Originally Posted by dougdirt
Of course not, because writers seem to have some crazy ideas that only a player on a playoff contender can be valuable, or that, at least in the past, defense didn't matter much at all, nor did the position you played. I think that in general, they are getting better as a whole at understanding the game better than they used to. It is their award and they can do whatever they want with it in terms of voting or how they go about voting. But I would generally go about it quite differently than they have historically done it.
The writers may have such a crazy idea becuase the award is not based on "the best player in the league", but instead is awarded to the player who is, IIRC, "judged the most valuable".
One can argue that "the best player" means the same as the player "judged the most valuable", but it's losing argument.
If the award was meant to be given to the best player it would simply have said so. Whomever decided on this award obviously meant something else, otherwise they would simply have chosen the simple words.
Many voters feel that a great player on a losing team wasn't that valuable, becuase that team would have easily lost without that player. In other words, a really valuable player helps his team contend towards the playoffs.