NL was Kris Bryant and AL was Mike Trout. Both had outstanding seasons, no argument with Bryant, and while no doubt Trout is a perennial MVP, the Angels finished under .500. Maybe it was a makeup for years he didn't win. Mookie Betts and Jose Altuve both had outstanding seasons.
s are full of players from last place teams (See A-Rod in Texas). That's not going to change. It's not fair to penalize Mike Trout because his team was horrific. This isn't the NBA where LeBron can carry an otherwise 20 win Cavs team to an NBA final. One man can't do anything in baseball. Trout was the best player in the league and deserved the award.
Also at the end of the day baseball more than any other sport is historical. It is statistically/award driven. We like to compare players of different eras with "He won 3 CY Youngs or He won 4 MVP's" when discussing the all time greats of the game and their place in history/Hall of Fame candidacies. If you eliminate players from award consideration on the basis of team performance than you will greatly diminish their true place in history.
To that end re: stats and history (the aspects that made me fall in love with baseball to begin with), I wish the Cy Young wasn't called the Cy Young and was instead the Old Hoss Radbourn Award. Young never won 59 in a season! Sure, Young has more career wins, but the Cy Young Award isn't given to the best pitcher over the course of a career, it's given to the best pitcher that season...
Yay Mike Trout! MVP! MVP! MVP! He's the BEST!