Mainly due to the rise of Spurs superstar, Victor Wembanyama.

Wemby continues to look like someone built a MyPlayer in 2K and maxed out every attribute slider. This season, Wemby stuffed the stat sheet with 25 points, 11.5 rebounds, 3.1 assists and a historic 3.1 blocks per game. All while flashing plays a 7 foot 4 human shouldn’t be capable of, giving him ‘alien’ characteristics. If his progression continues at this pace, the future MVP conversation may stop being ‘Who deserves it?’ and become, ‘Can anyone stop Wemby from winning it again?’ That’s what makes the SGA controversy so interesting. This wasn’t just an argument about one award, it was a preview of the NBA entering a new era. Lebron and Curry’s era is fading, Jokic still dominates, SGA has arrived and Wembanyama is looming. So did SGA deserve MVP? Yes. But was the controversy understandable? Absolutely.

Because when the margins between greatness and MVP numbers become minimal, fans stop comparing stats and start debating rings.