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

My opponent's argument is filled with flaws. "Eminence: A position of prominence or superiority. Disctinction: The quality or state of being marked by excellence. " One who is superior, in baseball, is one who is better. One who is excellent, is baseball, is one who is better. Thus, he who is outstanding, is, in baseball, he who is better. "My opponent is presenting two different ideas about the player-team relationship. He declares team-related statistics to be useless, but then asserts that a player only matters as far as his contribution to the team. I presume by "best at helping his team win", he means statistics such as RC, but that is not what he says. RC does not actually measure what any player did for his particular team, it just treats the contribution theoretically based on individual statistics. " RC, among the other stats I provided, shows how good a player was. We use non team-dependent stats to determine how good a player is, and the best player is the one who helped his team win the most. I didn't say a player only matters as far as his contribution to the team. That's a weird distortion of what I am saying, which is that the best player helps his team win the most. Team-related stats are stats that do not illustrate individual skill, because they are heavily dependent on the performance of other team members. "This demonstrates an incorrect understanding of what it means to be outstanding (see definition above). He chooses to ignore the component of standing out (which has obviously strong ties to a reputation), basing his definition entirely on player excellence. " 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. "Also, my opponent has decided very specifically which statistics and criteria to use for determining Rollins' deserving the award. Yet he agreed with "everything my opponent said about the nature of the MVP award. " In my Round 1 statement, the one to which he was agreeing, I said, "As there is no single statistic on which the writers must judge, individual writers choose on their own what makes one player more outstanding than another. The very nature of the award is such that the player who deserves it most is the one who makes the most sports writers think he deserves it most. " When my opponent agreed to those terms, he was agreeing that the person who deserved the 2007 NL MVP was whoever the judges decided deserved it based on their own criteria. The judges may have been wrong in the opinion of some, but that is irrelevant. They were what defined the 2007 award and its criteria. My opponent's criteria may be well thought-out and well justified, but they are not relevant, because he is not a judge. He may prove that the judges, and therefore the very nature of the award, were stupid. But then it is a stupid award that Jimmy Rollins still deserved. " 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. Also, my opponent has no way of knowing if I am a judge or not. "Based on my clarification of the nature of the award, it is evident that publicity and reputation are indeed important, if the sports reporters judging it think they are. I already showed how Rollins was superior to Wright in media attention and unique achievements; he received much publicity, therefore standing out more prominently than Wright. " Your clarification was not only wrong, but you have not shown that Rollins's random distinctions resulted in more media attention. So, were that even relevant, your claim would still be unsubstantiated. "The MVP award is very subjective. That is unavoidable, as what makes someone or something valuable and outstanding is in the eye of the beholder. My opponent values certain statistics over others, and justifies himself well. But the award is in fact the "Most Valuable Player to Various Sports Writers" award. If the "Most Valuable Player to iamadragon" award ever becomes the retrospective standard for 2007, then Rollins will not stand a chance. " 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 opponent has not addressed my claims regarding Wright's superiority to Rollins, so I assume he has conceded these arguments. Therefore, I have shown that because Wright was a superior baseball player to Rollins, and the MVP award goes to the best player, Wright deserved the award, and Rollins did not. The resolution is negated.