Originally Posted by PuffyPig
It's not a false debate.
The creators intended something different than "the best player". Otherwsie they would have said "best player".
The addition of the words "to his team" must have been meant to mean something. You've indicated those words are superfluous to the definition of value but that argument cannot be accepted in regards to interpretation, where it is assumed that the author intended ther addition of words to have a purpose.
I'd suggest that pretty much everyone here (and every baseball writer who votes) can clearly see that there is a difference between the the phrases "best player" and the "player judged most valuable to his team". Many do not like the distinction but pretty much everyone recognizes that it exists.
I think you are going to great lengths to justify putting extra, unintended meaning into the minds of the original creators of the award nearly a hundred years ago in a much simpler time. They were not lawyers parsing words or political founding fathers creating a constitution. They were early sportswriters creating an award for the best player. It really was as simple as that. I think they would laugh out loud at some of the farcical definitions of Most Valuable Player being peddled these days, most of which amount to excuses for poor decisions.
They named the award for the best player the Most Valuable Player Award because that sounds a lot better than the Best Player Award. It is a fancier way of saying the same exact thing. There is no need to try to cram some unintended "interpretation" into such a simple concept.