If 18 games was a statistically significant sample size, Jeremy Lin would be a hall-of-famer and not the answer to an obscure trivia question. But by all means, carry on being salty Jokic didn't win the MVP.
How about the sample size where Embiid DID play and Jokic had way better stats, a better win percentage, more total wins, more games played, and finished with a higher seed?
Look up the stats of any other top player and their team with and without him. The Bucks are WAY worse without Giannis than with him. The Nuggets are a lottery team without Jokic and the best team in the NBA with him. The Lakers were horrible without LeBron and without AD.
Embiid is the ONLY "top" player that missed significant time and had his team play better with him than without him.
Lakers: .481 without LeBron, .585 with Lebron; .462 without Davis, .554 with Davis
Nuggets: .385 without Jokic, .696 with Jokic
Bucks: .579 without Giannis, .746 with Giannis
Sixers (including playoffs): .722 without Embiid, .652 with Embiid
Flat out, Embiid had no case to win it. Not even remotely close. He didn't have the statistical argument, he didn't have the team success argument, he didn't have the games played argument, and his team without him significantly outplayed his team with him.
He bitched and moaned in the media for three years and a bunch of people rewarded him because they didn't want Jokic to win 3 in a row, even though he's the only player who had anything resembling a case in any of these three years.
Giving this MVP to Embiid is worse than when they gave LeBron's to Rose or Jordan's to Malone. It would be like giving Jordan's to Patrick Ewing or something. Great player, but never close to the best in the NBA. Just like Embiid.