Originally Posted by DSpivack
Interesting question, but I don't see why that would be the case. The MVP award is for the MVP of that particular season, and I think each award is separate from the other. Also, if that were true, should no rookie ever win the award?
I didn't say that I was taking that position, just throwing it out for consideration. Of course it's most valuable for that season, but the question could be is there more value in a player who's proven himself to be reliably that good, as opposed to someone who might be "exposed" in subsequent seasons.
The landscape is littered with rookie phenoms who faded into oblivion. To answer your question, I'd be very hesitant to vote for a rookie as "Most Valuable." It's the Most Valuable, not the Player of the Year.