Shai Gilgeous-Alexander's historic season is forcing a rethink of how NBA MVP candidates are evaluated, with performance metrics increasingly outweighing traditional team-based benchmarks.
Zach Lowe and Bill Simmons recently unpacked a problem that has lingered over NBA awards voting for years: the persistent bias toward team success when evaluating individual brilliance. Their conversation zeroed in on Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, whose campaign with the Oklahoma City Thunder this season has been nothing short of extraordinary, yet still faces skepticism from voters accustomed to equating MVP worthiness with top-seeded dominance.
Gilgeous-Alexander is averaging over 31 points per game while shooting above 53 percent from the field, numbers that place him in rare historical company. As the analysis highlighted by Crypto Briefing makes clear, the Thunder guard has joined an exceptionally short list of players who have maintained that scoring efficiency at that volume. Only a handful of names, including Michael Jordan and LeBron James, appear on that list. The statistical case alone should make him a frontrunner, yet the discourse keeps circling back to where Oklahoma City sits in the Western Conference standings.
Lowe's argument is straightforward and worth considering: MVP voting should not function as a proxy for predicting playoff success. The award is designed to recognize individual excellence over a regular season, not to reward the deepest roster or the best coaching staff. When voters penalize a player for his team's record, they effectively punish him for factors outside his control, injuries to teammates, front office decisions, or the simple reality of sharing a conference with several stacked rosters.
This tension has produced some of the most debated outcomes in recent NBA history. Nikola Jokic won his first MVP in 2021 while Denver sat as a lower seed, drawing criticism from those who felt the award should go to a player on a contending team. The following year, the debate shifted again when Joel Embiid claimed the honor playing for a top-seeded Philadelphia squad. Each cycle, the same question resurfaces without resolution: should the best player on a good team beat the best player on an average team?
What makes Gilgeous-Alexander's situation particularly compelling is that Oklahoma City is not a bad team. They are competitive, well-coached, and trending upward with a young core that includes Chet Holmgren and Jalen Williams. The Thunder are firmly in the playoff mix, which makes the hesitation from some voters even harder to justify. This is not a case of a superstar dragging a lottery team to mediocrity. It is a franchise cornerstone elevating a legitimate postseason contender on a nightly basis.
Character as an Underrated Variable
One of the more interesting points raised in the discussion was how a player's character and leadership narrative can influence MVP voting in subtle ways. Voters are human, and storytelling matters. Gilgeous-Alexander has developed a reputation as a grounded, team-first player who consistently deflects praise toward his teammates. That matters not because the MVP should be a popularity contest, but because leadership and consistency are genuine contributors to on-court value.
Analytics have transformed how front offices evaluate talent, but awards voting still contains a significant subjective element. Players who are perceived as elevating those around them, rather than simply accumulating stats, often receive a boost in perception. Think of how Steve Nash's back-to-back MVPs were framed around his ability to make teammates better, or how Giannis Antetokounmpo's two-way dominance was celebrated as much for its intensity as its raw numbers.
The broader implications extend beyond Gilgeous-Alexander himself. As the NBA continues to emphasize load management and roster flexibility, individual statistical dominance on a competitive but not elite team may become more common. Superstars are resting more games, and the gap between the best and worst teams has narrowed under the current collective bargaining agreement. Voters will need a more nuanced framework, one that separates individual contribution from team context more rigorously than a simple glance at the standings.
For the Thunder, Gilgeous-Alexander's season represents something larger than an awards race. It signals that the franchise's post-Russell Westbrook, post-Paul George rebuild has produced a genuine centerpiece, a player around whom a championship contender can be constructed. Whether he wins the award or not, the message to the rest of the league is clear: Oklahoma City has arrived ahead of schedule, and their best player has proven he belongs in any conversation about the elite talents in the sport today.
