I agree with Derwood to a point. How valuable a player is to his team, to me, means that if you took that player off the team, how much would the team suffer? For example, I don't think ARod should have won the MVP award in 2003. The Rangers finished 71-91 that year (last place in the AL West), 25 games out of first place and 24 out of a playoff spot. If you took ARod off the Rangers, that wouldn't have changed where the Rangers finished because they still would have been last in the AL West. For example, the last couple years in the NBA I would have voted for both Kobe and LeBron over Dirk and Steve Nash because of how much they meant to their teams. Dallas this year finished with 67 wins and would have been a top 4 seed regardless. Same with the Suns. The Suns would have had to play a different style but there's no way a team with two other All-Stars in Marion and Stoudamire doesn't win the Pacific and get a top 4 seed. Whereas Kobe had to rely on Smush Parker and Kwame Brown (in addition to a ton of injuries this year). I would also have given McGrady just as many votes this year as Nowitzki or Nash because Yao missed so much time. That being said, I'm not saying that the MVP should be limited to a player on a playoff team in baseball but that is only because only four teams from each team. Like the award implies, it's not the best player in the league, it's the most valuable and I fail to see how a player can be valuable to a team that doesn't even sniff the playoffs. EDIT: A baseball example: DLee was the best player in baseball in 2005 but he wasn't the most valuable.