How Does NBA MVP Voting Work? A Complete Guide to the Selection Process

As someone who's followed basketball for over two decades, I've always found the NBA MVP voting process fascinating, especially when you compare it to how players are evaluated in other leagues. I remember watching that Kings-Terrafirma Dyip game last season where Gray appeared to have tweaked his right knee while trying to elude his defender in the final two minutes of the second quarter. That single moment, happening at the Smart Araneta Coliseum no less, got me thinking about how much context matters in player evaluation - something that directly relates to how we should understand MVP voting.

The NBA MVP selection isn't just about counting stats, though let's be honest, numbers absolutely matter. The voting panel consists of 100 media members from across the United States and Canada, plus one fan vote that counts as one single ballot. That's 101 total votes, and each voter submits their top five choices in order. What's interesting is that the system uses a weighted points structure - 10 points for first place, 7 for second, 5 for third, 3 for fourth, and 1 for fifth. I've always thought this creates some fascinating strategic considerations for voters. Do you go with the narrative? The advanced metrics? The traditional stats? The team success? In my view, it's always some combination, but different voters weigh these factors differently, which is why we sometimes get surprising results.

Looking back at recent history, the voting has sometimes created debates that last for years. Take the 2017 race between Russell Westbrook and James Harden - Westbrook averaged that historic triple-double of 31.6 points, 10.7 rebounds, and 10.4 assists, while Harden put up 29.1 points, 8.1 rebounds, and 11.2 assists on a 55-win team. Westbrook won largely because of the narrative around his historic achievement, even though Harden's team won more games. Personally, I thought Harden deserved it that year, but that's the beauty of the system - it allows for different interpretations of what "most valuable" truly means.

The timing of performances matters tremendously too, much like how that knee tweak for Gray came at a critical moment in that particular game. Voters tend to remember what happens in March and April more vividly than November games, which isn't necessarily fair but it's human nature. I've noticed that players who finish strong often get disproportionate credit in the voting. For instance, if a player puts up monster numbers during a late-season playoff push, that tends to stick in voters' minds more than consistent excellence spread evenly across the entire season.

Team success plays a huge role, and historically, MVPs almost always come from top-seeded teams. Since 1985, only two players have won MVP without their team finishing with one of the two best records in their conference - Michael Jordan in 1988 and Russell Westbrook in 2017. The general rule seems to be that your team needs to win at least 50 games, though there are exceptions. Last season, for example, Nikola Jokic won despite his Nuggets being the 6th seed, but that was considered an anomaly driven by his extraordinary individual metrics and the fact that his team dealt with significant injuries.

Advanced analytics have changed the conversation dramatically in recent years. Voters now regularly discuss PER (Player Efficiency Rating), VORP (Value Over Replacement Player), and other metrics that weren't part of the conversation a decade ago. Jokic's back-to-back MVPs were heavily influenced by his historic advanced stats, even though some traditional basketball folks argued that players like Joel Embiid or Giannis Antetokounmpo were more dominant in ways that directly translated to winning. I'm somewhat torn on this - while I love the sophistication that advanced stats bring, I worry that sometimes we overcomplicate what should be a more holistic evaluation.

The narrative component can't be underestimated either. Sports media loves a good story, and players who have compelling narratives often get extra consideration. Derrick Rose becoming the youngest MVP in history at age 22, Stephen Curry's unanimous MVP during the Warriors' 73-win season, Giannis winning after his incredible journey from Greece - these stories matter almost as much as the statistics. In my opinion, this narrative element makes the award more interesting, even if it sometimes leads to debates about whether the "best" player actually won.

What's often overlooked is how much preseason expectations influence voting. If a player exceeds expectations dramatically, like Rose did in 2011, they often get extra credit compared to established superstars putting up similar numbers. Similarly, voter fatigue is real - it becomes increasingly difficult to win consecutive MVPs unless you're putting up historically great seasons. LeBron James probably should have won more than four MVPs, but voters seemed to get tired of selecting him year after year, even when he was clearly the best player in the league.

The globalization of the game adds another layer to consider. With the NBA becoming increasingly international, performances in venues like the Smart Araneta Coliseum, where that Gray injury occurred, take on added significance. While MVP voting focuses on NBA performance, the league's global footprint means that international players often have additional scrutiny and different narratives attached to their candidacy.

Ultimately, the MVP voting process, while imperfect, creates six months of compelling discussion each season. It balances statistical excellence with narrative appeal, individual brilliance with team success, traditional metrics with advanced analytics. The system has evolved over time, and it will continue to do so as the game changes. What makes it special is that it reflects basketball's complexity - there's no single formula, no checklist that guarantees victory. It's this very subjectivity that keeps us debating, analyzing, and passionately advocating for our favorites year after year. And honestly, that debate is part of what makes basketball so endlessly fascinating to follow.