I remember when D-Rose won the MVP and a journalist talked about he decided who he voted for: he said he picked the player that he wrote the most articles about. That said player was the story of the season and that is why he voted for D-Rose.
Other journalists thought that reasoning sounded fine.
I used to work at the Los Angeles Newspaper Group with a reporter who was still able to vote for the MLB Hall of Fame despite the fact that it had been years since he'd covered MLB. I really have very little respect for the MVP voting process in any of the major sports, given that they have virtually nothing in the way of guidelines, rules, etc., and that people who are no longer "connected" still get to vote. It's very much based on which players are "fashionable" at the time, so we already know, before a season even starts, the five or so players who have any legit shot at winning MVP. It comes down to whom the media loves, and right now they love Jokic most.
One really fascinating exercise is to go to FanGraphs or Baseball Reference and look through all of the voting results for MLB MVP and compare that to the WAR of the various vote recipients; what you'll see is that there have been MANY seasons when the MVP did not have the highest WAR — in fact, sometimes the person with the highest WAR didn't even finish in the top 5! Which is absurd. I get that WAR wasn't a thing until fairly recently, but it just goes to show that MVP voting often comes down to personal preferences based on numerous highly subjective criteria.
