With the current 2024-25 NBA season underway, MVP conversations have already sparked interest in the community.

With names like Kevin Durant, Anthony Davis, and Nikola Jokić already making headlines this early in the season, it seems that the NBA MVP award will be as closely called as ever.

For nearly two decades, the NBA’s Most Valuable Player award has sparked intense debates over what truly defines “value” on the court. Is it the sheer volume of a player’s contributions, as measured by stats like points, rebounds, and assists (PRA)? Or is it their ability to lead their team to victory, as reflected in the winning percentage?

An analysis of the past 20 MVPs reveals intriguing insights into the interplay between these factors, raising questions about how we evaluate the league’s top performers.

Statistical Greatness vs. Team Success

A closer look at the last 20 MVPs suggests that both high PRA totals and impressive winning percentages have played pivotal roles in securing the award. Players like LeBron James, who won four MVP awards between 2009 and 2013, and Nikola Jokić, who won back-to-back MVPs in 2021 and 2022, displayed elite individual production while also leading their teams to high win totals.

However, the relationship between Total PRA and Winning Percentage is not always as straightforward as it seems. A recent analysis comparing these two metrics for the league’s top performers highlights a surprising trend: rather than reinforcing each other, high PRA and winning percentage sometimes appear to be at odds.

Data from the past two decades show that MVP winners typically excel in at least one of these areas but not always both. This suggests that players who excel at filling the stat sheet may not always translate their individual dominance into team success.

For instance, Russell Westbrook’s historic MVP season in 2016-17, in which he averaged a triple-double (31.6 points, 10.7 rebounds, and 10.4 assists), was marked by a phenomenal individual PRA. However, his Oklahoma City Thunder finished with a relatively modest winning percentage of 57%. This raised eyebrows at the time, with some critics questioning whether sheer statistical dominance should outweigh team success when deciding the MVP.

On the other hand, Stephen Curry’s MVP seasons in 2015 and 2016 tell a different story. Curry’s numbers were impressive, but his greatest asset was his ability to elevate the Golden State Warriors to a league-best record, including a historic 73-9 season in 2016. Curry’s PRA wasn’t the highest in the league, but his impact on winning was undeniable, demonstrating that winning percentage can sometimes outweigh total statistical output in MVP voting.

While some MVPs have showcased both high PRA and strong winning percentages—like LeBron James in 2012-13 (27.1 points, 7.3 rebounds, 6.9 assists) and a league-best 80%-win rate—others have won despite a clear imbalance between the two metrics. Allen Iverson’s 2001 MVP award was earned with an extraordinary scoring output (31.1 points per game), but the Philadelphia 76ers finished the regular season with a comparatively lower win rate, driven by Iverson’s necessity to carry a team with limited support.

Contrary to popular belief, while PRA is a powerful indicator of individual talent, it doesn’t always align with team success. In fact, some of the most statistically dominant seasons by MVP winners came during years when their teams did not have the best records, suggesting that MVP voters weigh individual brilliance heavily, sometimes even at the expense of team performance.

These conflicting patterns raise a fundamental question: should the MVP award prioritize individual excellence or contributions to team success? Historically, voters have considered both, but the data suggests there may be room for refinement in how we define “value.”

One potential improvement could be to include efficiency metrics—like actual shooting percentage or player efficiency rating (PER)—to balance out the focus on PRA. This would prevent rewarding players who accumulate high stats inefficiently or in losing efforts.

Another approach would be to consider on/off-court impact metrics, which measure how much better a team performs when a player is on the court versus when they’re off. These metrics can provide a deeper understanding of a player’s true impact on team success.

The Future of MVP Selection

As the league evolves, so too does the way we evaluate its best players. The debate over what makes an MVP is far from settled, especially as the league becomes more data-driven.

The surprising negative correlation between PRA and winning percentage among past MVPs suggests that the traditional criteria might not fully capture what makes a player “valuable.”

Looking ahead, it’s clear that combining individual productivity with meaningful contributions to team success should be at the heart of MVP discussions. Perhaps the solution is not to choose between PRA and winning percentage but to develop a composite metric that captures the best of both worlds.

With players continuing to redefine what’s possible on the court, the conversation around what truly makes an MVP will undoubtedly continue to evolve, just as the game itself does. For now, the analysis of past winners shows that “value” in the NBA remains an undefined concept.