How Long Can Joey Votto Hold Off Decline?
GOODYEAR, Ariz. — As you might imagine, Joey Votto has excellent eyesight.
And as you might also suspect, Votto knows his exact quality of eyesight, improved after undergoing LASIK surgery as a minor leaguer.
“20-13 and 20-17,” Votto told FanGraphs of his most recent right and left eye test scores. “I had good vision beforehand. It started going wonky [early in my professional career]. I didn’t want to deal with contacts.”
At 33, Votto was the best hitter in the NL last season. After a down 2014 season, in which he was limited to 62 games, he’s shown no signs of aging– if anything, he has improved, “aging” like a bottle of Mouton-Rothschild.
But he shouldn’t be improving. That’s weird. He should be showing some signs of skill decay. But instead, he posted his fourth-best wRC+ (165) last season, along with the second-best slugging (.578) and home-run (36) totals of his career. He trails only Mike Trout in wRC+ (166) over the last three seasons. All in his age-31 to -33 campaigns.
If anyone is going to challenge expectations and aging curves, and have us rethink what is possible, it’ll probably be either Trout or Votto. But Father Time remains undefeated.
A New York Times story last spring by David Epstein examined why athletic champions are getting older in certain sports. But despite that larger trend, Epstein argued such performance improvements might not be possible for baseball hitters. He wrote that decline in baseball is more predictable and harder to stave off, in part because visual acuity and processing begins to decline at age 29. Hitters do not age like Tom Brady. We haven’t exactly seen teams invest significantly in a bunch of age 30-plus hitters recently. And in no sport is visual identification and processing more important than in baseball, where batters have only milliseconds to decipher whether a 95 mph pitch is in or out of the hitting zone.
Votto is perhaps the most intellectual hitter in the game. He’s certainly on the short list of candidates. He can articulate his craft like few players can. So I was curious to ask Votto why he wasn’t showing any signs of declining as he ages, even as pitchers are throwing with more velocity and breaking stuff than ever before.
“Neither of us know if there is a decline,” Votto said. “I may have found ways to mitigate that [loss of physical skills]. I don’t have that answer.”
Maybe Votto is declining. On the surface it seems strange to suggest — especially after his MVP-caliber 2017 season — but Votto is perhaps the best or among the best at making adjustments, and he has acquired a great wealth of experience and baseball wisdom. That wisdom and its attendant curiosity might be overcoming physical decline. (This is an argument for rostering smart and curious players.)
Votto is willing to question everything and do just about anything. How many MVP candidates have the curiosity and lack of vanity to choke up four inches on a bat? That odd choking-up strategy may have helped Votto decrease his strikeout rate by six percentage points, to a career-best 11.7% last season.
.@Reds All-Star Joey Votto has 4 levels of choking up on his bat. The last one? In case of @ClaytonKersh22. #MLBTonight #ASG pic.twitter.com/pFhYlqd8lL
— MLB Network (@MLBNetwork) July 11, 2017
While Votto choked up more aggressively in all counts last season, he tied Austin Barnes for the best two-strike wOBA mark (.359) in the game.
But at what point do physical skills and visual acuity decline so much that any amount of wisdom or best practice or choking up begins to fail to mitigate a decline? Is sight and visual processing the main culprit behind the rather predictable aging pattern for hitters?
We’ve tried to understand what hitters actually see at FanGraphs.
Eno Sarris surveyed hitters last summer, asking what they actually see out of a pitcher’s hand.
I explored how long batters can keep pace with velocity and am cited in this Driveline study by Anthony Brady on rethinking how a hitter’s brain works.
Wrote Brady:
“Experienced baseball players were found to actually have decreased activity during the Go/No-Go pitch recognition task in certain brain areas—specifically the frontal cortex, a part of the brain that is primarily in charge of deliberate decision-making. In the half a second that it takes for a pitch to travel to home plate, there is not enough time for a hitter to go through a deliberate decision-making process on whether or not to swing. Intuitively, this makes sense.”
So there might not be a conscious decision at all. Hitting is about processing speed. It’s a reaction.
“You’re definitely not making conscious decisions,’” Votto said. “I’m almost 100% certain about that.”
What does perhaps the game’s greatest left-handed hitters actually see?
“Little frames. Little flashes,” Votto said. “A swing or no-swing window.”
Votto’s articulation seems to verify the aforementioned Driveline research.
His performance against fastballs was second in the majors last season, according to linear weights. How is Votto, and how are other hitters, adapting to velocity?
“It’s a subtle difference,” Votto said of the increasing velocity in the game. “Most of the stuff I do, and I think I speak for a lot of guys, is anticipation… Five mph from 10 years ago doesn’t mean it’s this entirely different pitch. It’s a subtle difference. We’ve seen fastballs since we are little boys. It’s more of a timing thing. As far as a thought process, it’s really an instinctive move.”
Carlos Santana, an owner of an elite walk rate, also spoke to me about a swing or no-swing window for a piece I wrote for The Athletic last summer. Since 2010, Votto ranks first in the majors in walk rate (17.5%), while Santana ranks third (15.2%). Santana said he employs a visualization trick where he imagines a circle half between the plate and the mound. If the ball goes through the circle he begins to trigger his swing.
But walk rate doesn’t age that well, as Jeff Zimmerman found in updating aging curves a few years back.

Maybe decline is right around the corner. Velocity keeps increasing. Reaction time keeps decreasing. Time erodes physical skills, including sight, which isn’t just tied to an eye exam score but in tracking objects and processing what we see. The human brain starts to slow down earlier than you might expect.
Choking up four inches on a bat probably doesn’t hurt, either. But Votto won’t be able to adapt forever.
A year ago, I approached Jose Bautista after a World Baseball Classic exhibition match in Bradenton, Fla. I asked him about his belief in defying aging curves, and also about bouncing back in 2017 (which didn’t happen).
Bautista was adamant that his strict workout regime, eye work, and diet would allow him to beat aging models. He wanted to be the Tom Brady of baseball. And if modern sports science and training allowed hitters in their 30s to begin to age more gracefully, there could be significant impacts for, say, free agency.
Said Bautista last March:
“I can’t predict the future but I can tell you the average human lifespan now is better, longer, healthier than it was 50 years ago,” Bautista said. “I feel like your body has gauges with blood work and different medical assessments to see what is moving, what is not, what is inhibitive. I believe you can develop a system to work on it and improve it.”
The tests in which Bautista regularly engages are designed to “identify dysfunctional movement patterns and asymmetries within the body.” Still, despite this maintenance and the “eye work” Bautista does to try and enhance reaction time, he continued to decline last year. Every hitter, if he plays long enough, will enter that phase.
How long can Votto keep his at bay? It’s difficult to know because even the game’s most intellectual hitter cannot explain precisely how he is doing it. But whatever he’s been doing, he’s been doing it well.
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.
God, I love Joey Votto.
(Sawchik ain’t half-bad either.)
forever
Tooling around with the leaderboards the other day, I found that there is just a remarkable drop-off from age 33 to 35 that did not exist 10 years ago (you can guess why). Go set the 2017 (or 2016) leaderboards to age 33-58. Then go up one year to 34-58, and then to 35-58. Whether you are looking at just the overall sample, the number of qualified players, or the number of somewhat significant contributors, there is a cliff there.
For example, there were 30 hitters in 2017 that had 1+ WAR ages 33+. 14 of them were 33 and 10 of them were 34. 6 were 35+ (a really funny aside, the 7th most valuable hitter in baseball last year that was age 35+ was none other than Adam Wainwright).
In 2016, these numbers were 31 players that were age 33+, with 12 of them being 33 and 5 being 34 (a much lower percentage, but still over half of the 33+ contributors were 33 or 34).
It’s true for pitching, too. In 2017, there were 26 age 33+ pitchers with 1+ WAR. 14 were 33 and 5 were 34. Again, only 7 were 35+.
Going back to 2016, there were 16 age 33+ pitchers that got 1+ WAR. 8 of them were 33, and 1 was 34. There were more age 33 pitchers that were significant contributors than 35+ pitchers.
Of course, all that said, I actually really believe in Joey Votto and was arguing last year that he should have been discussed in the trade value series. He’s just the fucking man and these data don’t say that no one keeps on killing it after 35. If one guy will, I’d bet on Votto.
I know you’re implying PEDs, but the other explanation could be velocity. It’s possible that increased velocity is a more effective weapon against the old (slower reaction times) and old pitchers simply can’t keep up.
I agree. I’m actually not sure at all how much PED is the reason. I think it’s the bulk of the reason. But I don’t know it is.
Joey Votto is the Glen McReynolds of major league baseball.
“Today is the greatest day of my life, until tomorrow.”
Hi. I’ve made some basic charts that show all player’s basic stats with regards to their ages.
Here is Votto: https://public.tableau.com/shared/HYZ8HKF3P?:display_count=yes
(Not mobile friendly. Use a computer.)
Imgur:
Hover over data points for details. Any feedback would be appreciated.
looks pretty consistent…
“Hitters do not age like Tom Brady.”
Tom Brady is an anomaly. And baseball has had it’s anomalies. Example: Tony Gwynn. From age 34-41 Gwynn hit .356/.400/.500, 140 OPS+. And this was at a time when Gwynn put on a lot of weight and was as slow as a slug. From age 34-37 Gwynn hit an astounding .371/.415/.511, 147 OPS+.
Gwynn and his performance by age:
“We haven’t exactly seen teams invest significantly in a bunch of age 30-plus hitters recently.”
2018 SF Giants? Only hitter below the age of 30 in their starting lineup is Joe Panik.
So what Sawchik said is true, “we haven’t exactly seen teams invest significantly in a bunch of age 30-plus hitters recently” — we’ve only seen one team do it.
Technically correct, the best kind of correct.
It’s “No Homers.” We’re allowed to have one.
Votto-Erotic Asphyxiation
“If anyone is going to challenge expectations and aging curves, and have us rethink what is possible, it’ll probably be either Trout or Votto.”
What has Trout done to indicate he wont’ be subject to aging curves similar to others? He’s only 26.
Traditional aging curves expect a player to be better from 26-29 than they were from 21-25. For Trout, that probably won’t be true and, if it is, well that will certainly be fun, won’t it?
I agree with everything you said. My interpretation was that the author thinks there’s an indication that Trout may be able to defy traditional aging curves by improving when we would expect him to be in his decline years, similar to what we may be seeing from Votto.
I screwed up. Had the formula wrong. Here’s the chart:
Don’t know how to delete the others.
Excluding Moyer:

btw, charts above are for those who played 1970 – 2017.
I assume that Travis is including Trout due to the fact that he’s been an anomaly in general in his career, i.e. the best player in the league.
First of all, I’d sign a 35 year old Joey Votto in a heartbeat, because amongst other things he’s smart. (As mentioned in the article.)
But on a related note, I don’t think we’ve seen a proper statistical analysis of “the aging curve.” Sure, on an aggregate, it looks like we can pin down the starting point (~31 years old) and the basic downward curve (gentle for two years, accelerates towards alarming for the next four. I simplify).
But I’m sure there are outliers. (Of course there are outliers.) The question from a FO perspective is, how do you measure the individual possibility of an outlier?
You don’t have to be Hank Aaron, and hit 121 home runs between the ages of 37 and 39. Although that would be nice. But, again from an FO perspective, it would be nice to identify a player who can rate 100wRC and ~2 WAR for a couple more years after the aging curve drops southwards.
A lot depends on health. Pujols and Bautista also were super professional training freaks but now they hobble around the field with their body broken down so they can hardly throw or run anymore.
Votto can probably compensate a few degrees of physical decline but if the body breaks down it breaks down. He does have a profile that ages well due to his great eye, smarts, contact ability and non pull heavy profile and the park he plays in helps too but health is key. Often it only needs onebigger injury and it never comes back.
It would be interesting to see how the aging curve relates to players who were late-comers to the sport versus players who have been full season baseball players since 9 years old. You have to assume that the sheer number of reps throwing or swinging would catch up to the second group where maybe a more raw player from another sport or from an island somewhere might age better. That being said, maybe the raw player takes more time to reach his WAR potential while the grinder peaks earlier and it all evens out.
“Plate discipline” isn’t a monolith, and it’d be interesting to see what parts do decline with age; some probably drop off significantly, while others might be stable. Is it a hitter’s ability to identify location of a fastball? To distinguish between ball and strike at a particular strike-zone border location? To identify breaking balls from fastballs? Or maybe the ability to “predict” whether a given pitch, once identified as a breaking ball, will end up in the strike zone or not?
There’s two ways to try and answer this. One, someone with much more mathematical prowess than me creates a bunch of aging curves of peripheral stats. Two, interview some old hitters, either in their twilight or recently retired, especially those who in their prime had great plate discipline, and asked them if they what they noticed getting harder in relation to plate discipline.
Also, don’t forget the impact of plate coverage. Once a guy show a hole in his plate coverage, pitchers can better exploit it and pound the zone more freely. For example, one of Votto’s current teammates ran up a sweet .400+ OBP in the minors in 2012, but has enough holes in his plate coverage to keep him below a .300 OBP for his major-league career:
https://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=10199&position=OF
My guess is Votto would maintain his elite plate coverage as long as his eyesight stays better than 20/20.
I wonder about the juiced ball and how it plays into possibly concealing aging. I guess WRC+ takes care of that.
I looked for some comps… I looked at all players who age 31-33:
1) had +/- 15% of Votto’s PA
2) had +/- 1.0 fWAR/600PA of Votto
3) had +/- 10 runs of Votto’s OFF/600PA
4) age 31-33 all occurred in the expansion era*
Here are the 10 comps I got sorted by age 34-36 fWAR
13.5 Gary Sheffield
12.8 Harmon Killebrew
12.1 Jeff Bagwell
10.0 Alex Rodriguez
10.0 Luis Gonzalez
10.0 Rod Carew
9.9 Brian Giles
8.1 Jim Thome
3.9 Frank Howard
3.7 Sammy Sosa
Comps seem to suggest a pretty decent bet for Votto to remain really valuable for at least a few more years.
* no offense to Tris Speaker and Joe DiMaggio and Mel Ott and Paul Waner who were similar to Votto in these metrics, but long before… 🙂
At least half of those guys were on steroids which makes mapping age curves a little hard with such a small sample.
Agree that Votto has a good chance at staying very good for a few more years but I think it’s more than a little significant that 7 out of those 10 comps came during the peak of the steroid era when aging curves as we knew them were shifting dramatically
Votto is so ahead of the curve (and honestly, probably all analytical sites like fangraphs) – his interviews are just nonstop process and he’s so obsessed with hitting, there’s definitely nothing no analyst knows that he doesn’t. I think he’ll still be mashing at 40. Some guys skills just don’t decline, but the body does. Votto is one of those.
Most entertaining hitter in baseball!
Great piece Travis.
So the conclusion from admittedly a small sample seems to be whether one’s brain can still make the right decisions when getting older. Bautista’s evidently couldn’t, despite his best efforts. I don’t know how with our current methods one can really slow down that development besides taking care of themselves as well as possible.
Maybe it’s a genetic thing? Or a sum of circumstances so much out of their hand that it’s uncontrollable?