I may be wrong about this, but I would think that in years in which the MVP winner comes from a non-contender it is because the contending teams either didn't have any truly dominating players--just a bunch of players that had above average seasons and the pitching is the real reason they are contenders (see SF Giants last year as an example) OR a player on a non-contender was just so much better than everybody else, even though the rest of his team was pretty bad. Examples of each of those might be when Yount won his 2nd MVP in '89 and Andre Dawson in '87. When Yount won, most baseball people thought that, yeah, he had a very good season. But there were a bunch of guys that only had "very good seasons" and, thus, split up the vote and, alas, Yount surprised everyone (including this precocious teenager that couldn't believe he was the winner). When Dawson won, he was just so dominating for the Cubs that it was almost unfair.