The most valuable player, in my mind, is the player who makes the greatest difference on his team. If a player hits a great season statistically and his team still loses more than they win, how much value did he add? He certainly would be an outstanding player, but not all that valuable (in fact, he would be a likely candidate for a late July trade). Take the 1998 National league MVP and home run race between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. We all know that McGwire blew past Sosa to win the home run title and break a record that had stood for almost 40 years; a very outstanding accomplishment. How much value did McWire add to the Cardinals (other than drawing a ton of fans)? Sosa won the MVP award that season, even though is season may not have been as outstanding as McGwire’s. As long as the award is going to be called Most VALUABLE Player, the award should go to the player whose team would suffer the most without him, whether that be a first-place or last-place team. Stats don’t tell the whole story about value, as seen by Kirk Gibson and Terry Pendleton winning MVP awards because of what they meant to their teams, not so much for their numbers. Any player who adds that much value to his team is going to have a pretty good statistical season, so there really shouldn’t be any debate that the award would go to an undeserving player.