About 4,500 words
Of Value and the Eye of the Beholder…
Pundits, Clowns, and Myopia: Choosing the NBA MVP
It’s been a remarkable start to the 2025-26 NBA season (stunning revelations about sordid, illicit gambling notwithstanding). With thrilling double-overtime games right out of the gate[1], a record number of 40- and 50-point games in the first week[2], team scoring across the league for the first 10 days higher than it's been in over 60 years[3], and the highest opening month viewership in 15 years[4], the clear trend is toward a wildly exciting, high-scoring, well-watched year of basketball. It’s early, but preseason predictions from pundits[5] to GMs[6] on how it will turn out seem to be spot on. The OKC Thunder, overwhelming favorites to repeat, seem poised for another championship run (though the even stronger West looks once again wild and wide open). And Nikola Jokic, on the heels of one of the greatest individual seasons in NBA history (though finishing second to Shai Gilgeous-Alexander for MVP) and off to another historic start[7], is the overwhelming favorite to win his fourth MVP. In fact, one poll of NBA coaches, scouts, and execs, much as they have for the past three years, declared him the best player in the league by a vote of 19-1.[8] Which begs the question: What were MVP voters thinking last season?
There’s no question 2024-25 NBA Most Valuable Player winner Shai Gilgeous-Alexander had an MVP-worthy season. He led the league in scoring with 32.7 points per game, was the best player on the best team, and made players around him better. But runner-up three-time (and defending) MVP Nikola Jokic had what was almost certainly the greatest regular season (statistically) in NBA history (he finished third in scoring with 29.6 points per game, third in rebounds with 12.7 per game, second in assists with 10.2 per game, and second in steals with 1.8 per game—the only player to have finished in the top three of those four categories ever). He was the best player on a very good team, and also made players around him better. Moreover, he has been for some time widely considered not only the best player in the league, but in the world. Many who think about such things wondered how was he not the Most Valuable Player?
Who, one might reasonably ask, are these voters? And what sort of criteria or rationale do they use?
When the MVP award was established in 1956, NBA players voted for the winner, which (for whatever reason) invariably turned out to be the best player on the best team. In 1981 pundits (from the Sanskrit pandita, meaning “learned” or “teacher,” though in modern times usually means an expert in a particular field often called to offer opinions and commentary to the public) took over voting responsibilities and embraced a wider view of what “most valuable” meant. Since then, personal statistics have been given more weight, potentially yielding a more nuanced definition of value and informed MVP determination.
The current MVP voting process relies on the expertise of 100 such pundits chosen by the NBA (ten percent are rotated in and out each year). It’s a usual list of suspects who write for local NBA-city newspaper sports sections, ESPN, The Athletic, The Ringer, Bleacher Report, Sports Illustrated, the AP, a few others, as well as broadcasters, announcers, and analysts (often former players) invariably employed by sports entertainment and programming divisions of giant media conglomerates. They’re the “learned” experts whose opinions and commentary on basketball (and often other sports) are disseminated across the digital universe until it becomes akin to accepted truth. Modern pundits are opinion makers. Social influencers. Cultural whisperers. (Some are even self-proclaimed gambling gurus and sportsbook tipsters.)
Unfortunately pundits are not always above their own personal bias, immune to outside influence or professional opportunity, or exempt from internal corporate pressure. Many are employed by media giants with large financial stakes in all manner of NBA matters. (ESPN, ABC, TNT, and NBA TV broadcast several hundred NBA games last year and accounted for over 25 percent of MVP voters.[9] Comcast and Amazon have joined the broadcast fray for the 2025-26 season, replacing TNT.) And for pundits with side hustles as spokespersons and tipsters for sportsbooks, the opportunity for ethical compromise is glaring. Ergo, it’s not unreasonable to be concerned about biased or even malfeasant MVP voting.
As a certain outspoken (and in his own way influential) ESPN pundit and regular MVP voter (and unabashedly partisan New York Knick fan as well as gambling oracle via his “A-list” on ESPN Bet sportsbook—who has also expressed interest in running for president and is a sometimes guest on political talk shows and town hall forums) has famously said (and posted), I wake up every morning with two thoughts: 1) How do I make my bosses more money? And 2) How do I get some of it?[10] That certain influential pundit—OK, it’s Stephen A. Smith—was awarded a $100 million contract this past spring (3/6/25) for his work ethic. One can’t help wonder what lengths such an audacious pledge of fealty might lead to.
And in fact, one mightn’t have to look any further than three days later when ESPN’s million-dollar baby, in his usual boorishly loud, clown-like affectation, announced emphatically during the pre-game show of a nationally broadcast NBA game on ABC (ESPN is majority-owned by Disney through it’s subsidiary ABC), and again days later on ESPN’s First Take, that he was voting for Shai Gilgeous-Alexander for the 2024-25 MVP—no matter what happened the rest of the season. (There was over a month of the regular season left.) Moreover, the clown prince of punditry (future Hall of Famer Kevin Durant, tired of Smith’s criticism of his leadership skills without doing the legwork to get the facts, famously labeled Smith a “clown” during an interview[11]) insisted SGA deserved it the year before and was ripped off when Jokic won his third MVP. Then he lashed out at his fellow (de facto subordinate) pundits on the show who were merely discussing Jokic’s stunning 31-point, 21-rebound, and 22-assist game against the Phoenix Suns the night before (the first and only such performance—and one of the all-time greatest games—in NBA history), accusing them of running a Jokic-for-MVP campaign.[12]
What possible reason could there be for the league to allow such blatant advocacy for MVP candidates? No one can argue that pundits aren't paid to offer up their perspectives. But campaigning can't possibly be what the NBA had in mind when it selected them to vote. The deleterious effect such antics have on the validity of the process and ultimately on the award itself—to say nothing of the suspicions it raises about everybody involved—is stupid and ugly.
Problems with pundits inserting themselves into and subverting the voting process notwithstanding, value is in the eye of the beholder. There'd be no need for a vote if it weren't so.
The 2024-25 NBA MVP race was a perfect illustration of the two primary schools of thought most pundits cited as the rationale behind their MVP votes: 1) Shai Gilgeous-Alexander was the best player on the best team. And 2) Nicola Jokic was a statistical juggernaut. It seems obvious the outcome hinged on what voters decided they wanted “most valuable” to mean.
The facts pundits had to consider for each rationale were unambiguous. A simple check of the standings and year-to-date statistics on the last day of the regular season clearly indicated Gilgeous-Alexander was the best player on the best team. (The real question is whether pundits are needed at all to make that particular determination.)
For pundits who decided a more expansive rationale was necessary to determine value, the choice was more subjective, but likely more measured and insightful—and no doubt justified their raison d’etre. Their process almost certainly included a deep dive into analytics. Box score stats was likely the starting point.
Gilgeous-Alexander finished the 2024-25 NBA regular season first in points per game (32.7), sixth in free throw percentage (89.8), and fifth in steals per game (1.7). Also, though not in the top ten, he finished with five rebounds per game, and 6.4 assists. Certainly he had a statistically impressive, MVP-worthy year.[13] No doubt he was a big reason for the Thunder's success.
Nikola Jokic finished third in the league in points per game (29.6), third in rebounds per game (12.7), and second in assists per game (10.2)—one of only three players ever to average a triple double (a double-digit average in scoring, rebounds, and assists per game) for a season (Hall of Famer Oscar Robertson and Russell Westbrook were the other two), and the only player ever to rank in the top three of those categories for a season since rebounds were first tracked in 1951.[14] He also finished second in steals per game (1.8)—the only player to rank in the top three in points, rebounds, assists, and steals per game for a season in the history of the NBA.[15] He was also fourth in the league in minutes per game, ninth in field goal percentage, and first in triple doubles—with more than the next three top finishers combined.[16] To say he was valuable seems like the understatement of the decade—maybe of a generation. Suffice it to say, Jokic had an MVP-worthy year, as well.[17]
Advanced stats offer an even more detailed look. Created using objective evidence to measure factors like efficiency, impact on the game, and per-possession productivity, advanced statistics help illuminate just how effective a player might be in important but difficult to measure contexts.
Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is the overall rating of a player’s per-minute statistical production. Jokic led the NBA in player efficiency in 2024-25 (32.0), and in four of the last five seasons (he finished second in 2023-24), and is the all-time NBA career leader—just ahead of Hall of Famer Michael Jordan and LeBron James. Gilgeous-Alexander finished second in 2024-25 (30.7), in the top five each of the last three seasons, and is 25th on the all-time list.[18]
Player Impact Estimate (PIE) measures a player's all-around contribution to the game by calculating elements of a player’s box score as a percentage. Jokic finished third (20.6) in the league in 2024-25, and Gilgeous-Alexander fifth (19.9).[19]
Plus-Minus (+/-) measures a player's impact on the game by calculating change in the score (plus or minus) while each player is on the court. Gilgeous-Alexander finished first (12.1) in the NBA and Jokic finished third (8.5).[20]
Estimated Wins Added (EWA) estimates the number of wins a player adds to his team above what a “replacement-level” player would in the same playing time. Nikola Jokic led the NBA with 27.5 wins added because of his presence.[21] Gilgeous-Alexander failed to register any wins added.
(It’s said statistics can be manipulated to prove anything (which is probably true). To wit, idiosyncrasies of certain analytics may indeed weight certain statistics, and may also be affected by a player’s team and fellow team members’ statistics. Likely Gilgeous-Alexander’s Estimated Wins Added is thusly affected by the Thunder’s impressive team productivity.)
Total Points Generated may be the most straightforward and telling of all as far as offensive productivity. It combines total points scored with points generated from assists. (Since assists can result in two or three points, a multiplier of 2.2 points is assessed for each assist—which speculates one in five assists results in a made three-point shot, a purposely conservative assumption—for the sake of comparison.) Gilgeous-Alexander, the NBA’s leading scorer with 32.7 points per game, accounts for 46.78 ppg when his 6.4 assists per game are figured in using the multiplier. Jokic, the league’s third leading scorer with 29.6 points per game, generates a total of 52.04 ppg when his 10.2 assists per game are figured in—over five points per game more than SGA.[22]
And then there’s defense. It’s certainly an important (and often short-changed) dimension of a player’s value. There’s been considerable skepticism surrounding Jokic’s defensive skills. Some pundits even suggest he’s not a very good defender—certainly not as impressive as Gilgeous-Alexander, widely regarded as one of the better perimeter defenders in the league. It’s true Jokic doesn’t have some of the physical attributes other big men in the league have; he doesn’t run very fast or jump very high. (He’s regularly near the bottom of the list of players in speed[23], and famously has the worst vertical leap ever recorded—17 inches—for an NBA player at a sports science lab that measures such things.[24] It's worth noting, however, that neither "shortcoming" seemed to diminish his performance since he tied for second in the league with 9.9 defensive rebounds per game.[25]) He is neither a shot swatter nor rim protector—flashy crowd-pleasing characteristics of a big man defender. But any suggestion he’s anything less than an elite defensive big man is simply not supported by statistics—or by word of mouth from fellow NBA players.
At the top of the list of stats used to justify SGA’s status as an elite defender was his impressive Steals Per Game (SPG) average; he finished with 1.7, which was fifth in the league. Jokic finished with 1.8 steals per game, which was second in the league.[26]
Defensive Box Plus-Minus measures a player’s box score defensive impact and value to his team per 100 possessions. Gilgeous-Alexander finished ninth in the NBA for the 2024-25 season. Jokic finished second in the league. (He’s led the league for the past three seasons, and is second all-time, just behind Hall of Famer David Robinson.)[27]
Former teammate and now rival Jeff Green, who’s seen a lot of good players come and go in his 18-year career, says the media just ran with the idea he wasn’t a very good defensive player—probably because he doesn’t block a lot of shots for a big man. “He’s definitely one of the best defenders out there.”[28] Jimmy Butler, who went head-to-head against Jokic and the Nuggets in the 2023 NBA Finals and lost, says “As much as everybody looks at what he does on the offensive side of the ball, he’s a hellified defender as well.”[29]
There’s no question both players had MVP-worthy seasons. A careful consideration of the analytics, though, shows Jokic clearly had the more impressive statistical performance. It seems obvious he was the more valuable player—certainly in terms of productivity. Still, value is in the eye of the beholder.
There is one statistic, however, that addresses the issue of who the more valuable player to his team is head-on: win-loss record when the superstars aren’t in the lineup. The Oklahoma City Thunder finished with a 68-14 record (.829), which was first in the league. Without Gilgeous-Alexander in the lineup, OKC’s record was 5-1—a winning percentage slightly higher (.833) than with SGA. What’s more, they would still have been the number one seed in the Western Conference. The Denver Nuggets finished with a 50-32 record (.610), which was tied for fifth best in the league. The Nugget’s, though, struggled mightily without their superstar, with a record of 4-8—a considerably lower winning percentage (.416) than when Jokic was in the lineup. They would’ve missed the playoffs altogether. Clearly Jokic was more important to the Nuggets’ chances of winning than Gilgeous-Alexander was to the Thunder’s chances. It’s as close to an objective determination of who the more valuable player to his team was as possible.
And yet voting pundits chose Shai Gilgeous-Alexander over Nikola Jokic for the 2024-25 NBA Most Valuable Player by a margin of 913 to 787—which was close, but not as close as most thought it would be. Granted value is in the eye of the beholder… but again, what were MVP voters thinking?
Merriam-Webster lists two definitions for the adjective valuable.[30] The first is “having monetary value, or worth a good price.” Did pundits vote for who they thought was worth more money? Maybe some monetary valuation derived from certain stats divided by salary? Bang for the buck? Maybe even capacity to generate revenue?
Seems more likely the second, more utilitarian definition would be the focus: “having desirable or esteemed characteristics or qualities, or of great use or service.” Likely productivity would have been the main factor of that rationale. Maybe durability figured in—games or minutes played?
At the heart of the issue is what pundits wanted most valuable to mean. Also, it's not inconceivable that there was confusion about to whom one is valuable. One's team? The League? Fans? The legacy of the game?
If, as it seems, best-player-on-the-best-team during the regular season was what a majority of pundits wanted most valuable to mean, why now? Why not Jason Tatum on the 2023-24 Celtics, or Giannis Antetokounmpo on the 2022-23 Bucks, or Kevin Durant on the 2021-22 Suns, or Donovan Mitchell on the 2020-21 Jazz, and on and on? Also, 50 percent of the best-player-on-the-best-team rationale is contingent on the team; the Most Valuable Player is (literally) an individual award. Doesn't make sense to give an award for the best player on the best team for the regular season; the best team hasn't been determined yet. That award is given after the playoffs: Finals MVP. When you try and make a thing something it's not, you make it nothing at all.
Maybe it wasn’t so much to do with what most valuable means as it was some type of malady that infected a significant part of the voting punditocracy? An oft cited condition (with an acknowledged element of lethargy and perhaps even laziness) is something called “voter fatigue.” Apparently pundits get so tired of the same old face that the only thing that pulls them out of their funk of familiarity is a fresh (or even just different) face that captures their fancy. Last season wasn’t the first time pundits were afflicted with the condition. In 1997, Karl Malone beat out then four-time and defending MVP Michael Jordan; in 2001, Allen Iverson was chosen over defending MVP Shaquille O’Neal; in 2011, Derrick Rose slipped by four-time MVP LeBron James; and in 2023, Joel Embiid beat out Nikola Jokic, who’d won the MVP the two previous years. Many who think hard about such things believe voters grew weary of voting for the previous winner (despite superior statistical performances), as if familiarity bred contempt—or at least boredom.
Closely related to voter fatigue is a straight up infatuation with the latest version or newest model. It’s a sort of buzz-fueled myopia that addles the senses. (To be fair, who amongst us hasn’t salivated over the latest model Corvette or iPhone or Air Jordans… or even—maybe especially—Doritos? Especially accompanied with a flashy, superlative-riddled FOMO ad campaign!) Not only might the phenomenon inform some pundits’ perception of value and how their MVP vote might swing, but it likely directs their punditry in general. “Latest is greatest” assessments have become the modus operandi amongst the current punditocracy—no doubt a manifestation of the shameless generational bias in the modern chattering class who were suckled on click-bait/follow-me/listicle “journalism.” (It's also likely how they got their jobs in the first place since it's almost certainly a primary pillar in the business models of the organizations that hired them.) In such miscalibrated myopic minds, this morning’s hyperbolic commentary often becomes well-known truth by last call. And before you know it, an admittedly smooth as butter mid-range turnaround jumper is a more valuable weapon than a year-in year-out stone cold triple-double machine.
It’s also possible there’s a darker or more twisted (or even corrupt) explanation for what some pundits were thinking. Racism and xenophobia seem unlikely (on a large scale anyway) since 65 percent of voting pundits are white[31], and SGA (Canadian) and Jokic (Serbian) are both foreigners. Axes to grind or just plain mean spiritedness also seem unlikely (in an era of graceless braying, self-crowning jackasses, Jokic is widely regarded as one of the most humble, self-deprecating players in the league). But maybe certain pundits have some festering psychological malady—a neurotic need to make a splash and watch ripples? Or could be it’s just the plain old (dark) forces of capitalism at work. New heroes from fresh media markets mean new audiences, new licensed merch sales, new subscriptions to new streaming services (and curry favor and opportunities with powers that be). After all, when powerful pundit clown princes pledge proudly and publicly to make them (powers that be) as much money as possible (and in the process get themselves some of it), who knows what lengths they (pundits and powers that be) might go to?
Be any (or none) of that as it may, value is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. It’s a subjective choice. The alternatives of sicking an AI large language model on the process or cramming data into a software program to come up with a computer-generated MVP are awful and insufficient. Such abdications would no doubt result in an algorithmic dip into the online stew of crackpots and ax-grinders (as well as partisan zealots and fawning fans), and ignore algorithmically difficult or even immeasurable x-factors like leadership, durability, inspiring teammates, and making those around them better. Still, without guidance on what makes a player valuable, and clarification on the role of voting pundits in the selection process, controversy and suspicion will continue to taint the process and award.
The 2024-25 MVP was certainly not the first head-scratcher. In the 1961-62 season, Wilt Chamberlain averaged over 50 points and 25 rebounds per game—and played over 48 minutes per game (averaging more than an entire game because of overtime minutes!). It was also the season he scored 100 points in a single game. It was widely seen at the time (and ever since) as the greatest season in NBA history. But he finished runner-up for the MVP to Bill Russel, who averaged a mere 19 points per game and 23 rebounds per game, but granted was a defensive master, and the best player on the best team, the Boston Celtics. It has been called the biggest snub in NBA history. Yet the NBA survived.
Many fans will remember the Oklahoma City Thunder’s dominant 2024-25 season, and their best player, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, winning the MVP award. Likely as many (or more), though, will remember Nikola Jokic's greatest regular season (statistically) in NBA history, yet for some unfathomable—maybe even suspicious—reason, wasn’t MVP-worthy. Nevertheless the Association will survive.
Punditry, however, will not go unscathed. This latest episode puts NBA MVP voters in the same category of silly as the Motion Picture Academy, whose jaw-dropping snubs of some of the greatest films of all time (Citizen Kane, Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull) effectively destroyed its credibility and made it a laughing stock. And the Recording Academy, who turned its nose up at the Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, all of Bob Dylan’s solo albums until 1993, and everything the Beach Boys, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Marley, and Diana Ross ever did. There’s little wonder the word pundit is as often as not used as a pejorative.
For this latest misstep into their own business, the stench of ineptitude and suspicion on the bottom of their shoes will no doubt further foul the air around them. Some will even become anathema to thoughtful fans who’ve already had their fill of sales and marketing account executive-like pundits employed by sports programming behemoths masquerading as journalists. Eventually death will come like a yawn.
There’s no question the 2024-25 NBA season was a great one. Not only did small market franchises prove they could compete on the court and be financially viable, they also provided a blueprint for success that will no doubt be followed by other franchises well into the future. Also the impact of steps the league took in the 2023 Collective Bargaining Agreement to improve competition and fairness began to be felt, and will almost certainly increase fan interest throughout the league going forward. The preeminence of international players (Jokic, Gilgeous-Alexander, Doncic, Antetokounmpo, Wembanyama, and many others) continues to reflect the growing popularity of the game around the world and reinforce the emergence of a reliable pipeline of elite talent. (Recent announcements of NBA games to be played in London and Berlin will no doubt continue to grow the popularity of the game and league globally.) All of which have contributed significantly to the sky-rocketing value of NBA franchises in recent years. The prospects for the NBA have never been brighter.
Such times, however, are when opportunists crawl out of the woodwork and grab coattails and spew specious insights and phony illumination with the gilded gravitas of self-proclaimed genius. Betrayal comes most foul from “friends” with big grins bearing flowers. If it dresses like a clown and honks like a clown, call it what it is. As per the loudest clown who famously confessed to waking up every morning and wondering how he can make his employer more money and get himself some of it, pundits don’t pundit for free. And before all the circus tents are even pitched, seeds are sown by self-serving forces with their own agenda and incentives that compromise the game and its mythology. And NBA fans will begin to reactivate their TNT subscriptions to see what’s up with that hockey.
Benchmark seasons and exponential growth in popularity notwithstanding, the association is not beyond suffering the repercussions of missteps in voting rationale and process. Simple slights of acknowledgment may seem minor— and even petty to mention—in an infinitely starlit universe, but the result diminishes the awesome, transcendent beauty of one of its brightest stars ever, and tarnishes the legacy of the game for generations to come. Nothing demonstrates enlightenment more than acknowledging the brilliance and embracing the significance of a rarefied moment in time.
As the legacy of a truly great 2024-25 NBA season is sized up and scrutinized and its stars and stories canonized and mythologized, one lingering, annoying, nagging question remains: What were MVP voters thinking? The rationale for selecting an MVP shouldn’t change because self-serving pundits want to insert themselves into the process. It’s not about them! A time-worn, clearly named, self-explanatory acknowledgement of excellence shouldn’t be deconstructed and redefined because the chattering class needs new content to generate clicks and grow its following. Res ipsa loquitur! And it goes without saying that recognition of one’s excellence in the past should absolutely not diminish one’s chances of being recognized for it again. This year’s rose is no less beautiful because it was so last year!
Those who select the NBA Most Valuable Player (and other awards) have a great responsibility. Not only are they participant in creating the legacy of the game, they are stewards of it. Are clowns really the best stewards of precious legacies? What clown carrying a bucket has ever not tripped on its own giant clown feet and spilled confetti all over a kid in the front row?
NOTES/LINKS:
[1] https://www.si.com/nba/thunder/onsi/news/three-takeaways-from-the-thunder-s-second-double-overtime-win-in-a-row
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6760525/2025/10/29/buckets-by-the-bushel-nba-sets-a-mark-for-40-point-games-in-first-week/
[3] https://www.nba.com/news/10-numbers-know-first-10-days-2025-26
[4] https://apnews.com/article/nba-viewership-nbc-prime-espn-da67a2548d497b86ace01accf8d97bc1
[5] https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/46038849/nba-predictions-2025-26-expert-picks-mvp-roy-dpoy;
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6713069/2025/10/13/nba-mvp-2026-prediction-lakers-bucks-the-bounce/
[6] https://www.nba.com/news/2025-26-nba-gm-survey]
[7] https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6762061/2025/10/30/nikola-jokic-nuggets-triple-double-oscar-robertson-nba/
[8] https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/46337909/nba-offseason-survey-best-worst-summer-deals-lebron-finals-picks]
[9] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KMzwRcilLDej0BWl7eYE_OYC9Tx9olI_Ptn-nHjKfpQ/edit?gid=643451732#gid=643451732]
[10] https://www.facebook.com/stephena/posts/i-wake-up-every-morning-with-these-two-thoughts-and-when-i-put-it-like-that-ther/348020086693117/]
[11] https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5894224/2024/11/03/kevin-durant-suns-leadership-stephen-a-smith/]
[12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJdYa5grJV(March 11, 2025 First Take - Stephen A. v. Shannon Sharp on Jokic)]
[13] https://www.nba.com/stats/leaders?Season=2024-25
[14] https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/44588112/nba-offseason-2025-draft-free-agency-trade-targets-30-teams]
[15] https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional]
[16] https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2025_advanced.html]
[17] https://www.nba.com/stats/leaders?Season=2024-25
[18] http://insider.espn.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/year/2025
[19] https://www.nba.com/stats/players/advanced?SeasonType=Regular%20Season&dir=A&sort=PIE]
[21] http://insider.espn.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/sort/VORPe/year/2025
[22] https://fadeawayworld.net/nba/the-nbas-all-time-leaders-in-points-created-by-scoring-and-assisting]
[23] https://www.nba.com/stats/players/speed-distance?SeasonType=Regular%20Season&dir=D&sort=AVG_SPEED]
[24] https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/38796077/beethoven-how-nikola-jokic-became-best-passer-nba-history]
[25] https://www.nba.com/stats/players/defensive-rebounding?Season=2024-25&dir=D&sort=DREB
[26] https://www.nba.com/stats/leaders?SeasonType=Regular+Season&StatCategory=STL]
[27] https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dbpm_yearly.html]
[28] https://www.theringer.com/2023/06/12/nba/nikola-jokic-defense-denver-nuggets-2023-nba-finals]
[29] https://www.theringer.com/2023/06/12/nba/nikola-jokic-defense-denver-nuggets-2023-nba-finals]
[30] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valuable]
[31] https://www.yahoo.com/news/racial-bias-nba-mvp-race-170247760.html]