In the last 14 seasons of Pro A, the MVP was in the best team 13 times and one time in the second team. And more than 95% of the players getting votes are in top 8 teams. To me that's some concrete proof lol
That's not how you should look at it. The only way you think that way is because winning is directly proportional to good performance. Did any of the MVPs underperformed worse than all the other players across the board? If yes, then you might at least have an argument. If the MVP is actually one of the top performers in the league, then you don't really have an argument there.
Like I said, if winning was such a huge factor, it won't matter if you have a $80k player beat all the other 5k players, if your record is still bad, you still won't win, or at least not in such a dominating fashion. The fact that one of the worst teams in the conference can have their best player win the MVP shows how insignificant winning record is.