Giancarlo Stanton Named NL MVP
Giancarlo Stanton is your 2017 NL MVP. Barely.
The Marlins outfielder edged out Cincinnati’s Joey Votto by two points (two!), for a final total of 302 to 300. Votto and Stanton each received 10 first-place votes. The latter, however, received 10 second-place votes; the former, just nine. The individual ballots are here.
According to the BBWAA, there have been only two closer NL MVP races than the 2017 edition: in 1979, when Keith Hernandez and Willie Stargell tied and, in 1944, when Cardinals shortstop Marty Marion topped Cubs outfielder Bill Nicholson by a single point.
You could pick either Votto and Stanton and not err egregiously. Paul Goldschmidt was the third NL MVP finalist. Despite producing an excellent season in his own right, he was a cut below by most measures.
The voters selected Stanton. They recognized a fine player, the preeminent home-run artist in the year of the home run. If I had a vote (I did not), I would have placed Votto on the No. 1 line.
Stanton led the majors in home runs (59). If RBIs are your thing, he led the majors there, too (132). He closed off his stance and made real gains in contact and zone discipline. He was more than just a slugger.
Also in Stanton’s favor is the level of his opponents. He faced a slightly higher quality of competition according to Baseball Prospectus’ Quality of Pitchers Faced metric, holding a 107 to 103 edge.
The runner-up, Votto, led baseball with an absurd .454 on-base percentage, leading 22nd-ranked Stanton (.376) by a significant margin. He led the NL in wRC+ (165), while Stanton finished second (156). Votto led the NL in wOBA (.428), too. Votto was the most efficient hitter in the NL.
As you might expect, Stanton held an edge in baserunning, though neither were standouts. Votto made remarkable strides defensively this year. After posting a -14 DRS mark last year, the first baseman improved to +11 this season. Stanton posted a +10 DRS mark in right field.
Wins Above Replacement is a good place to start in examining any MVP race. The metric suggested a very close overall value. Stanton stayed healthy in 2017 and posted a career-best 6.9 WAR, tying him for the NL lead with Anthony Rendon, who was absent from the finalist list, perhaps giving him grounds for a grievance with voters. Votto ranked just behind, fourth in the NL, with 6.6 WAR. According to Baseball Reference, Stanton held just a 0.1 WAR lead over Votto.
These were competitive resumes.
WAR doesn’t capture everything. It doesn’t capture all value. In a runaway race, in a year when Mike Trout is healthy, WAR is a useful measure. But in this race, it marked just a starting point.
If we drill down, what do we find?
First, it appears as though there’s really no “clutch” argument to be made. The pair ranked closely in Win Probability Added, with Votto (4.96) ranking second in the game behind only Mike Trout (5.58) and Stanton ranking third (4.84). Goldschmidt was 18th (2.48). An examination of the Clutch metric reveals Votto ranked 114th (-0.78) while Stanton ranked 141st (-2.30). Goldschmidt had a -1.84 mark.
But Votto did separate himself in a couple hidden of areas.
Traditionally, Votto has made pitchers work a little more. He produces more stress on opposing arms, which has a positive effect not only for himself but for his teammates in the lineup. That doesn’t show up in WAR. And there is some evidence that he holds an edge there.
In total pitches seen, they ranked beside each other in 2017. Stanton placed 11th in the sport with 2,736 pitches seen; Votto, 12th (2,733).
Votto separated himself by some other measures of patience, however. By pitches seen when ahead in the count, Votto (981) ranked second only to Aaron Judge (1,000), while Stanton ranked in the top 10 (930). In two-strike performance, Votto held an overwhelming advantage. Here Votto led the sport with a .359 wOBA with two strikes while Stanton ranked 240th (.236). The league average was .241.
Even with his contact and zone-discipline improvements, you can get Stanton out. You can get him to chase out of the zone. He recorded a 27.4%. swing rate on pitches out of the zone, for example, and 12.5% swinging-strike rate. The latter mark, in particular, is indicate of a player conceding contact for power.
Votto, though? You have to come in the zone against Votto, and you have to beat him there or he’ll take his walk. While Stanton is still susceptible to sliders out of the zone, Votto produced positive performances against every pitch type according to linear weights. This year, he recorded a career-low 5.7% swinging-strike rate and chased just 19.2% of pitches out of the zone, the second-best mark of his career. Votto is always evolving. He seemingly choked up six inches on the bat in certain situations in 2017 to make contact at all costs. And he began to try and elevate the ball and hit over shifts.
If you’re a believer in process over outcome, Votto was better, as well. He ranked second to Judge (.446) among qualified hitters in expected wOBA (.424) and 26 points above the 10th-ranked Stanton (.398).
Stanton and Votto are great — so are Goldschmidt and Rendon — but this award is not shared.
It was tough to make a poor choice at the top of the ballot. But ultimately Votto was the tougher out; he’s the toughest out in the NL and perhaps the game. He did the best job of avoiding outs, hitting with two strikes, generally making pitchers miserable. WAR doesn’t capture all this. By DRS, he made dramatic defensive improvements. It was the closest of races, but if I were drafting a team based off of 2017 players, Votto would be my first choice.
A Cleveland native, FanGraphs writer Travis Sawchik is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Big Data Baseball. He also contributes to The Athletic Cleveland, and has written for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other outlets. Follow him on Twitter @Travis_Sawchik.
Joey Votto has been screwed out of a Gold Glove, Silver Slugger, & MVP award.
Votto would have been an excellent choice, but he was nowhere near an obvious pick over Stanton. He had a significant but not huge edge in wRC+, but was not as good defensively or on the bases as Stanton. There really is nothing wrong with Stanton as MVP.
You’re right WARrior – Votto screwed out of MVP is a bit of stretch.
Stanton is fine choice as MVP.
kjkh
Do you utilize a pay~pal account.. in case you do you can make an extra 650 /week to your account working at home for a few hours each day, check out this site
For someone to be screwed out of an award, they have to be an overwhelming candidate, far better than any of the other options. That was absolutely not the case with Votto and the MVP.
Stanton and Votto were bascially equals… I would vote for Votto because he is “our” candidate and because I love players who maximise their gifts.
why are we now picking players from losing teams for MVP? If anything they were less valuable to their team, now that they get a worse draft slot.
Um, what? “Why are we now picking players from losing teams for MVP?” Because they were more valuable, on a cumulative and rate basis, and it DOESN’T MATTER whether their teams made the playoffs.
Making the playoffs should be a determining factor. If you help push your team to the playoffs, that is where your value comes in. If you don’t, then your season is only about personal stats. If you don’t make the playoffs, your teams season has very little purpose.
Stealing this from Trent.
If I have a $100 bill and $1,000 total, and someone else has $1,000,000 all in $20 bills. I still own the Most Valuable Bill
https://twitter.com/ctrent/status/931546076997447685
Nice analogy, but what is the value in a baseball season? The value in Any sports season? Wins. “We play to win the game”
This many downvotes seems a little ridiculous: “There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.”
The award is left deliberately vague and due to that, there isn’t anything wrong with thinking that “value” should relate in some way to success.
For a community of people who are supposed to be about increasing understanding of the game, the lack of acceptance of multiple viewpoints about the MVP is quickly becoming a very tiresome aspect of the modern stats crowd.
There is a lack of acceptance of dumb viewpoints, as there should be in any dialectic.
Those guys…and Ricky Nolasco Truthers, haha!
Damn that 2009 Nolasco season. Sucked me in but I did eventually give up that case.
The MVP is an award that celebrates the individual, so let’s punish Stanton and Votto for not choosing better teammates. Chew isn’t the only thing your cheek is full of.
So, to be clear:
You’re claiming that there is no value added when a player is the difference between his team making and missing the playoffs, and that anyone who thinks otherwise has an invalid viewpoint?
So, last year’s Kris Bryant:
Bryant was worth 7.7 bWAR and 8.3 fWAR.
The Cubs won 103 games ahead of the Cardinals with 86.
Replace him on the cubs with 0 WAR
Put him on the Cardinals, assuming he replaces Peralta with -0.5 WAR
The Cubs finish with 95 Wins. The Cardinals finish with 94.5 Wins. As a result, he was completely unnecessary to the Cubs because they would have won if he was on any other team in the division…so couldn’t possibly be MVP (and shouldn’t even be on the ballot, nor should any other player on the 103 win world series winning cubs) by your logic.
Exactly…?
“(and shouldn’t even be on the ballot, nor should any other player on the 103 win world series winning cubs) by your logic.”
Despite this hyperbole, yes, your overall point is correct; I don’t think it makes much sense to give the MVP to a player on a team who won their division in a landslide manner (17 games!) because it *minimizes* his value due to having so much contribution from teammates.
So, by this ‘logic’, if a team barely squeaks into the playoffs in a tiebreaker play-in game, every single player on the team with positive WAR is equally the MVP, because without any of them they would not have made the playoffs, and any excess contribution beyond making the playoffs was wasted.
Right. Sure.
So let’s say two players had identical 6.5 win, 150 wRC+, .3/.4/.5, 700 PA, 30HR/100RBI, same position, same RE24, WPA, etc.
Player A’s team goes 62-100, misses the playoffs.
Player B’s team goes 81-81, squeaks into the 2nd Wild Card spot on the last day of the season. (postseason performance of course is not relevant, so dead stop on the last day of the season)
Whose 6.5 wins were more valuable to his team?
You’re really telling me it is an intellectually invalid viewpoint to think that Player B should win the MVP, *given what the published voting criteria for the award are*?
If the 81-81 team is the Rockies, and the 62 win team is the Giants, it would be the Giants player. If it isn’t .3/.4/.5, but .310/.420/.530 for the 62 win team, it was that player all day.
Home park is irrelevant. Team name is irrelevant. All circumstances are adjusted in whatever means are necessary given that year’s run environment so that the seasons have ended up equal in overall value in every way.
Why is providing the wins necessary to make the playoffs *less valuable* than providing the wins necessary to reshuffle the top few draft picks?
We’ve been through this argument so many times before. If you want to bring in the effect of making the difference between postseason and not, then you also have to determine which player had a greater effect on attendance. And also the player’s salary, because in your hypothetical example above, if one player was paid much less than the other player, his contribution would be more valuable to the team according to the amount-of-money-brought-to-the-team which you yourself have introduced into the conversation.
Is this an MVP debate or offensive player of the year debate? I see them as 2 very different things.
This is arguably the most tired argument in baseball: the fact that a player has to will his team to the playoffs in a superhuman fashion in order to be considered the most valuable; as if he’s not sharing the field with 8 other players at all times. This is hot-take, ESPN type logic that should be reserved for the NBA.
What I found really weird is that Seager finished behind four of his teammates in the voting: Turner, Bellinger, Jansen and Kershaw. And how did Jansen finish ahead of Kershaw?
And update to point out Altuve won the AL MVP. I was surprised that it was a landslide vote over Judge. And Trout got snubbed, finishing fourth, though we already knew he wasn’t in top three. He got only six third place votes, and three voters had him ninth or tenth, which is absurd.
What I find weird in Lindor coming in 5th. I’m an Indians fan and I’m not sure I would have had him on my ballot.
Yeah, Simmons should have finished ahead of Lindor.
You wouldn’t have had him Top 10 in the AL?
Giving him his 3 year UZR/150 instead of this year’s makes him a 7-win guy.
Me: “…I’m not sure I would have had him on my ballot.”
Cool Lester Smooth: “You wouldn’t have had him Top 10 in the AL?”
I hope I don’t need to explain the difference between those two statements.
As for using 3 year UZR/150, why would anyone do that? The MVP vote is based on what players did this year, not a 3 year average of what they did. And there’s plenty of evidence that Lindor’s defense was worse this year. See here for example:
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/francisco-lindor-takes-unexpected-route-to-great-season/
Whoever had Stanton & Votto 5th or 6th should not be allowed to vote again.
How about the three voters who had Trout ninth or tenth?
The worst ballot placement was Rendon, and the voter who left him off completely.
Stanton and Votto were 2nd and 4th in WAR in the NL and the top 6 position players were separated by only one win. If you use FIP WAR, one pitcher enters that group as well, and if you use RA9 WAR, then 4 do. So we’ve got a pool of 10 NL players within one win of each other. It is neither unreasonable nor wrong for people to differ on the distribution of those 10 by factoring in other circumstances.
Correct, Stanton and Votto should not have been on the ballot at all. 5th and 6th is too high.
Is Joey Votto going to retire as the best hitter to never win an MVP? (There could be an obvious one I’m forgetting)
Joey Votto won NL MVP in 2010.
details, details.
he won back in 08 or 09, way back when. unless I’m misrembering.
guess it was in 2010.
Oops
BTW, just off the cuff but I’m going to guess that either Wade Boggs or Cap’n Jeter are the best to never win an MVP. I’m also going to guess that Hank Aaron is the best to only win 1 MVP.
Eddie Mathews, I believe, has the most WAR for players who started their careers after 1931 without an MVP.
Edit: Yes, 12th most WAR since 1931, no MVP.
OK, I had to go look it up. Just looking at post-WWII players, the highest WAR with no MVP:
Eddie Matthews 96.1
Al Kaline 88.9
Wade Boggs 88.3
Adrian Beltre 84.3 (and counting)
Eddie Murray 72.0
Derek Jeter 71.8
(You start running into a lot of names starting about here)
Mathews really should have won it in 1953 (8.7 WAR to Campanella’s 7.7 WAR), but Brooklynn had a much higher win total and that probably drove the voting that year. Boggs in 1987 had 8.9WAR and finished 9th in MVP voting with no 1st place votes behind George Bell of Blue Jays (5WAR). This game could go on for a while of course, as WAR’s valuation is a recent thing.
McGwire never won it.
See this is what happens when you log onto Fangraphs tired.
No.
Shouldn’t have even been that close–Stanton’s “value” to the tune of facilitating $1.2 billion in Jeff Loria’s pocket is a bar that none of the other candidates could even come close to. And then to hear talk of potentially giving the next guy a prospect haul in trade on top of it…
Donaldson wasn’t traded in the winter he won MVP, but it’s interesting that (potentially) 2 guys were traded recently before/after being MVP.
Provided you get equal value, isn’t that the best time to trade them ?
If you are a losing team, yes. These two examples that is the case although Donaldson had yet to break out.
Id say putting up consecutive 6.6 and 7.6 WAR seasons with the As is a breakout
How did Bryant get a first place vote?
Yeah, can we use that as grounds to remove that voter from future ballots? Same with the Dusty Baker Manager of the Year vote…
Someone thought they were voting for 2016? Maybe he mistook his ballot for his kid’s FAFSA.
I don’t see a narrtive for votto unless you don’t care for defense and Position.
yeah votto was the better hitter but stanton actually was slightly ahead in WAR plus he easily won RBI and HR.
Now I’m not saying HR and RBI are still the way to judge a Player but votto neither really has the sabermetric case nor the traditional case.
In short:
votto:
wRC+
OBP
AVG
walks
contact
stanton:
HR
RBI
WAR (albeit almost tied)
Position
baserunning
Why does this feel like a hitter version of when Rick Porcello won the Cy Young because he led the AL in pitcher wins?
Stanton over Votto is much more justified than Porcello over Verlander last year. Although even that wasn’t as bad as Trout losing to Cabrera in both 12 and 13.
Stanton over Votto is somewhat like Donaldson over Trout in 2015. Trout had the higher wRC+, but Donaldson had the gaudier counting stats, like runs and RBI, and was considered better defensively.
You mean because there were two players that gave roughly the same value, so the traditional stats guy won? This is exactly like that.
I was very pleased to hear the local sports radio hosts as outraged as I was at the result of the NL vote. Having Stanton and Votto at the top is outrageous. Hank Aaron award winners for offensive player of the year should have been theirs to fight over with either being a worthy choice, but MVP they had no business being apart of. Goldschmidt, Arenado, Blackmon, or Rendon would have been worthy options.
Knew the downvotes would come. Gotta love downvotes for valuing winning over personal statistics.
“Hey Rockies, we the Marlins would give you Stanton for Blackmon straight up. We would pay money so the contracts are equal, and it’s a talent for talent trade. Deal?”
In what world would the rockies say no?
This “winning over personal statistical” mindset is idiotic at best.
This isn’t about comparing who is the better player. It isn’t called “Who is the best player in the league” award. It is about who was the MVP on that given year. Who did the most to push their team to the postseason that year? Without a postseason there is no value.
So you would hope the Rockies say no? They don’t want an 8-10 WAR player to replace a 4-6 WAR guy? That’s the point of the MVP – who is the player that changed the team’s outcome the MOST. Going from 55 to 65 wins is more valuable than 85-90. This IS valuing winning over personal statistics. Who gave their team the largest change in wins. Not “enough wins to reach a magical number.”
Charlie Blackmon was approximately equivalent in sabremetric value to Giancarlo Stanton this year in almost every way.
“Going from 55 to 65 wins is more valuable than 85-90.”
I think modern statistics has showed us literally the opposite of this.
55 to 65 is still a losing season. If 85 to 90 gets you into the playoffs that is much more valuable. A losing season serves no purpose. Why do we play? We Play To Win the Game!!! What is the purpose of winning? To play for a title. The only way to play for a title is to make the playoffs. Without the playoffs the only purpose to a season is to develop and grow young talent.
By your method of reasoning:
— Altuve had no value to Houston, since they won their division by 21 games.
— Judge had no value to New York, since they made the playoffs by an 11-game margin.
— The AL MVP is either Mookie Betts or Byron Buxton, as the players who made the most direct difference in playoff standings.
Have fun living in that alternate universe.
Altuve was consistenly great all year long even as other important pieces on that team got injured. He kept them going to help ensure they finished where they did. Extreme value in that. Without Judge, the Yankees season has a completely different feel and they might not even sniff the playoffs. Nice try though.
So you think there should have been no MVP Awards in 1994?
That season was pointless, it didn’t have a resolution.
“Gotta love downvotes for valuing winning over personal statistics.”
Actually, gotta love downvotes for valuing personal accomplishment over team accomplishment for an individual award.
There’s a different award for teams. It’s called “making the playoffs”.
I do think that we don’t need the BBWAA to pick out the best stat line each year.
Statisticians would be better qualified to argue the nuances of different value models and decide whether to rate the top bWAR guy as best, or the top fWAR guy, or someone else. Should any consensus be reached, we’d have a new version of WAR, and whoever won that every year would also be handed the MVP award.
I agree that that’s no good. Leading the league in something is already etched in the history books in its own way. Does the batting title winner still get some sort of trophy? I think so. Give the WAR winner something like that.
The MVP trophy needs to factor in wins and losses, otherwise the award has no reason to exist — just replace it with a WAR Leader trophy.
By “factor in”, I don’t mean “be completely determined by”. I don’t think some random dude on the Rockies should win over Votto just because the Rockies played must-win games down to the wire while the Reds’ biggest wins came in April. However, Nolan Arenado is not just some random dude…
Long Votto/Arenado breakdown follows:
What did Votto and Arenado do in 2017, relative to each other?
Votto was incredible at the plate, providing 59 batting runs. Arenado provided less than half that, at 28. Depending on how much you trust the way park factors are calculated, this margin could be lesser or greater.
Arenado ran the bases better and played better defense and played a tougher position, and WAR figured that that almost made up the gap with Votto at the plate. Opinions on that will certainly vary.
Arenado led Votto in WPA, 4.9 to 4.8. So if we want to evaluate hitters purely by how much they improved their team’s odds to win each game, Votto’s offensive edge disappears and Arenado is the far superior overall player in 2017. Alternatively, if we evaluate hitters in small part by WPA, then Votto is still better at the plate, but Arenado takes the lead in overall contribution.
Not that it’s all Votto’s fault that his great year at the plate didn’t factor into more wins! Mostly the fault lies with the Reds’ pitchers, who handed their hitters enough massive deficits that even a great contribution wasn’t going to move the win-expectancy needle much.
We could call the WPA factor meaningless, much as many call RBIs meaningless. Personally, I think they matter. Not at the level of value that RBIs used to command, but not at the level of complete irrelevance either.
So before factoring in who made the playoffs, Arenado has a strong case, at least in my mind, as the better performer in 2017.
Now let’s consider the competitive context in which these performances occurred.
When Arenado got a big hit to change the Rockies’ fortunes in a game, it also changed their fortunes in the season, because every game mattered to their playoff bid. Similarly, every time Arenado grounded out to end a rally, the Rockies and their fans had to look at the standings and sweat. Were Arenado an average player, I’m not sure how much credit I’d give him for being average with a lot at stake. But he wasn’t average. He was excellent. In the end, all those big hits and ground outs and bases advanced and diving stops in the field added up to excellence. And that excellence changed games that would determine the success of the Rockies’ season.
Votto, on the other hand, used his game-changing excellence in a season that was already a foregone conclusion. His big clutch hits and rally-ending outs were no less pivotal to individual games than Arenado’s (at least if that’s how you see WPA), but their import ended there. No playoff bid was resting on those games. The competitive stakes were low.
Again, Votto’s subpar teammates aren’t his fault, and if we’re only evaluating players on what they can control, they it’s only fair to say that Votto simply didn’t have the opportunity to impact his team’s playoff bid the way Arenado did.
I don’t think we ever evaluate players solely on what they can control, though. I’ve never seen the playing field leveled to account for fluke injuries or players being held down in the minors or made to ride the pine too long. Instead, we evaluate players based on what they do with the opportunities they’re given. Based on his superior team, Arenado had the opportunity to achieve more with his 2017 performance than Votto did. He gets no credit for that. But for taking advantage of the opportunity, and leveraging his 4.9 WPA and 2.3 dWAR etc to help his team celebrate in October? I think much credit is due.
If you care about the end results of baseball competition at all — games won and lost, playoffs made and not made — then I think Arenado’s 2017 performance conclusively edges out Votto’s.
So, what do I make of Votto coming in a close 2nd in the MVP vote and Arenado coming in a distant 4th?
It’s possible that the MVP voters no longer care about baseball competition, and simply vote for the best stat line. I think this is unlikely. I do wonder, though, whether the needle is moving in that direction thanks to Mike Trout and all the discussion around his historic greatness and perennial MVP candidacy on not-so-great teams.
More likely, I think we have a much less discussed problem going on here: the perception that two teammates can’t be the two most valuable players in the league. Personally, I don’t think a single issue I’ve addressed in this analysis should rightly be impacted even the tiniest bit by Charlie Blackmon. I see zero logic behind, “Pick one Rockie, only one!”
If we want voters to do better on any front, this might be one to focus on.
Thanks for reading, anyone who got all the way through this. 🙂
To the notion that Votto’s high rate of pitches seen helps his teammates — Is there contemporary evidence of that?
I think the idea of trying to drive up a starter’s pitch count, so as to either hit him when he’s tired or get into the bullpen, is totally outdated, in light of all these record low rates last year:
— Starters log just 62% of all innings.
— The median pitch count per start is 95.
— Batters seeing a pitcher’s 101st pitch or beyond are just 1.7% of all batters.
— Batters facing a SP for the 3rd time in a game are below 15% of all batters.
— Batters facing a SP for the 4th time in a game are below 1% of all batters.
On a team pitching level, I see no simple evidence that pitch efficiency is a plus. In fact, if you sort teams by most pitches/PA, the top half had significantly better ERA+ than the bottom half. The same effect shows up using thirds instead of halves.
So I don’t think Votto’s pitches seen matter for anyone but himself.
Joey Votto was quoted as saying he expected to lose and thought the way he lost was “pretty cool.” He also said he thought the difference in WAR all came down to base running, and he stated in the closest thing to a complaint that Cincinnati is the *worst ballpark for baserunning metrics* in MLB. Why is this so, how does Votto know this, and how do you calculate that? Is there a metric that captures bias in park factors for base running and is that something that WAR should try to do?
I would guess that Great American’s small dimensions allow outfielders to play shallower than in other parks and deter runners from going first to third or second to home.
If any effort is made to normalize for this, comparing any given runner’s advancement to other runners’ advancements, then Billy Hamilton probably destroys that curve.
Or perhaps Votto just finds the dirt in the baselines to be wetter than in other parks or something.