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

Thank you for the intelligent response. I will refute that with which I disagree and try to expand the use of the "outstanding" criteria beyond statistics. "I believe that he wasn't particularly close [to most effective offensive player] at all." effective: 1 a: producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect (merriam-webster.com) 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. "Whether [games played and at bats are] a good thing depends on his rate stats (AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, etc.) Generally, of course, it's good for a player to play more and appear more in games, so this looks good for Rollins." 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. "[Runs are] a stat fans and analysts use often to show a player's offensive prowess, but in reality, it shows nothing of how good a player is. A player scores a run when he crosses home plate. However, the creation of a run depends on multiple hitters. The only time Rollins will score a run completely on his own merit is when he hits a home run. Thus, runs are an extremely team-dependent stat. If one player gets on base every single time he comes to the plate, but his teammates always make outs, that player will never get a run, even though he clearly does a fantastic job at what he's supposed to do. On the other hand, if another player gets on base 1 out of 10 times, which is a horrible rate, but his teammates are incredible and always drive him in, he'll get 1 run every 10 ABs, and over the course of the season, end up with possibly well over 50. The first player had zero runs to the second player's well over 50, but the first player was clearly far, far superior." But a better player will always score more runs if he gets on base more. If the first player was on the second team, then the first inning would never end. Examples this extreme just won't happen. Rollins' hits and XB hits stats [1] show that he earned the run opportunities he got. "[Triples, extra base hits, hits, and stolen bases] are nice, but it would be a lot better to simply look at Rollins's SLG, which will take into account all extra-base hits." SLG doesn't show a player's influence on his team. Total bases do, and they take into account XBHs. Also, triples arguably show more skill than home runs, as they rely on good placement and speed [2]. "One reason why Rollins leads in so many counting categories is because he played so much. It would be a lot more effective to look at his total ABs, PAs, and Games Played, and then to look at his rate stats." And there are statistics that combine ABs, PAs, and games played with rate stats: total hits, total extra base hits, and on-base total. "Hits are a bad stat, because they essentially treat singles the same as home runs." Then look at total bases. "Also, while stolen bases are nice, they simply aren't that great for creating runs. For a player to even contribute, overall, with base-stealing ability, he must steal at a rate above about 75%, and even then, he will not contribute much value with this aspect of his game." 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. "These 30-30 and 20-20-20-20 clubs are somewhat arbitrary. Assume one player has 50 HR, 10 3B, 15 2B, and 10 SB. He isn't a member of either of these "clubs." If another player, however, has 20 HR, 20 3B, 20 2B, and 20 SB, he is suddenly a member of this "club" and people might think he's better than the first player. However, the first player had 80 more total bases (TB) with only 10 fewer steals. 80 more total bases, over the course of a season in which a player gets about 560 ABs, results in an almost .150 difference in SLG, which is incredibly significant." 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. "These two awards, the Silver Slugger and Gold Glove, are completely subjective and voted on by the managers and coaches of MLB teams. There is no way these managers and coaches see players enough, or even have close to enough time/interest in studying how these players have actually done. Therefore, the awards are often given based on reputation or other factors which are irrelevant to what the award is supposed to stand for." 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. I will agree that fielding percentage is not meaningful, at least not for comparing players of different positions, which I am about to do. 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. Also, while the MVP is in itself a great distinction, it depends on other distinctions to be awarded. Both players won the golden gloves and silver sluggers [1][3], which are certainly important for a player's reputation, whether they are fairly decided or not. Both achieved 30-30 seasons as well[4]. Only Rollins, however, joined the 20-20-20-20 club[5]. We can debate the usefulness of that, but the fact remains that he was the only NL player to accomplish the feat that year, and one of only four ever. This will get him far more distinction than any rate stat; you can compare rate stats for anyone any time, but making the club was true history. I also believe that Rollins had significant media attention throughout the season, probably more than Wright. This is very difficult to prove now, as Rollins is better remembered because of the MVP. But he appeared on the Letterman show, and was "an instant media sensation" [5]. Although media coverage may be biased and arbitrary, the nature of the judging is very strongly tied to it. The manner of judging by sports reporters has been around since 1931 [6], and is thus inherent to the award; the contributing factor of media attention is also inherent. 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. My sources: [1] http://www.baseball-reference.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(baseball) [3] http://www.baseball-reference.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...