If advanced stats are most important, then why does it seem like most elected MVP candidates always have the highest batting average?

"Guy that has the highest batting average" and "guys who don't have a .300 average" are different.

In fact, the last 2 NL MVP's did not hit .300. 2 of the last 4 AL MVP's did not hit .300.

Because far too many writers are morons who think analytics and so-called advanced stats are for nerds (they're not). WAR, WHIP, OPS, etc. aren't that complicated (and if you follow baseball closely and aren't able to understand that these are stats the same way batting average is, then you're too stupid to follow baseball). We have the same fight in hockey where you have people bragging that they think so-called advanced stats are stupid (extrapolate proud stupidity to the current state of American politics and you'll see some parallels) because some talking head on television has a grade 2 education and invokes imaginary things to defend a player who's not very good.

Average

Home runs

And rbi

are the best advanced stats. If you led in two of them you probably won the mvp.

Stanton won the NL award despite hitting .281 this season. Kris Bryant won it last year with a .292 average.

Josh Donaldson won the AL award in 2015 after hitting .297 and 2014 AL winner Mike Trout hit .287.

Clayton Kershaw won the NL award in 2014 and he's a pitcher.

So that's 5 of the last 8 MVP awards that went to someone who didn't hit at least .300.

And only 2 batting champs -- Miggy Cabrera in 2013 and Altuve this year -- have won the award in the last 5 years. So the guy with the highest average doesn't win most of the time.