The voters for years have been picking the m.v.p. by goodness of the team. but is it right?
the award came about when a car company decided to give a car to the player with the highest batting average. Ty Cobb of course was ahead until the last week of the season. That man wasn't all that popular, so the pitchers stopped pitching hard until cobb lost the award. The company ended up giving a car to cobb also. But because of the scandel the commissioner only allowed the award to continue if it was voted on by the BBWAA as the m.v.p.
It started as best. not as best on a good team. I also have another question for these writers. if its supposed to be value to a team, then why wasn't Puig the unanimous m.v.p. winner. He came up with his team in last place, and then they win the division. I don't think anyone provided more value to a team than him.
The system has WAY too many flaws, to be correct. it's more likely that m.v.p. is just a common phrase. or that the word "valuable" doesn't mean value for his team going to the playoffs and it just means the player that throughout the league provided the most overall value.
But i'm just one unhappy camper, what do you think?