The Case for Corey Seager for National League MVP
Last week, we ran a series of posts laying out the case for the most compelling candidates for the American League’s Most Valuable Player Award (links to all of which are available here). Today, we continue with the National League MVP Award.
Note that, as with last week’s posts, these are designed to make an affirmative argument for their subject and are not intended to serve as comprehensive looks at every candidate on their own. The authors tasked with writing these posts may not even believe their subject actually deserves to win, but they were brave enough to make the case anyway. The goal of these posts is to lay out the potential reasons for voters to consider a variety of candidates and to allow the readers to decide which argument is most persuasive.
Let’s travel back to spring training, shall we? At that point, we projected the Dodgers to win 93 games and take the NL West crown, but we also thought Clayton Kershaw was going to stay healthy and pitch a full season. We thought the rotation behind him would consist of Alex Wood, Brett Anderson, and Scott Kazmir, with Brandon McCarthy and Hyun-Jin Ryu coming back in May or June to provide depth. We thought Andre Ethier and Yasiel Puig would man the corner-outfield spots, with Carl Crawford and Scott Van Slyke serving as the reserves. We thought Chris Hatcher and Yimi Garcia would be effective setup guys to get the ball to Kenley Jansen.
Almost nothing has gone the way the Dodgers expected. Their rotation was decimated by injuries, their outfield by injury and underperformance. The bullpen has been a tilt-o-wheel of guys coming up from the minors to throw some innings before heading back to the PCL. They spent the second half of the year without the best pitcher alive, and set the record for most players placed on the disabled list in a single season. And yet, here they are, two weeks from the end of the season, with a projected final record of 92-70. How on earth did they get here?
Well, it’s easy to credit the team with building admirable depth, since that has been the focus of their roster construction. Guys like Justin Turner and Joc Pederson deserve recognition for holding the offense together. Julio Urias has been terrific as a part-time starter. But, in reality, there’s one big reason the Dodgers are likely to win the NL West despite a historic rash of injuries, and that reason is Corey Seager.
The Dodgers’ rookie shortstop was projected to be a good player this year. We had him down for +3 WAR at the start of the year, helping push the Dodgers shortstops into the top tier at the position. Instead, though, he’s been a great player, and he’s going to end the year around +8 WAR, proving to about 2.5 times as valuable as we expected.
It’s not hard to see why Seager’s been so great. He ranks fifth in the NL in wRC+ at the moment, behind a third baseman, two first baseman, and a second baseman with first-base defense. Seager’s hitting like a corner-infield slugger — only, you know, he plays shortstop.
There’s a 26-point gap between Seager and the next-best-hitting shortstop in the NL this year; there’s no team in the NL getting this kind of production from their shortstops. Kris Bryant is having a great year, but there are other great third baseman. Joey Votto, Freddie Freeman, and Anthony Rizzo have made it so that you can’t even really tell who the best-hitting first baseman in the NL this year has been. Sure, Daniel Murphy is similarly ahead of other second baseman, but then again, Murphy hasn’t really played second base full-time this year; he’s also started 17 games at first base and one game at third base, since the Nationals acknowledge his up-the-middle defense leaves a good bit to be desired.
So Seager’s the only real true player at a premium position in the elite tier of NL hitters this year. And since Seager is giving the Dodgers a huge boost at a position where most teams just look for competency, he’s basically the walking embodiment of value to his team.
The case for Seager having an MVP-caliber season is an easy one to make. But, of course, there can be multiple MVP-caliber players within the same league in the same season, and I’m not going to denigrate the work of Kris Bryant in Chicago. Bryant also has a great case (which will appear here on FanGraphs soon) and has hit better than Seager this year while also providing real value on the bases and in the field. But whenever it’s close, as it is with Bryant and Seager, I think it’s worth looking at minor factors that normally don’t get discussed, to see if we can find some details that help separate the contenders.
And, in this case, I think we need to acknowledge that Bryant has benefited from his context more than Seager has. In Chicago, Bryant has hit second or third in the Cubs lineup in almost every game, and because of that, he’s come up to the plate in offensive-friendly situations with some frequency. The Cubs’ leadoff hitters have a .379 OBP, tops in the major leagues, so Bryant has regularly come up to the plate with men on base; 47% of his at-bats have come with a man on, in fact.
Corey Seager has also hit second most of the time, but Dodgers leadoff hitters haven’t been as effective, putting up a .331 OBP this year. Thus, Seager has come to the plate with a man on base just 41% of the time. While the protection theory gets batted around a lot, the reality is that the most obvious way teammates can influence each other’s performance is to get on base in front of the guy coming up; almost everyone hits better with men on than with the bases empty.
For one, pitchers have to throw from the stretch. Fielders also can’t shift with men on base as easily, so the defensive alignment is less optimal. The difference isn’t enormous — we’re talking a league-wide gap of a 101 wRC+ with men on base versus a 99 wRC+ with the bases empty — but it’s a small factor that can add up over a full season. A six-percentage-point difference in distribution of PAs means that Bryant will have gotten about 40 extra at-bats with men on relative to Seager this year, and that’s 40 extra chances to hit with a higher likelihood of success, since Bryant has hit behind teammates better suited to getting on base in front of him.
That’s also the reason you shouldn’t care about RBI totals, of course, but since you’re reading FanGraphs, we’ll assume you already that Bryant’s 25 extra RBIs didn’t tell us anything of value. Seager has actually hit much better in his opportunities to drive in runners than Bryant has, so there’s no real “run producing” argument to be made here.
When you make the slight adjustment for teammate quality, Seager has produced an offensive season very similar to that of Bryant’s while playing a more demanding position. Bryant has been terrific, and he’s certainly a worthy candidate as well, but he didn’t have to produce in a weakened batting order while the Cubs’ entire pitching staff went to go see the trainer. Both players have been excellent, but Seager has had the more difficult job, and he’s risen to the occasion.
The Dodgers would be sunk if they didn’t have Corey Seager. They’d be in trouble even if they had the Corey Seager we thought they’d have back in March. But instead, they’ve gotten Corey Seager, Most Valuable Player in the National League. And while’s a mortal lock to win Rookie of the Year, he should get strong consideration for the big trophy as well.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Do you know of a stat that tracks playoff probability added? As in applying WPA over the season to its impact on a team’s playoff odds? It would just be another imperfect dimension to the equation, since timing of these things has nothing to do with the player’s skill, but I think it would be interesting.
I’m not aware of a site that does this as part of its stats offerings, but it could be done.
Here is a good article that talks about it; more specifically it talks about (World Series) WPA: http://grantland.com/features/mlb-win-percentage-added-world-series-championship-kirk-gibson-bobby-thomson-david-freese-mariano-rivera-yogi-berra/
You could apply similar math during the regular season. Here is an article that does that for 2009: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/04/championship_wp.php
The Trout article linked to something called “Championship Win Probability Added”
“Fortunately, Dan Hirsch’s Baseball Gauge calculates Championship Win Probabiltiy Added (cWPA). Using this method, Altuve, Betts, and Donaldson are better than Trout — but also Zach Britton leads the AL and is one of five relievers among the top-nine players. This metric favors players who deliver at big moments in individual games (Trout does!) and whose team is on the playoff bubble for most of the year (not Trout at all!).”
Link: http://seamheads.com/baseballgauge/cWPA.php?pos=All&lg=NL&results=2000&sort=cWPA_a
This stat (as was discussed in the Ben Lindbergh piece on The Ringer regarding Britton) tends to favor teams who have been on the postseason bubble all year, hence Bryant showing up so low.
For the NL, Seager is 14th. Bryant is 81st. Murphy is 1st, followed by Cespedes, Yelich, and Kershaw.
Has your prescience shown you the ultimate winner of the series, Emperor?
Any road followed precisely to its end leads precisely nowhere.
I’m a Cubs fan, clearly I’d rather see Bryant win it, but Seager is a pretty special player and carried the team with Kershaw out. You can take any one player out of the Cubs lineup *during the regular season* and it won’t matter… Bryant’s true value to the team is what he does in the playoffs.
I guess some people have their panties on too tight…
Seriously, why is this getting so many downvotes? Where is the fallacy in the comment?
Kevo8 said something similar below and feedback has been positive.
Probably because he mentioned the playoffs. It smells like bad “MVP has to be on a playoff team” reasoning, or worse “Bryant is not valuable unless he performs in the playoffs” reasoning, but I understand what he is trying to say. The Cubs didn’t build a 105-win team just to win the division. They want to carry as big an advantage into the playoffs as they can.
I guess I may have done a poor job of wording that…
While Bryant may end up providing the Cubs more value, I think his impact on the Cubs’ regular season is less than Seafer’s impact on the Dodgers… in terms of the regular season, he’s overkill… much like adding Chapman. If they win 95 instead of 105, it means nothing… having said that, not having him in the playoffs would be a huge loss.
While this is true, this logic will tend to lead to the conclusion that the MVP should always go to a player on a team who is on the bubble of postseason contention. That is kind of a weird criteria, maybe even more so than the traditional, “must be a player on a postseason team” rule.
I’m just saying that I can see the argument for Seager. I think Trout should be coasting into his 5th and Bryant his first, but even though I’m a Cubs fan, I wouldn’t be too upset if Seager won. last year I thought Kershaw should have been Cy over Arrieta.
I agree, last year Kersh > Arrieta. This year Bryant > Seager.
Bryant’s true value to the team is what he does in the playoffs.
So, if Bryan hits .1/.15/.2 in the postseason and sets the DS, LCS, and WS strikeout records, does that make him the worst player in baseball?
I’m a lifelong Dodgers fan, having been born into and and raised in Los Angeles. As you said he’s a mortal lock to win ROY. In context this looks like it will be the third best rookie campaign of all time [behind The Baseball God, and Dick Allen, just ahead of Mike Piazza] as measured by WAR.
It’s an interesting argument you make, and it certainly has it’s merits, but I think Kris Bryant is the MVP and will very surprised if he doesn’t win it.
Yeah, as a Dodger fan, I have to keep pinching myself. The Dodgers have a long history of hall-of-very-good players, but surprisingly few all-time greats for a franchise of their age. The Giants, on the other hand, you could argue have the two greatest players of all time, and certainly have a legecy of position players that put the Dodgers to shame. The Los Angeles Dodgers have not had a hall of fame position player. They have had one shot to have one and they blew it.
Players both as good and as young as Seager don’t just happen. it is crazy. I am probably asking to look stupid by bringing up the hall of fame when talking about a rookie, but I can’t be the only one thinking it. The kid just looks like an all-time great right at the beginning. it’s pretty sweet.
Enjoy it! He’s a pretty special player!
Two shots if you count Beltre, but he had a very odd career path
Oh yeah. Unfortunately, had I been my current self in 2004, I probably would have been saying the Dodgers should not resign Beltre. It was such an outlier season, that you would think any team signing him would be overpaying. Then he didn’t sustain his 2004 performance with the Mariners, and I might have felt like I was right. But then I would have been wrong. So wrong.
Seager is a special player and he’s legitimately fun to watch play. I enjoy watching him play, because even though his style is sometimes goofy it does have a certain type of elegance.
I must say though that when you are thinking about a young player being a HOF, let my Tim Lincecum jersey in my office be a warning.
I’ll admit to getting many things wrong w/r/t signings, but I will proudly hold my hand up as being distraught when the Dodgers choose not to resign Beltre. Considering his age, even it being an outlier season, there was enough that season that indicated he had made significant changes to his swing that would have held up.
I’m convinced that if he had stayed in LA, and not gone to that terrible park in the pacific northwest, he’d be right there with Schmidt as the greatest 3B of all time.
I think the last paragraph starts to touch on one of the more interesting arguments against Bryant winning the award. Seager has been the difference between the Dodgers winning their division outright and them missing the playoffs entirely. Bryant has been the difference between the Cubs winning the division by 15 or by 5 (obviously using rough totals here). Seager has carried the team for stretches with Kershaw and ~120% of the rest of the rotation on the DL and Puig struggling and Ethier and others out. Even Turner, who is certainly having a strong year, hasn’t put up an wRC+ at the same level of his last two years. Bryant, on the other hand, hasn’t taken an at bat with playoff implications for 4 months.
It’s the same argument that will be used against Trout, except in this case Seager has actually put up a very comparable season to Bryant. It will be interesting to see if voters view it the same way.
This is a pretty intriguing argument, I like the thought. I think in reality it would only apply in a tiebreaker sort of scenario (as you said, only if they are close), and I think Bryant’s had the better season by a wide enough margin that these arguments don’t ultimately make up the difference.
Thanks for giving me credit for not caring much about RBI totals 😀
Couldn’t agree more, and he has my MVP vote.
Maybe I’m just thick, but I don’t really understand how having men on has helped Bryant an appreciable amount. If the difference between wrc+ is, on average, 2 points, and Bryant has had men on in 6 percentage point more situations, that couldn’t possibly change his season wrc+ by even a point, relative to Seager.
He’s just talking about how it affects RBI totals
No he was definitely talking as if it would have a definite impact on their overall totals
To me, this is sort of like the Cy Young award last year. Both Seager and Bryant are legitimate candidates and I don’t think you can really go wrong with either one.
Is that difference between men-on-base and bases empty of 2 wrc+ points even a real thing? Isn’t that actually explained by the fact that worse pitchers and pitchers who are pitching worse tend to allow more base-runners?
As a Dodgers fan, I am pessimistic about Seager actually winning the MVP this year. Considering how reluctant the voters have been to give Trout the MVP in years that the Angels miss the postseason, it just feels like they’ll go for the “obvious” choice in Bryant. I think he will also get a boost from voters for having played significant time in the OF, even though that is theoretically less demanding than playing 3B.
But I am eager to see exactly how high Seager finishes; anything lower than 3rd seems tough to justify. Regardless, it its looking like Corey will have many more opportunities to snag an MVP in the coming years if he misses out this season.
I mean, I think Bryant has a better argument as the better player this year, though not by much. What really bothers me is ESPN people and others acting like Daniel Murphy is the main challenger or something. I’m not sure how someone would justify putting Seager lower than second.
I think the more casual a fan you are, the more weight you place on early season performance. Murphy was up, and crushing it early, before interest became more fleeting. Throw in the Mets-to-Nats narrative that got a lot of traction early. Also…he had an MVP-ish first half…so the label got put there early. Whereas Seager grew into the label in the second half, when less casual fans are caring (because “football!”). And it’s harder to undo an idea that someone already thinks. Especially casual fans – which is ESPN’s audience.
I agree Bryant and Seager are a clear 1-2, maybe even 1a-1b. Just trying to make sense of the Murphy love.
What do we make of Seager’s defensive numbers? I’ve suspected that they’re boosted by the Dodger’s effective employment of shifts. That said I don’t know that we should be docking a player for being well coached. So the point could be mute. None the less Seager’s WAR would look quite different were his defensive contribution matching the average outcome universally predicted by scouts.
Shifts have a negative effect on a players defensive metrics. Each time a team shifts it requires less from the player individually. So if a team shifts a ton, then it could (in theory) hurt the player numerically.
That’s a good point. Shifting would likely decrease the number of difficult plays available to Seager. However are we sure this hurts his defensive numbers? Certainly if he’s capable of more this might put a ceiling on his efforts. However I can also see an argument that he is protected by the shift. Indeed a quick glance at his defensive chances shows that the overwhelming majority of his success has come on routine plays. Shifting may not only be delivering Seager a higher quantity of these plays, but also increasing his chances of completing them.
Quasi-related: I feel as bad as one can feel for an All-Star MLB player with a $100 mil contract for Kyle Seager. Dude becomes one of the best .01% of humans on the planet at the thing he’s passionate about, is richly rewarded… and then his kid brother shows in a single season he isn’t even the best in his own freaking family. I’m sure they’re cordial about it, etc. But having brothers myself, I’m equally sure that deep down he wishes Corey was at least a little below MVP status in year one.
Dude, they have a middle brother who is looking like a career minor leaguer. How do you think that guy feels?
Holy cow I didn’t know that. That’s insane.
He probably feels like Jan Brady did after Cindy Brady went to high school and stole every boyfriend Jan managed to get.
This is my favorite thing I’ve read today.
George Glass never stopped loving her
If I had a photograph of Jan, or something to remind me, I wouldn’t spend my life just wishing….
Speaking of the Brady Bunch and romance, remember when Greg tied a goat to his bed?
I hope they make the middle brother pay one-third of the bill when they go out to dinner.
Jose Molina feels his pain.
Missing from this analysis is that Seager’s season has actually been historic. His fWAR right now, with a few weeks left in the season, is the third highest ever for a SS in his age 22 season, trailing only Ripken and ARod, and his 147 wRC+ is second only to Arky Vaughn at that age. Adding in his numbers from his abbreviated play last year, he has the highest wRC+ through age 22 of any SS since the beginning of the 20th century.
BBRef doesn’t rate his WAR as high, because as Jeff pointed out, they rate his defense lower. But his OPS+ is the second highest of all SS in age 22 season since 1901.
Sorry, I mean Dave, not Jeff.
This may be the best entry in this series so far, in that the article makes a reasoned and well-rounded argument in favor of Corey Seager without repeatedly apologizing for Kris Bryant (or Mike Trout) having more WAR.