Last year, in addition to becoming the first four-time MVP in WNBA history, A’ja Wilson became just the second back-to-back MVP. Cynthia Cooper accomplished the feat 27 years earlier in the league’s first two seasons.
Now, Wilson is the frontrunner to win an unprecedented third MVP in a row. It would be her fifth total, which is mind-boggling, especially considering she just turned 30 years old and likely has quite some time left in her career.
Wilson leads the player many consider to be second in the running, Olivia Miles, by a whopping 8.3 statistical points when you add up their averages in points, rebounds, assists times 1.5, steals and blocks. Miles has a slightly higher effective field goal percentage and a slightly higher free throw percentage, but Wilson’s lead in stat score is overwhelming.
- A’ja Wilson: 43.7 stat score / 54.9 eFG% / 85.8 FT%
- Olivia Miles: 35.4 stat score / 55.4 eFG% / 86.9 FT%
But should the MVP only be about statistics?
Should voters think outside the box and give the MVP to Olivia Miles?
Miles has led a Minnesota Lynx team that nobody expected to have best record in the league. The Lynx are 3.5 games ahead of the next closest team in the current WNBA standings and five games ahead of Wilson’s Las Vegas Aces, who were considered to be one of the frontrunners at the beginning of the season.
Miles has done it all, all while facing the pressure of being a rookie. These circumstances will undoubtedly be factored in when the media votes; already, major media outlets have been portraying the race as closer than the numbers indicate it should be.
Then there’s the historic bias against guards that has to be taken into consideration. Miles, a 5-foot-10 point guard, shouldn’t be expected to rebound the ball at the same rate as Wilson, a 6-foot-4 forward/center. That’s not part of her job description.
As I wrote about in my 2025 MVP ladder 2.0, the WNBA MVP award has only been given to a true guard three times: Cooper twice and Diana Taurasi once.
Clearly, the stat score method I use when determining my MVP favors frontcourt players, even though I multiply assists by 1.5. Other analysts have their own formulas or considerations when trying to capture a player’s statiscal impact, but they keep coming up with the same answer: The most-deserving MVP candidates are almost always versatile 3s, 4s and 5s.
Shooting guard Kelsey Mitchell of the Indiana Fever is a great example of someone whose stat score is always low for a star because she doesn’t fill out the box score beyond scoring. But she is rightfully in the MVP conversation this season alongside Wilson and Miles because basketball experts who watch the games can see that she affects the game beyond the box score because of how much of a threat she is to score. Sometimes doing one job (in this case scoring) really well is all a player should need to gain consideration.
Miles is probably a more gifted passer than she is a scorer, and that may always be the case. But she has turned into someone who loves to score. As a result, her assist average (6.1 per game) isn’t a top-five mark in the league, but it’s still very good. Plus, she’s averaging nearly 20 points per game, which good enough to be in the conversation for the scoring title most years.
And the intangibles have been phenomenal. “The Spectacle” has electrified the league with thrilling performance after thrilling performance. Again, all this has come while dealing with the challenge of getting used to the professional level.
What if it’s not yet someone else’s turn? Isn’t A’ja Wilson still the best?
Let’s argue Wilson’s case though.
It seems Miles has a legitimate shot at getting some first place votes. But if Miles wins the award, that won’t properly reflect that Wilson is still in the midst of her reign as the best player in the world.
Are we subconsciously discriminating against Wilson because we think it’s someone else’s turn?
The MVP award can only go to one person, and years from now, when we see that one name listed, we will automatically think that player was the clear-cut best player in the league that year. The name on the list doesn’t tell the true story of all the arguments that were had for other players. When future generations look back on 2023, they will see Breanna Stewart’s name and not be aware of the intense debate that occurred between Stewie, A’ja and Alyssa Thomas. It’s unlikely many people will dig deeper, look at the voting and realize that AT actually got the most first-place votes.
So Miles’ name may go down in history as the MVP this year. She would be the second rookie to win the award, after Candace Parker in 2008. And she might be deserving.
But it would be a shame for people to not remember how close Wilson came to three MVPs in a row and five in seven years.
We should celebrate the accomplishment that has been A’ja showing up and being A’ja Wilson yet again.
We shouldn’t take it for granted.
Yet, it will likely be forgotten if she doesn’t win MVP.
In my stat score, what Wilson gains in having 9.5 rebounds per game is pretty much canceled out by multiplying Miles’ assists per game by 1.5, which comes out to 9.2.
The real difference between the two is Wilson’s incredible scoring average of 26 points per game being 6.3 pointes higher than Miles’ scoring average. Wilson is on track for the second-highest points per game in the history of the W, trailing only her own mark of 26.9 in 2024. It’s hard to vote against that.
Personally, I’m a fan of both players.
I’m happy my prediction that Miles would be a great player in the W has come to fruition so quickly. I’m also enjoying watching Wilson ascend to GOAT status in real time. On the men’s side, most experts have, unfairly or not, refused to crown a new GOAT, instead insisting that Michael Jordan is still better than LeBron James.
On the women’s side, A’ja has left no doubt in surpassing Taurasi, and we’re lucky to be witnessing it.
Diehard Jordan fans in the 90s didn’t get tired of him winning award after award. That’s what I’m experiencing with A’ja right now. It just doesn’t get old.
We’ll see if the voters feel the same way.
