I can understand that. I really can. It can get tricky if a team is so close, but doesn't quite do it. That argument: "They were in a pennant race and lost, but never would have been anywhere close without (insert player)" is a valid one. I am for that, but many people don't even buy that one. Did Gino Toretta really deserve the Heisman over Marshall Faulk? No. His team was in the title game. I would have given to Faulk for making his 3 win team a 9 win team. I know it's not baseball, but I'm using that as a microcosm in support of what you said. But now I am using Matt Kemp as a frame of reference. His team is bad with him and would be bad without him. Again, I may have muddled it with the term "statistical," but I question the words "Most Valuable." Most valuable to what? With a player on a good team, it is easier to give substance to value. If you want to call it Best Player or The Babe Ruth Award or whatever, I get it. Under the defining term "Most Valuable," I don't. CC Sabathia was really valuable to the 2008 Brewers. He was not nearly as valuable to the Indians that year, even though he was the exact same player. EDIT: This was in reference to greg. Not the previous poster.