Jimmy Rollins deserved Major League Baseball's 2007 NL MVP award.

"One who is superior, in baseball, is one who is better. One who is excellent, is baseball, is one who is better." Not if someone else is more excellent. One who is prominent, in baseball, is one who gets more recognition and media attention. "Thus, he who is outstanding, is, in baseball, he who is better" and gets more recognition. "Not only have I addressed the definition above, but I'd like to point out that my opponent clearly appears to be resorting to semantics. The MVP has always stood for the distinction of being the best and most effective baseball player." My opponent believes being the best player in the stats he provided makes a player best and most effective overall. Judges of the awards had access to the statistics provided. Were they judging based mainly on those statistics, Rollins obviously wouldn't have gotten the award. The fact that Rollins did get the award suggests they judged on other factors; their criteria - the criteria that mattered - were not the same as my opponent's. My opponent may be valid in saying that the criteria were wrong, but that does not mean Rollins did not fit them. Criticizing the criteria may reduce the value of the award, but Rollins still deserved it. Were my opponent to debate the resolution, "The 2007 NL MVP judges used poor criteria," he would have a strong case, but that is not the resolution at hand. "This conclusion of my opponent's simply does not follow. I agreed that not one statistic could determine everything, which is why I used at least five. Just because I agree that a judge must decide who deserves it most, doesn't mean that I agree with the judges' decision. Faulty logic." By agreeing on the necessity of a judge, my opponent acknowledges that the award is subjective. I have shown above that the "outstanding" definition includes both a player's excellence and a player's reputation. Judges must decide on their own which statistics and achievements make a player most excellent, and how to weight excellence and reputation when combining them. My opponent acknowledged that analysts, as many of the judges would be, use runs to determine a player's offensive prowess. This goes against my opponent's choice of statistics. My opponent has refuted the judges' criteria, but has failed to show that Rollins did not fit them. "Also, my opponent has no way of knowing if I am a judge or not." Even if my opponent is a judge, he does not represent the judges' general trend. 16 out of 30 first-place votes went to Rollins, and he had a total of 353 points. Wright was fourth place with 182 points.[1] "That is not what it is called. It is called the Most Valuable Player award, and thus, it goes to the best, most valuable, player." My phrasing was wrong, but that's not the point. My opponent does not believe it really always goes to the best, most valuable player; otherwise he wouldn't be debating. He thinks it SHOULD go to the most valuable player. The decision regarding players' relative value and outstanding qualities is made by judges. Thus my phrasing. "My opponent has not addressed my claims regarding Wright's superiority to Rollins, so I assume he has conceded these arguments." I have conceded Wright's superiority in the particular statistics my opponent chose. I have not conceded that these were the most important statistics used for judging the award. My opponent's conclusions are thus nullified. I will now summarize my argument: My opponent and I agreed that the MVP goes to the most outstanding and valuable player. Being outstanding includes excellence in playing ability and in prominence, or attention received. Valuable, as it has been used, means "of great use or service" [2]. My opponent has tried to limit the nature of these two key words, but has not qualified any statements made in that regard. As these two words selected as base criteria have quite broad meanings, their use is subjective. Judges are used to interpret and apply them to players; the judges serve as translators between the raw data and achievements and the final comparison of different players' value. The significance of specific statistics and accomplishments is dependent on how the judges value them. In the case of 2007, the judges decided that the value of runs, games played, at bats, XB hits, triples and stolen bases was significant. They appear to have valued these more highly than OBP, SLG, OPS and RC/G. The judges' choice in valuing the categories is debatable, but right or not, their choices defined what, statistically, made someone deserve the award on a statistical level. Thus, Jimmy Rollins, as a leader in these categories, showed himself to be an excellent player and of great use to his team. Also, Rollins received significant media attention throughout the season and historically joined the 20-20-20-20 club [3]. This demonstrates a significant degree of prominence. My opponent has not shown any other player to have received such attention. Rollins was outstanding not only by fitting the judges' statistical criteria better than anyone else, but by gaining attention over the course of the season. The statistics show he was very valuable to his team - more valuable, in fact, than anyone else - and the attention he received made him valuable as a representative of the MLB and baseball in general. David Wright, my opponent's counterexample, did not fit the judges' statistical criteria as well as Rollins did, and there is nothing to show that he received equal attention. Basically, my opponent thought that this debate would focus on defining what makes a player valuable. But what mattered for the 2007 NL MVP was the general opinion of the judges as to what makes a player valuable, not what anyone else thought. The award was defined by the judges. Jimmy Rollins fit that definition better than anyone else. One can debate the value of the statistics on which the judges based the award, but changing how the statistics are valued means that it is no longer about the 2007 NL MVP. It is about the 2007 NL player who would have gotten the MVP, were the award defined differently. Jimmy Rollins fit the judges' criteria for MVP better than any other player. Therefore, Jimmy Rollins deserved Major League Baseball's 2007 NL MVP Award. Resolution affirmed. Vote PRO. [1] http://sports.espn.go.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...