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

"It's not averages that show how decided or decisive someone's effect is. Averages don't win games. Runs win games. The sheer weight of Rollins' statistics does indeed show him to be more effective, more influential, than any other player." Sure, but I have shown that Rollins's advantage over Wright in terms of playing time is not nearly enough to compensate for Wright's massive averages advantage. "Again, too much weight is placed on averages, and not enough on the value of consistency. The end goal is the total statistics, which are achieved through a combination of playing as much as possible and having a good average. Someone who bats only 5 times and hits each time will have a .1000 average, and is almost certainly an excellent player, but he will not have had that much effect on the team in total." Right. Here's another stat: David Wright had 146 RC [1] to Jimmy Rollins's 135. [2] RC itself already takes playing time into account, as it is a simple counting stat. "But a better player will always score more runs if he gets on base more." This could not be less true. I already showed an extreme example in which this was not the case, and therefore, it's easy to see why it could happen in a less extreme scenario. Just think about runs for a second. You can't do everything by yourself. To score a run, you would need someone else to get hits. The second a stat becomes that team-dependent, it also becomes useless for player analysis. "If the first player was on the second team, then the first inning would never end." But he isn't on the second team. "Rollins' hits and XB hits stats [1] show that he earned the run opportunities he got." I don't understand how they show that, but regardless, it's a flawed argument. I've already addressed his hits and XB hits, anyway, and shown why Wright was better. "SLG doesn't show a player's influence on his team. Total bases do, and they take into account XBHs." What? They're essentially the same thing, except looking at SLG and PA makes more sense than just looking at XBH, because a player who isn't very good could play a TON and get a lot of XBH. If one player has 100 PA and hits a HR every time, he's more valuable than a player who has 1000 PA and hits 101 HR. It isn't hard to see why. While playing time is important, a player also needs good averages, or else he could just be a mediocre player amassing large totals through sheer playing time. A mediocre who plays a lot isn't THAT helpful. "Also, triples arguably show more skill than home runs, as they rely on good placement and speed [2]." That doesn't matter. A home run is obviously a more desired result. "And there are statistics that combine ABs, PAs, and games played with rate stats: total hits, total extra base hits, and on-base total." Addressed above. "Stolen bases demonstrate excellent baserunning ability. Rollins' SB rate was 87% [1], and thus obviously successful. And whether they contribute or not, they do distinguish the player as a skilled individual, arguably making him outstanding." A player who deserves the MVP award has to be the best at helping his team win. How he does so is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if his stolen bases make him more versatile if stolen bases just aren't that helpful. "The clubs may be arbitrary in the exact numbers they use, but they do demonstrate someone is a good all-around player, at power-hitting and at baserunning. And whether a player deserves to be in special clubs or not, getting into them does earn eminence and distinction." It doesn't matter if a player is good all-around. Certain aspects of the game (hitting) are far more important than other aspects (baserunning.) Therefore, a player who is flat-out incredible at hitting and mediocre at baserunning is better than a player who is good at hitting and baserunning. Obviously, the most valued players have always been those who have been the best hitters (aside from pitchers, of course.) Babe Ruth then, Albert Pujols now, etc. Neither of those two was incredible at baserunning, but they were incredible at hitting. "But Rollins was still the best NL shortstop, both offensively and defensively. Also, reputation is very important. It's a huge part of what makes someone outstanding." You haven't shown that he was the best offensively or defensively, and whether or not he was is irrelevant to the MVP argument. The MVP goes to the best player, period. Also, reputation is not important at all. Reputation doesn't change how much value a player gave to his team. It doesn't have anything to do with being outstanding. "If the MVP award were just about who puts up the best averages, then Jimmy Rollins would indeed be an inferior choice to Wright. But the MVP is for the most valuable and outstanding player. It may sometimes be arbitrary which players stand out from others, but that is still essential to the award. My opponent is looking for an award for the player with the greatest slugging percentage or RC/G, but the MVP is not necessarily it. Rollins was extremely valuable to his team. He was responsible for more scoring than anyone else in the league, and even if he achieved that through sheer weight of playing time, he remains more valuable than anyone else." No. The MVP goes to the individual who has, on his own, contributed the most value. That's just obvious. It's the Most Valuable Player, and thus, you can't use team-dependent stats like runs to show why he deserved the award. I've shown why, when taking into account averages AND playing time, Wright was better than Rollins. Thus, Wright deserved the award, and thus, Rollins did not deserve the award, and the resolution is negated. The next two paragraphs are about recognition, and I have addressed those. The MVP goes to the best, the most valuable, player, regardless of recognition. "My opponent previously acknowledged that Rollins had a slight defensive edge over Wright. Add to that his huge batting contribution and the attention he received, and one can see that Rollins truly was most valuable." I acknowledged that Rollins's playing SS gives him a slight advantage over Wright. His huge batting contribution doesn't matter in and of itself; it has to be better than other player's batting contributions, and as I showed, Rollins's batting contribution wasn't even close to Wright's. The attention is irrelevant. Rollins's playing SS isn't enough to overcome Wright's hitting advantage. [1]http://www.baseball-reference.com... [2]http://www.baseball-reference.com...