1. Player X is MVP for leading his team to the playoffs, something Player Y failed to do.

2. Player X is MVP because it stands for Most Valuable, and X’s team would be nowhere without him. Player Y’s team has has other good players, making X less valuable.

See a problem here? How is it that both of these are arguments are used as rationale for MVP voting? They’re complete opposites.

…more than anything, it was Rollins’ grinder persona that kept the team positive and focused…

So on and so forth. It’s so comical to me, we watch sportswriters make it up as they go along to push whichever player they’ve already decided should win.

Just pick the best guy. He isn’t a mascot. He can’t control others’ performance.