2024 NFL MVP: Lamar Jackson was Objectively the Best Player
Although Josh Allen will likely win the MVP, Lamar Jackson was objectively the best QB/player of 2024
We all know the modern NFL is designed to favor offense and the QB position is the most valuable (highest impact). For this reason QBs win the MVP award every year (this is a good thing and makes logical sense).
It would be illogical for some guy like TJ Watt or Saquon Barkley to win the award even if they had insanely elite seasons. Why? They can only have so much overall impact on outcomes at their respective positions.
I’ve always been of the opinion that the NFL MVP award should be determined as objectively as possible (rather than AP voting) to eliminate media bias, voter fatigue, and subjectivity.
Variables like coaching, supporting cast, strength of schedule, etc. are dumb because players can’t control these things… and focusing on “intangibles” or “leadership” and trying to quantify them is impossible.
For example – someone may think Josh Allen had a weak supporting cast this season and overcame more adversity than Lamar Jackson… this may be true, but it’s also possible that the offensive talent around Josh Allen is better than people think.
And why Jackson be downgraded for having a strong supporting cast? Sure it makes his job a bit easier, but if his numbers are significantly better than Allen’s – it may be that (even if we attempt to control for other variables) that he had an objectively better season or was more valuable.
Josh Allen will likely win 2024 NFL MVP
This year I think Josh Allen wins the 2024 NFL MVP for 3 key reasons:
Bills record: 13-4 overall. 8-0 at home. Defeated both #1 seeds (KC & DET). Secured #2 seed in the AFC.
Narrative (carrying the offense): Allen lost Diggs and Gabe Davis before the season. New WR corps. Bills had a subpar defense to offense was their only hope.
No prior MVP: It helps if you’ve never won an MVP before. Voters are hesitant to give an MVP to someone who already won the award (they want to spread the wealth). They are even more hesitant to give the award to someone who won it last season (Lamar Jackson). Since Lamar is Allen’s primary competition for 2024 – odds are that Allen gets it. If Jackson hadn’t won last year the race would be much tighter.
This aligns well with betting odds for 2024 NFL MVP (after the regular season ended):
Josh Allen: 76% odds to win
Lamar Jackson: 22% odds to win
Jared Goff: 1% odds to win
Saquon Barkley: <1% odds to win
Joe Burrow: <1% odds to win
Do I think Josh Allen objectively deserves the 2024 NFL MVP?
No, but the process for selecting the NFL MVP is subjective. If I’m focusing purely on QB play in a vacuum – I’d give the 2024 NFL MVP award to Lamar Jackson.
In fact, I think if Lamar Jackson hadn’t won the award last year and/or if Josh Allen already had an NFL MVP – the race would be much tighter than current odds.
I won’t be mad if/when Allen wins the 2024 MVP award, as he is an elite QB and one of my favorite QBs to watch… in fact, I’d like Allen to win the award.
However, if I were a voter he wouldn’t get my vote for 2024 because I gauge MVP as the best highest impact player of the NFL regular season.
Objective NFL MVP Formula (2024)
Included below is a formula I came up with for 2024 NFL MVP.
It could be modified based on what people think determines the: best, highest impact player (QB) in the NFL for the regular season. Tweaking the weightings may not even change the outcome though.
I do NOT like factoring in things like: coaching, strength of schedule (SOS), team record, “intangibles” or “leadership” – because players cannot control whether they have a good team or coach etc. and intangibles and leadership are mostly unknown (some defensive veteran might be the driving force for the team’s motivation when voters erroneously perceive it as the QB).
Should we really downgrade someone like Lamar for having Derrick Henry at RB and John Harbaugh as coach? Should we upgrade Allen because he lost 2 WRs in the offseason? How do we know the replacements weren’t just as good or better for overall team chemistry? Why assume they aren’t?
Since QB is the highest impact position, teams with elite QB performance will likely end up with one of the better records (it is very rare that a QB plays elite and the team ends up with a losing record… Burrow came close though with 9-8) but even he wasn’t as good as Jackson.
MVP Score=0.50×(Production)+0.35×(Efficiency)+0.15×(Turnover Control)
Production (50%)
Efficiency (35%)
Turnover Control (15%)
1. Production (50%)
Metrics
Total Yards: (Passing Yards + Rushing Yards)
Total TD: (Passing TD + Rushing TD)
Implementation
Combine yardage + touchdowns in whichever ratio you prefer (for instance, you might give each TD the equivalent of 20 or 25 yards).
Scale the sum to a 0–10 (or 0–100) scale, where the league leader gets max, and everyone else is proportionally lower.
Rationale
High Emphasis (50%): Yardage and scoring reflect raw offensive output.
Pass vs. Rush Agnostic: A yard is a yard, a TD is a TD, no matter how it’s produced.
Most directly answers, “How much offense did this QB generate?”
2. Efficiency (35%)
Metrics
To avoid double-counting interceptions (which we’ll capture in “Turnover Control”), pick two simpler pass-efficiency stats that don’t embed INT:
Yards per Attempt (Y/A): Measures how many yards on average each pass attempt (including incompletions) nets.
Completion Percentage (Cmp%): Reflects how often you’re successfully finding a receiver.
(Alternatively, you could use something like “Y/A + Air Yards” or “Y/A + Explosive Pass %”; but for simplicity, Y/A + Cmp% is straightforward.)
Scoring
Efficiency=0.50×(Scaled Y/A)+0.50×(Scaled Cmp%).
Scale each metric (Y/A and Cmp%) to 0–10 by the league min/max.
Average them for a final Efficiency Score.
Rationale
Significant Weight (35%): Per-pass success is crucial for an offense, but we want it slightly below the 50% production weighting.
Excluding INT: We don’t embed INT in Y/A or completion%. That way, we handle INT in “Turnover Control,” avoiding duplication.
No Sacks: We skip anything that penalizes sacks because we want to remain “QB vacuum”—some sacks are on the O-line.
3. Turnover Control (15%)
Metrics
Interception Rate: INT÷Pass Attempts
Fumbles Lost: (Optionally as fumbles lost ÷ total plays, or raw lost fumbles.)
Scoring
You can either:
Combine INT Rate and Fumbles Lost Rate into a single “negative” measure and invert it. E.g.: Turnover Score=Scale(1−INT Rate)+Scale(1−Fumbles Lost Rate). Then compress to 0–10.
Or, if data for fumbles is inconsistent, you might just do Scaled(1−INT Rate).
Rationale
Moderate 15%: Turnovers can undermine big yardage, but we don’t want to overshadow the QBs who produce.
Avoid Double-Counting: Since Y/A and Cmp% exclude INT, we can highlight INT (and fumbles) here.
Why This Is “Optimal”?
Production is King (50%): Reflects the stance that yardage and touchdowns are the most important measure of a QB’s output.
Efficiency is Next (35%): QBs must maintain strong yards/attempt and complete a high % of passes. By not folding INT into this efficiency step, we preserve a separate category for turnovers.
Turnover Control (15%): Interceptions and fumbles are extremely damaging, but we limit them to 15% so we don’t overshadow the QB who might have a few picks while producing monstrous yardage or big plays.
No Sacks: Sacks are often outside the QB’s control, so we rely only on Y/A, Cmp%, etc., ignoring sacks. This ensures a “true vacuum” approach for a QB’s personal stats, unaffected by pass protection.
No Double Penalty for INT: A big pitfall in many formulas is that INT are partially included in “efficiency” (like passer rating or ANY/A) and in “turnovers.” We avoid that by using metrics (Y/A + Cmp%) that don’t incorporate picks, so INT is weighed purely in “Turnover Control.”
Overall:
Production (50%) = (Pass Yds + Rush Yds) + weighting for (Pass TD + Rush TD)
Efficiency (35%) = 0.5*(scaled Y/A) + 0.5*(scaled Cmp%)
Turnover Control (15%) = 1 - (INT Rate + Fumbles Lost Rate scaled)
Using this maximizes objective QB evaluation in a “vacuum,” placing the greatest emphasis on the final yardage and scoring, still rewarding (but not overshadowing with) efficiency, and giving a moderate penalty for giveaways—all while ignoring sacks and not double-dipping INT.
Top 5 QBs in 2024: MVP Rankings
Below are the top 5 QBs (QBs have highest overall impact so they’re going to be the MVP candidates) for 2024 based on our formula.
Saquon had an elite season as RB, but RB can only do so much on offense… they are objectively lower impact.
1. Lamar Jackson (MVP Score: 3,027)
Highlights
Amassed over 5,000 total yards (4,172 passing + ~900 rushing) plus 46 total TD.
Very good Y/A (8.8), moderate comp% (66.7%), near-elite in both.
Almost no interceptions (4 picks on 474 attempts ~0.84% INT rate).
MVP Score Calculation (brief)
Production (50%): Weighted sum of ~5,072 yards + 46 TD → top or near-top.
Efficiency (35%): Combined (8.8 Y/A + 66.7% comp%)—both above average.
Turnover Control (15%): INT rate ~0.84% → extremely low, boosting his final.
Result: The best mix of volume, big-play ability, and minimal mistakes.
2. Joe Burrow (MVP Score: 2,984)
Highlights
Led the league in passing yards (~4,918) and total pass TD (43 passing + 2 rushing = 45).
Solid 70.6% completion, but Y/A (7.5) is moderate.
INT rate (~1.38%) is decent, though not as pristine as Lamar’s.
MVP Score Calculation (brief)
Production (50%): ~5,018 yards + 45 total TD = huge raw output.
Efficiency (35%): Good comp%, modest Y/A → net middle-of-the-pack efficiency.
Turnover Control (15%): 9 INT on 652 attempts (~1.38% rate), respectable but not the best.
Result: Phenomenal volume keeps him high, overshadowed slightly by less Y/A and more picks than Lamar.
3. Jared Goff (MVP Score: 2,705)
Highlights
~4,629 pass yards + 37 TD, no rushing yards or TD.
Excellent per-throw success: 8.6 Y/A, 72.4% completion (top-notch efficiency).
Threw more picks (12 INT) ~2.23% rate, which hurts turnover control.
MVP Score Calculation (brief)
Production (50%): Good yardage but fewer total TD than Lamar/Burrow.
Efficiency (35%): 8.6 Y/A + 72.4% → some of the best passing efficiency in the league.
Turnover Control (15%): 12 INT in 539 attempts is ~2.23% → a middle or lower-middle rank in this group.
Result: Incredible efficiency but overshadowed by lesser total yardage/TD and a higher INT count compared to the top two.
4. Baker Mayfield (MVP Score: 2,679)
Highlights
~4,500 pass yards, 41 pass TD (solid volume).
Efficiency is decent: 7.9 Y/A, 71.4% comp.
However, 16 INT is ~2.80% INT rate, the highest of this group, hurting his final.
MVP Score Calculation (brief)
Production (50%): 4,500 yards + 41 TD = strong but not #1.
Efficiency (35%): 7.9 Y/A + 71.4% comp → near average/good.
Turnover Control (15%): 16 INT ~2.8% → drags him down significantly.
Result: Impressive TD total overshadowed by a relatively high INT rate and moderate Y/A.
5. Josh Allen (MVP Score: 2,590)
Highlights
Balanced approach: 3,731 pass yards + 600 rush = ~4,331 total yards; 40 total TD.
Efficiency is modest (7.7 Y/A, 63.6% comp is lowest of the group).
Interceptions: 6 (~1.24% rate) is fairly low, helping the turnover category.
MVP Score Calculation (brief)
Production (50%): ~4,331 total yards, 40 TD → decent but behind the top passers.
Efficiency (35%): 7.7 Y/A, 63.6% comp → near the bottom here.
Turnover Control (15%): 6 INT on 483 attempts → ~1.24% rate, pretty good.
Result: Solid dual-threat numbers, but fewer total yards/TD and lower comp% keep him behind the top 4.
Final Rankings (Objective MVP)
Lamar Jackson
Joe Burrow
Jared Goff
Baker Mayfield
Josh Allen
Final Take: Under the formula’s weighting of (50% Production, 35% Efficiency, 15% Turnover Control), Lamar Jackson leads the field, combining near-elite yardage & TD with strong Y/A, decent completion%, and minimal interceptions. Burrow’s huge passing totals place him second, Goff’s big efficiency claims third, Mayfield’s TDs but high picks put him fourth, and Allen’s balanced production but lower accuracy lands him fifth.
Why an objective NFL MVP algorithm is fairer/smarter…
I understand the appeal of voting for an NFL MVP… there’s a subjective human element, it’s not fair, and creates drama which keeps fans engaged.
Most of the time the voters are directionally accurate… they give the MVP to someone who clearly had an excellent season even if they sometimes miss on who was objectively the best.
I still think the benefit of just laying out an objective framework to measure overall impact would be fairer and smarter.
If you created an algorithm you could vote each year on the weights before the season or something too (updated to reflect rules or whatever) – so there still could be a human element.
I just don’t like the idea that they feel pressured to spread the wealth by giving the award to people who have never received it even if they weren’t the best… this year you could make a solid case for about ~5-6 different players receiving it.
Reasons to consider an algorithmic approach for determining the NFL MVP:
1. Minimizes Subjective Biases and Narratives
Voting System Problem: Human voters often factor in storylines, “feel-good” angles, past awards, or big-market hype—elements that can overshadow strict on-field performance. They often also subjectively consider “leadership” or “intangibles” often leading to inaccurate perceptions (these can’t be quantified). There is also a lot of pressure to vote a certain way when there’s essentially a network effect within the media that is pulling for a specific person to win it – and voting differently could result in social backlash.
Algorithmic Advantage: A purely data-driven formula strips away personal biases. It ensures that only quantifiable performance measures (e.g., yards per attempt, EPA/play, TD-INT ratio) decide the outcome.
2. Eliminates “Voter Fatigue” or Star Fatigue
Voting System Problem: A repeat MVP (e.g., Lamar Jackson going for back-to-back) might lose votes simply because writers “want a new face,” even if his stats are superior.
Algorithmic Advantage: An algorithm doesn’t get bored or crave a fresh storyline. If a QB replicates an all-time season year after year, the system rewards them exactly as the data indicates.
3. Increases Transparency and Accountability
Voting System Problem: AP ballots are largely private, and writers often provide limited rationale beyond personal opinion. Disagreements can lead to confusion or conspiracy theories (“East Coast bias,” “media hype,” etc.).
Algorithmic Advantage: A public formula, spelled out in full detail, reveals precisely why a certain QB ranked #1. Anyone can verify or replicate the results.
4. Rewards Actual Performance over Team Circumstances
Voting System Problem: Voters often penalize QBs on 8–9 teams, no matter how outstanding their individual stats, because the defense or special teams faltered. Team success can overshadow personal excellence.
Algorithmic Advantage: A stats-only approach focuses on the QB’s own contributions and efficiency, whether or not the rest of the team is playoff-caliber. Elite play in a losing environment can still be recognized – although it would probably be uncommon for a QB with elite stats to have a losing record.
5. Reflects the Modern, Analytics-Driven NFL
Voting System Problem: Some voters still rely on legacy stats (e.g., total passing yards, simple TD counts) or intangible “clutch” impressions to weigh MVP picks.
Algorithmic Advantage: New-age analytics (EPA/play, CPOE, success rate) more accurately quantify how much a QB elevates his team’s offensive efficiency. An algorithm can incorporate these advanced metrics seamlessly, producing a more accurate reflection of a QB’s value.
6. Encourages Consistency Over Hype
Voting System Problem: One or two highlight-reel games on primetime can dramatically sway public and media perception, overshadowing a QB’s steadier season.
Algorithmic Advantage: Season-long consistency is directly captured in cumulative or per-play metrics. A methodical performer who’s great every week can outperform a QB with a couple of supercharged nights but overall lesser stats.
7. Promotes Fairness for All Markets and Situations
Voting System Problem: Larger media markets or teams with historically huge followings can generate more hype for their QB, while smaller-market star QBs sometimes receive less attention or coverage.
Algorithmic Advantage: A transparent formula ensures QBs from smaller markets get equal recognition if they post equivalent or superior numbers to more “famous” QBs. Market size becomes irrelevant.
8. Long-Term Consistency & Comparisons
Voting System Problem: Each year’s MVP vote can shift drastically based on the subjective whims of new narratives, new voters, or recency bias.
Algorithmic Advantage: Applying the same objective formula year in, year out allows us to compare QBs across seasons on the same scale. In turn, this fosters a more coherent historical record of top quarterback seasons.
Who do I think will win the 2024 NFL MVP?
As I articulated at the start of this article, I think Josh Allen will win 2024 NFL MVP – and this is who I’d bet on to win the award (if I were to bet).
We know that the Associated Press (AP) typically has 50 individuals (experts in football journalism and analysis) vote on the award.
The variables these individuals tend to weigh heaviest include: team record, narrative (supporting cast, defense, leadership), past MVPs (if so how recent), and wins against elite opponents (KC & DET).
I think that objectively (in a vacuum) Lamar Jackson deserves the 2024 NFL MVP but he has an uphill battle: slightly worse record than Buffalo, perception that he has a stronger supporting cast, objectively better defense, an elite coach, and the fact that he won the award last year (tough to win back-to-back MVPs).
The voters may still surprise me… so not something I’d put a huge wager on. Based on the narrative and odds, it seems logical to predict an Allen win.