These players no doubt deserved the award, and there could easily be made a case for each recipient. The MVP award has become an award of numbers of late and often the player who puts up the biggest numbers offensively has a good chance of winning the award. I think that could often be the case but not necessarily should be the only factor. For instance, in 1987, Andre Dawson of the Chicago Cubs won the MVP award even though the Cubs finished in last place. The point being how valuable was he? They would have finished in last place even without him, wouldn’t they? In the past there have been winners who were good players, who put up good numbers that were less impressive than other players, but their teams won and the others didn’t win a pennant. Phil Rizzuto, who had only seven home runs in 1950, and Nellie Fox, who had only two home runs in 1959, come to mind of those type of players who were most valuable, although not necessarily the best hitter. Maybe there should be a best hitter award as well, because sometimes the best hitter is not always the most valuable player.