It's interesting to talk about what exactly constitutes 'most valuable', and I agree that it really boils down to 'best player'. Each guy's value is equal, regardless of who he's playing for. If a guy is a 7 WAR player, it doesn't matter who he's playing for or the constitution of the lineup around him, replace him with a replacement level player, and that team's going to win about 7 fewer games. Some recent questionable MVP's (and I'm not saying WAR is be all-end all, I'm using it as a quick and easy comparison number) 2007 NL Jimmie Rollins had a 6.1 WAR, 6 guys behind him had higher WAR, including Pujols, who had an 8.3 WAR, and finished 9th in the voting. 2002 AL MVP Miguel Tejada had a 5.1 WAR, runner up Alex Rodriguez had an 8.2 (and better numbers in every single offensive category, and it wasn't even really close). Tejada won his award based solely on the basis of the A's big winning streak late in the year. 1987 NL MVP Andre Dawson had a 2.7 WAR, meaning he was basically just above being average, by virtue of having a terrible OBP, and being a subpar defender by that point. Ozzie Smith had a 7.1 WAR, and was still an absolutely superior defender. This one, I know people love the HR's and RBI, but the voters flat out got this one wrong.