Last month, B/R NBA writers were asked to pick our league MVP. I had Nikola Jokic third, behind Joel Embiid and Giannis Antetokounmpo. 

After tallying our results, Jokic was the winner, but it was close. We were then asked, "Are We Sure Nikola Jokic Should Be MVP?"

Here was my response:

"Jokic is a statistical dream come true: a big man who can bang in the paint, knock down threes and still manage to get his teammates involved in the role of playmaker. But I'm not convinced Jokic makes his teammates that much better, which should be a given when you are the NBA's best player. I know the Nuggets have had a slew of injuries. That can't be ignored. But his available teammates have not elevated their play significantly this season with Jokic. He still seems to struggle at times determining when he needs to take over and when he needs to try to get others involved."

I like Jokic. He is a fine player who has clearly established himself as one of the game’s best. 

But the idea of him being this year's MVP for the second straight season was laughable to me.

The NBA is expected to formally announce this week that Jokic did win MVP, according to ESPN's Adrian Wojnarowski. Him winning this year is yet another reminder that we put far more stock in a player's individual statistics than we do to what should matter most: winning. 

Denver won 48 games in a season in which the Western Conference’s middle class wasn't nearly as strong as its Eastern Conference brethren. To get into the Eastern Conference play-in tournament, the last team in (Charlotte) won 43 regular-season games. Out West, the San Antonio Spurs snagged the last play-in spot with 34 victories. 

Placing a high value on winning is nothing new to the MVP conversation. For years, the award has been mostly about the best player on a team that won a ton of games during the regular season. For MVPs who aren't on one of the top few seeds in their respective conferences, their individual play tends to be far and away better than anyone else's, making it a no-brainer that they are the best player in the game for that season. 

Jokic did not meet that threshold.

Even with all of the challenges Denver faced this season, an MVP should deliver more wins—or at least lead his team to better than a No. 6 seed.

This is especially true when comparing Jokic to Embiid and Antetokounmpo, both of whom had strong stats and also lifted their teams to better records and a real shot at a title.  

For those who argue Jokic did a lot for Denver with less surrounding talent and therefore deserves to be the MVP, I hear you. But last I checked, the award is called the NBA's Most Valuable Player, not the NBA Analytics Most Valuable Player On An Injury-Riddled Team.

Jokic guiding the Nuggets into the playoffs as the sixth seed was impressive. But if you're the MVP, you find a way to win at a high level regardless of who is healthy. Jokic did not do that in 2021-22.

How many times did LeBron James lead a team that talent-wise should have barely qualified for the playoffs to one of the top seeds? But we want to celebrate a great player under less-than-ideal circumstances for leading his team to the No. 6 spot?

We did so in 2016-17 when Russell Westbrook won the MVP and the Oklahoma City Thunder were a sixth seed. However, Westbrook averaged a triple-double that season, joining Oscar Robertson as the only players in NBA history to ever accomplish that feat. 

While there's certainly value in Jokic becoming the first player in league history to register 2,000 points, 1,000 rebounds and 500 assists in a single season while having a career season shooting the ball, the MVP award has never been and never should be about stats only. 

MVPs have significant crossover appeal, but at a minimum, they fill the stands at home, right? 

This past season, the Nuggets ranked 16th in the league in average home attendance. Only 86.9 percent of their seats were filled at home, which ranked 20th in the league. 

Meanwhile, Embiid and Antetokounmpo's teams ranked No. 2 and No. 12 in home attendance, respectively. When it came to the percentage of seats filled at home, the Bucks were No. 2 in the NBA, while the Sixers were eighth.

That’s why I gave Embiid and Giannis the MVP advantage over Jokic. They had strong statistical seasons that captivated fans to turn out and see them play, and they got their teams home-court advantage in Round 1 as the fourth and third seeds in the East, respectively.

The Value of 'Empty Stats'

After winning MVP last year, Jokic averaged career highs this season in points (27.1) and rebounds (13.8) per game. However, some key factors contributed to that boost.

Jokic played the entire 2021-22 campaign without point guard Jamal Murray, the team’s second-best player and arguably best scorer. The Nuggets also got only nine games out of Michael Porter Jr. (back), the third-best player on the team, before he underwent season-ending back surgery. 

Without Murray and Porter on the floor, defenses could devote more of their attention to Jokic. Despite that, he shot a career-best 58.3 percent from the field, which is undeniably impressive.

Although Jokic's efficiency was great, it needed to come with an increased urgency. As much as the Nuggets needed Jokic, he needed to take full command of the ball in every aspect night in and night out.

Jokic deserves major props for the 7.9 assists per game that he averaged this season considering what he had to work with at that end of the floor. However, the scoring (0.7 more points per game than last season) and rebounding aren’t as impressive considering the caliber of players who were injured. 

If Not Jokic, Who?

The player I picked for MVP, Embiid, raised his assist numbers from 2.8 per game last year to 4.2 this season. Embiid also led the league in scoring, which is almost unheard of for a center. His team won enough games to have home-court advantage in the first round of the playoffs, and at least one of his teammates (Tyrese Maxey) experienced a breakout season in part because of his play, presence and impact on the game. 

Jokic’s per-game and advanced numbers looked better than Embiid’s overall, but the margin between the two was close. For those pointing to Jokic’s better assist numbers, I counter with Embiid scoring more points and being a significantly better defender. That's never more evident than when you consider where Embiid is when the Sixers need a critical defensive stop, especially compared to Jokic's defensive struggles when teams run pick-and-rolls and get him switched out on a guard.

The historical relevance of Jokic becoming the NBA's first 2,000-1,000-500 player, while subject to debate among fans and analysts alike, isn't as important as Embiid's season for the modern-day center—at least if you ask me.

Embiid led the league in scoring, becoming the first center to do so since Shaquille O’Neal in 2000. And by averaging 30.6 points per game, he became the first at his position to average 30 or more points since Moses Malone in 1982.

Dominant centers like him are supposed to be extinct in today's wing- and guard-friendly NBA.

All three MVP finalists had to overcome adversity this season. Jokic got a combined 265 minutes from Murray and Porter. Embiid kept the Sixers together through Ben Simmons' offseason trade request and absence from the team until he got sent to Brooklyn for James Harden at the trade deadline. And Antetokounmpo, a two-time league MVP, was playing out of position for a large stretch of the season with center Brook Lopez injured. 

Jokic did a lot with little to work with this season. He's unquestionably the MVP of the Nuggets. But was he worthy of the league MVP?

A lot of folks felt that way. I’m not one of them.