By Peter Valentino

For the majority of the regular season, Bryce Harper has been considered the front runner in the NL MVP race, with a short blip on the radar by Goldschmidt and a dark horse in Rizzo. Bryce deserves all the attention in the world for his performance this year, batting .333 with 36 homers and 85 RBIs. However, there should be a closer look into what it truly means to be the Most Valuable Player.
While the Nationals have clearly not played their best baseball in August and September, going 18-24 since the trade deadline, Harper has not fallen off. In fact, he’s essentially carried the Nationals to mediocrity. The reason for the Nats’ terrible play is an underachieving starting rotation and a complete disaster of a bullpen, as seen in the last series with the division-leading New York Mets. The line-up has been decent, despite riddled with injury. The point is, Bryce Harper is the front runner for his season stats, yet he hasn’t exactly carried his team, as the Nats are currently in disarray. Meanwhile, a man in New York is slowly rising into the MVP discussion.
Yoenis Cespedes came to New York from Detroit at the trade deadline in late July, and has since put on a laser light show of baseball spectacularity. In his 39 games with the Mets, he’s hitting .310 with 16 home runs and 29 extra base hits. He has fit perfectly into the offense and is a regular in the lineup, refusing to take days off. He has also helped a lineup that sat at the bottom of the NL in most batting categories in the months before his arrival. This boost immediately began talk of Cespedes being a possible MVP candidate. Many baseball experts have given it serious thought, while others have written it off. But how much substance is really behind this push for Cespedes to be MVP? Should he even be considered based on his short time in the NL?
Obviously, MVP stands for “Most Valuable Player,” and since the MLB does not offer a clear explanation of the concept of a valuable player, the definition, for me at least, is, “a player who is vital to the team and its success.” When putting the two players to that definition, both fit the mold for different reasons. We’ve seen what the Mets are without Cespedes this season, and one can only imagine how far out of the standings the struggling Nationals would be without Harper. This poses the question of how important team success is to MVP voting. When Paul Goldschmidt entered the discussion for MVP, his team was on a hot streak and had entered the Wild Card race. While Arizona has been around .500 all year, an impressive feat considering they had the worst record in baseball last year, the NL Wild Card race turned into a runaway between the Pirates and Cubs, leading to a decrease in clamor for Goldy to be the one. Even Mike Trout’s MVP talk in the AL died due to his team’s performance as well as the drop in his production during the month of August. A player’s contribution to the success of the team should be the primary basis for MVP voting.
Come voting time, there will be people who vote for Harper and people who vote for Cespedes. It may be close or it may be a runaway. It all depends on the voter’s idea of what an MVP is.