|
I think some of us disagree on the definition of "most valuable". Personally, I believe it is the player most responsible for his team's success. Meaning if you remove him from the team they would be considerably worse. Others seem to think it is "best player" which, to me, goes against the entire name of the award.
I have no problem giving the award for a season to a player on a team that did not win their division or possibly make the playoffs. If a guy has a 10 WAR that team would have been significantly worse without him. However, if that team is 62-100, it doesn't matter if a guy hits .420-80-200 his team still sucks so was he really THAT valuable? They would have sucked with or without him.
In a playoff series I think it is kind of the same. If a game goes 7 games and the only reason one team got to the 7th game was because of an outstanding performance by one player, then I could possible see him getting the MVP providing there wasn't a similar standout on the winning team? However, if a team gets beat 3-1 or 4-1 or swept, they were never in the series (much like the 62-100 team was never in the race) so there wasn't any "value" to be gained or lost.
|