Let me tell you, the 2021 NBA MVP voting results created one of the most fascinating narratives we've seen in recent basketball history. As someone who's followed MVP races for over a decade, I've rarely seen a season where the conversation shifted so dramatically from start to finish. The final ballots revealed much more than just Nikola Jokić's well-deserved victory—they showed how voters' perspectives evolved throughout this unique pandemic-affected season.
When I first looked at the complete breakdown of final ballots, what struck me immediately was how Jokić appeared on every single first-place ballot. That's 100 out of 100 possible first-place votes—an absolute domination that we haven't seen since Steph Curry's unanimous MVP back in 2016. But here's what's interesting: while Jokić's victory appears landslide on surface, the battle for second through fifth places was incredibly tight. Joel Embiid secured 49 second-place votes compared to Stephen Curry's 38, yet the final point differential wasn't as massive as you might expect. This tells me that while voters overwhelmingly agreed on Jokić's supremacy, their evaluation criteria for the remaining candidates varied significantly.
Now, watching this MVP race unfold reminded me of something crucial about basketball evaluation—sometimes what doesn't show up in basic stats matters most. Take Jokić's case: yes, his 26.4 points, 10.8 rebounds, and 8.3 assists are spectacular, but what truly sealed his MVP case was how he elevated a Denver team missing Jamal Murray to the third seed in the brutal Western Conference. I've always believed that "value" should measure how much worse a team would be without their star, and by that metric, Jokić was in a class of his own.
This brings me to an interesting parallel from another basketball context that illustrates my point about efficiency versus volume. Remember that game where San Juan struggled from distance, sinking only 3 of 21 triple attempts? They adapted beautifully by attacking the shaded lane where they scored 42 points against Basilan's 18—that strategic shift created the decisive difference. To me, this mirrors what made Jokić's season special. When conventional approaches weren't working for Denver, he created new pathways to victory through his unparalleled playmaking and efficiency in the paint. His 56.6% field goal percentage as a center who often initiated offense was simply ridiculous.
What many casual fans might not appreciate is how the voting patterns reflect changing perspectives on basketball analytics. Giannis Antetokounmpo finishing fourth despite stellar numbers shows that voters are becoming more sophisticated—they're looking beyond raw statistics to contextual impact. I've noticed this shift over recent years, and frankly, I'm thrilled about it. The days of giving MVP to whoever averages the most points are thankfully behind us.
The international flavor of this year's top candidates—Jokić from Serbia, Embiid from Cameroon, Antetokounmpo from Greece—speaks volumes about basketball's global evolution. As someone who's watched the league transform over twenty years, this international dominance isn't surprising anymore, but it's still remarkable how these players have redefined their positions. Jokić in particular has shattered traditional conceptions of what a center can be.
Looking at Chris Paul's fifth-place finish at age 36, I can't help but feel this was one of the great "narrative" votes in recent memory. His transformation of the Phoenix Suns was magical to watch, but here's my personal take: while Paul deserved recognition, placing him above Damian Lillard feels questionable. Dame's individual brilliance on a team dealing with significant injuries might have been more valuable than Paul's leadership on a more complete roster. These are the types of debates that make MVP voting so compelling year after year.
The distribution of third-place votes particularly caught my attention—Curry received 20 while Embiid got only 7, suggesting that many voters saw a clearer gap between second and third than between first and second. This granular level of the 2021 NBA MVP voting results reveals how voters strategically allocate points across their ballots. Having spoken with several voters over the years, I know they often put considerable thought into these placements, sometimes using mathematical approaches to ensure their ballot reflects their true preferences.
What ultimately made the 2021 NBA MVP voting so memorable wasn't just Jokić's historic achievement, but how it reflected basketball's evolving analytical landscape. The conversation has moved beyond traditional box score numbers toward impact metrics, on/off court differentials, and quality of supporting casts. As a basketball traditionalist who's learned to embrace analytics, I find this fusion of old-school observation and new-age data particularly exciting for the sport's future.
Reflecting on the complete breakdown of these MVP ballots, I'm convinced we witnessed something special in 2021—not just Jokić's magnificent season, but a maturation in how we evaluate basketball greatness. The depth of analysis evident in the voting patterns suggests the award is in good hands, with voters who understand that basketball value manifests in countless ways, from statistical dominance to intangible leadership. The 2021 NBA MVP voting results will likely be remembered not just for Jokić's unanimous triumph, but for showcasing the sophisticated discourse surrounding modern basketball evaluation.
