Breaking Down Some Wild Shai Gilgeous-Alexander And Nikola Jokic NBA Most Valuable Player Stats
Garrett Ellwood. Getty Images.In honor of two of the most impressive individual player seasons the NBA has seen in a long time, let's take a moment to dive into some stats to showcase how awesome your pre-emptive MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, and Nikola Jokic have been in 2024-25. Fair to say the battle for the award is over - with SGA sitting around -3000 to win if books are even offering.
Now you might say voter fatigue has a large part to play here. That seems to be no longer a speculation like it was when Jordan lost out to Malone in 1997. It's out there in the open now. But you can easily pull stats up for both SGA and Jokic separately to make the claim either should win MVP and it would look like a slam dunk case. Especially if you compare figures historically to past recipients. But no past winner has faced as formidable a foe. Let's run through some stats to show why. We'll start with the all but coronated…
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
If you think voter fatigue is the deciding factor in how MVP gets decided, here's some propaganda stats the SGA legal team would throw at you. Because two things can be true. Don't worry. We'll get to the Jokic propaganda next.
32.5 points per game. That's the most for any player this season. Jokic is third (30.0) behind Giannis. But the real separator here is SGA's 77 games played vs 67 for Jokic. If we're going to hate on the age of load management absurdity, then we have to credit the dudes that go out there and play. Not to say Jokic's 67 games played means he's a flake, but credit SGA where it's due.
Points aren't everything though. That's why player ratings were made. Which also isn't everything since neither player here is even in the top-five of offensive rating league-wide. Jokic is 7th and SGA is 12th. Advantage Jokic. But you can probably see where this is going. SGA is the complete package. And it makes the ole 90s basketball lover heart happy to know the MVP winner will be a fantastic two-way player. SGA comes in at #10 league-wide in average defensive rating, while Jokic is at #52. Conceptually, you could take ten NBA teams and say all five starters are better on defense than Jokic. Plus one random player somewhere else.
Let's move on to plus/minus. Another great stat that also sucks. Anytime Draymond Green is NBA history's best in a particular stat, it should include some form of physical confrontation. But plus/minus can at least give some indication as to how much value you add your team by tracking point differential on the court vs off. Fourth place in NBA history is pretty solid if you ask me. Jokic lands in the mid-50s all-time at 8.06 (didn't make graph cut).
Min 50-games played
Being great is great. But what about being consistently great? Yeah - SGA checks that box too. His only game this season with less than 20 points was in October (18-points). He's scored 20 or more in every game since that fourth game of the season. So 73 straight games played with 20+. Only people to have a longer streak are Oscar Robertson, Wilt, and Wilt.
(disregard random number after season in each player's name)
OK - dude is a two-way great with consistent game. But is his team any good? I know - dumb rhetorical question. Judging by point differential per game, this OKC squad ranks fourth all-time.
For the record - Jordan won MVP in 1996 and Kareem for the Bucks in 1971.
Quite the resume. Also - so long as we're playing the role of propaganda SGA lawyer here, here's one final cheap shot stat:
Coaches killed in 2024-25:
Jokic - 1
SGA - 0
Nikola Jokic
Let's lawyer up Nikola stans. We can sit here and talk about how Jokic is a three-time MVP yet this has been the best season of his career. But none of that matters because Shai's 2024-25 performance wasn't up for consideration in any of those years. We can only compare to this season. And if there's one tack to make a compelling case for Jokic it's the fact that he's been given an incredibly inferior supporting cast vs Shai.
Check out every player's plus/minus from either team (min 20 games played):
Yep - OKC's 11th man in plus/minus is better than a starter on Denver. So while Jokic doesn't have as high a figure as SGA, you could easily make the argument that as impressive as Shai is, he's not necessary as valuable to his team. Quite the contrary for Jokic. This team will absolutely crumble without him.
Case in point this random tweet of mine after watching them play the Warriors a week or so ago.
Case in point #2 - Jokic is one of just three players in NBA history to score 60+ with a triple double and no one scored more than his 61 points in doing so. Luka and Harden were the other two and both scored 60. Yet thanks to Russell Westbrook snatching a defeat from the jaws of victory, the Nuggets still lost that game. But hey - at least they won for his 30-20-20 game (only player to ever do this).
Speaking of his triple doubles - this is not something centers are supposed to habitually do. To prove this point, I present to you every NBA center's total career triple doubles (who have at least one) in descending order of player first name to give a nice randomization that makes Wilt stand out like a sore thumb and Jokic stand out like a hung horse.
Some notables here. Shaq: 2. Hakeem: 14. Bill Russell: 16. Alperen Sengun? I guess 8? Might need to check into why his name is in my data twice with one version having the foreign "S" with a little fish hook on the bottom.
While the season wraps up tomorrow - the race for MVP is over. Shai is going to win and I think that's probably the right call due to his stature on the defensive end. But I can't get that team plus/minus chart out of my mind. Shai might have had the all around best season, but was he the most valuable to his team given everyone else is evidently also really good?
At the end of the day - who really cares? They're both awesome and make it fun to dig up stats on.