I always find this argument interesting. Not necessarily wrong, but definitely interesting. There's only so much a player can do in baseball. You only bat one out of every 9 times in the order, you can only field balls that are hit into your area. If you're the CF, you can't field balls on the infield, or hit down either line, etc, etc. If you hit leadoff, you can't bat in the 2nd inning if your spot doesn't come up again, there are simply many many many events and outcomes in a game that a baseball player absolutely has zero impact on. By this reasoning (which many people use), a player on the Marlins, Orioles, Tigers, Royals, etc, etc, etc, etc, or basically ANY team not playing in the playoffs is more or less exempt from winning the MVP, which I disagree with. If a team won 75 games, wasn't that player valuable in assisting towards those 75 wins? Why is the definition of "most valuable" only defining valuable in the terms of teams that are playing in playoff scenarios? Not being snarky, just asking a serious question, because a LOT of people use that benchmark for what constitutes an MVP.