I think 4 guys had a good argument to win it, but Jokic was the right pick imo.
He played without their 2nd best player (Murray missed all season) and 3rd best player (MPJ -only played 9 games), and they were still very competitive and won 48 games. The team, minus Jokic, is not very good. It can be argued that Denver would have been one the worst teams in the NBA without him. I personally don't think they would have even won 20 games. small sample size - they were 2-6 (.25 win %) without Jokic this season)
Embiid had a much better supporting cast than Jokic. Maxey came out of nowhere, Harris was still his reliable role-player self, and they had Harden for the last quarter of the season. Hypothetically speaking - I think without Embiid, the 76ers wouldn't have been great, but they still may have been in position for the play in. Another small sample size: 6-8 (.42 win %) without Emiid.
In that regard, I think Jokic had a slight edge in terms or who had more "value" for the team based on their situations and their end result.
When it comes to advanced stats, Jokic pretty much beats Embiid out in every stat related to value or impact on the team.
PER: Jokic- 32.8; Embiid - 31.2
Win Shares: Jokic -15.2; Embiid - 12
Plus/Minus: Jokic 13.7; Embiid - 9.2
VORP: Jokic - 9.8; Embiid- 6.5
In terms of individual stats, Embiid has a slight edge on BPG (.6) and had 3.5 more PPG, mostly as a result of shooting more. Jokic has the edge on rebounds (2.1), APG (3.7), SPG (.4), and shooting percentage (8.4%).
So, overall... close race. One of the closest ever, probably. But almost everything goes in Jokic's favor, so he would have gotten my vote.
