Have you ever wondered why some of the most jaw-dropping performances in sports history don’t translate into MVP trophies? You’re not alone. When voting for individual awards in sports, the lines between brilliance and bias blur more than you’d think. checklist to figure out who the winner is, the MVP contest frequently turns into a subjective process with the most worthy candidates sitting out due to numerous reasons. Voter fatigue, media bias, and sometimes even great seasons getting lost in the mix – here are some of the greatest NBA MVP snubs in history and how these choices rocked the game.
Michael Jordan, coming off a near-perfect MVP season, with nearly identical numbers from the year before, leading his Chicago Bulls to a 69-win record. Sounds like an easy MVP pick. But somehow, the voters chose to award the 1997 MVP award to Carl Malone instead. Let that marinate for a moment.
Jordan's numbers that year were staggering 29.6 points, 5.9 rebounds, and 4.3 assists per game. Those figures were nearly the same as the year he was unanimously named MVP. His team dominated the league, and his performance was out of this world. But here’s where it gets even more confusing, while also impressive with 27.4 points, 9.9 rebounds, and 4.5 assists, Carl Malone didn’t have the same level of impact as MJ. The Bulls finished 69-13, and Jordan had a staggering 18.3 win shares compared to Malone’s 16.7. So, how did this happen?
The reason behind this shocking snub? Voter fatigue. After back-to-back MVP wins in ’96, many felt it was "someone else's turn." Despite Jordan being the better player, the voters opted for a change.
Now, here's the big question. Did Malone deserve the MVP, or was it just a case of everyone getting tired of giving it to Jordan?
Let’s rewind to 1973 when the MVP race was more controversial than you could imagine. You've got Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the unstoppable presence on the Milwaukee Bucks, producing outlandish stats 30.2 points, 16.1 rebounds, and five assists per game. His team is rolling with 60 wins. Sounds like the MVP, doesn't it? But guess who won the award instead? Dave Cowens also had a fairly decent year himself, putting up 20.5 points, 16.2 rebounds, and 4.1 assists for the Boston Celtics. Wait, what?
Here’s where it gets tricky. Cowens led his Celtics to a whopping 68 wins, which was impressive, but his numbers didn’t compare to Kareem’s monster stats. Kareem had a mind-blowing 21.9 win shares, far outshining Cowens’ 12. So why didn’t Kareem win it for a
third year? You guessed it, voter fatigue. After dominating the league and winning back-to-back MVPs, the voters were ready for a change.
Kareem’s incredible stats and impact on his team should’ve had him locked in for a third MVP title, but instead, the voters gave the nod to someone else. Was it the right call, or was it simply the fatigue of voting for the same guy year after year?
What if you're so dominant at basketball that you lead nearly every statistical category. LeBron James in 2011 actually did just that. LeBron was a freight train. He was pacing the league in points, rebounds, assists, and just about every other stat you can imagine. He was a walking highlight reel. But the voters didn't give him the award in one of the biggest MVP shocks in NBA history. Instead, it went to Derrick Rose, who had a great season but was statistically outclassed by LeBron in almost every way.
So why did Rose receive the MVP instead? Not because of his statistics, but LeBron's were just too ridiculous. The actual reason? Media bias and voter fatigue. LeBron had already won two consecutive MVPs, and most voters were sick of granting him the award. It was almost like they didn’t want him to make history with a third straight win, even though he was arguably the best player in the league that year. Meanwhile, Rose, at just 22 years old, became the youngest MVP in NBA history, and while he had a solid season (25 PPG, 7.7 APG), it didn’t hold a candle to LeBron’s numbers.
This one still has fans scratching their heads. It’s a classic case of when stats don’t tell the whole story, and how a combination of narrative and fatigue can drastically impact the most significant award in basketball.
In 2006, the basketball world witnessed something truly legendary. Kobe Bryant was on a tear, putting up insane numbers and carrying a Lakers team that, frankly, wasn’t built for success.
Kobe scored 35.4 points per game, the 9th-best scoring season ever in the NBA. And who could forget that game against the Raptors in which he scored 81. the greatest single performance of all time? Nevertheless, when MVP voting came around, it was Steve Nash who walked away with the award.
Don’t get us wrong, but Nash had a stellar season, averaging 18.1 points and 10.5 assists per game. But let’s be honest, those numbers didn’t stack up against what Kobe was doing. Nash’s Phoenix Suns were dominant, but Kobe’s individual brilliance kept the Lakers in the playoff race despite the roster’s lack of star power. In a way, Nash’s win felt like a perfect storm of narrative
over raw performance. The league was entranced by the Suns’ fast-paced style of play and Nash’s leadership, but when you look at the cold, complex numbers, it’s hard to argue that Kobe wasn’t the more deserving candidate.
So, what happened here? Was this a case of Nash deserving the MVP for his playmaking and impact on a successful team, or did voters get swept up in the story of Nash’s Suns over Kobe’s solo brilliance? You can’t help but wonder how different things might’ve been if the voters had simply looked at the numbers, after all, 81 points speak for themselves.
It’s 1962, and the NBA is witnessing two of the most jaw-dropping individual performances in basketball history. Wilt Chamberlain is putting up a mind-blowing 50.4 points and 25.7 rebounds per game, numbers that have never been touched before or since. Meanwhile, Oscar Robertson is breaking records by becoming the first player ever to average a triple-double over the course of a season with 30.8 points, 12.5 rebounds, and 11.4 assists per game. These two were accomplishing things nobody ever imagined, rewriting the rules and raising the bar to the sky.
But guess who won the MVP that year? Bill Russell. And while he was undoubtedly great, with
18.9 points, 23.6 rebounds, and 4.5 assists per game, it’s hard to ignore how much better Wilt and Oscar were that season. Wilt’s stats alone were so wild that they might as well have come from a video game and Oscar’s triple-double feat. That was pure magic. So, why did Russell, whose numbers pale in comparison, walk away with the MVP?
Here’s the kicker. Russell’s Celtics did win 60 games that season, and his defensive presence was a huge factor in their success. But how do you ignore Wilt’s scoring barrage and Oscar’s historical triple-double? It was almost like the voters were too caught up in Russell’s leadership and team success, overlooking the individual brilliance of Chamberlain and Robertson. This MVP vote has left fans scratching their heads for decades.
So, what do you think? Was this an honest mistake or a glaring oversight in history?
MVP voting isn’t just about stats, but it’s a mix of narrative, team success, and sometimes old fatigue. These snubs show how subjective and unpredictable the MVP race can be, leaving us to wonder, How many of the most outstanding individual performances ever truly got the recognition they deserved?
