I've said it before and I'll say it again: Most "Valuable" Player is just a fancy way of saying "Best Player." It just looks good on a trophy. To not give it to a guy because he played on a mediocre or crap team doesn't make any sense. Besides, even if you think you interpret "Valuable" literally, I don't get why people put in the context of a player's specific team. ANY team that loses its best player is going to do worse, regardless of their record. The Brewers would've won fewer games without Braun, the Dodgers would've won fewer without Kemp. Taking teams out of the picture and just lining up all the players in the league, who would have the most value, based on this one season? Whose statistical season (throw in intangibles if you wish) was the most valuable, simply from an overall baseball perspective? I mean, what if a guy hit .400 and had a 40/40 season, but the pitchers on his team were of the Suppan/Looper/September Red Sox variety and his team went 75-87? Is that guy not the most "valuable" player in the league because nobody else on his team could do anything? By the "must be on a winning/playoff team" logic, he's not. In the case of Braun/Kemp, it's so close that I'm ok with using the playoff team thing as a tiebreaker, but I just hate the notion that a guy can't win MVP if he's not on a playoff team.