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

I believe my opponent has been inconsistent in defining the MVP award. All definitions used are from merriam-webster.com. In Round 2: "I agree with everything my opponent said about the nature of the MVP award. It is supposed to be given to the most outstanding player." Outstanding: Standing out from a group; marked by eminence or distinction. Eminence: A position of prominence or superiority. Disctinction: The quality or state of being marked by excellence. These definitions indicate that being outstanding has two important components: Being of superior excellence, and standing out prominently. In Round 3: "The second a stat becomes that team-dependent, it also becomes useless for player analysis." "A player who deserves the MVP award has to be the best at helping his team win." 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. "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." 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. 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. 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. Again, considering that the award was judged by media, the impression of helping a team win more important than the statistics. Total runs, then, are far more important than runs created, because they are far more tangible. Rollins also had many dramatic moments that would have received media attention. His offensively dominant stretch from August 26 to August 31, during which he hit back-to-back home runs and was declared NL Player of the Week [1] is a fine example. The media and people in general will always value certain events over others; a 9th inning home run could be remembered for decades while a first inning homer will probably end up as just a statistic. 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. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...