Who's "Overrated"? And What Does It Mean?

The New York media always elevates its stars above their true level. Not just in baseball. Joe Namath is in his sport's Hall of Fame because he won one particular game. Had he lost it, he wouldn't be in. Lawrence Taylor was no better a linebacker than his Chicago contemporary Mike Singletary. Willis Reed was a really good center and team leader, but because he sank two baskets while in immense paid, he became a god. Mark Messier was one Vancouver goal short of being taken downstairs from Madison Square Garden to Penn Station and literally being run out of town on a rail as someone who failed New York.

This is why New York-based players Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays are considered the two best baseball players of their generation -- and they probably were -- but Hank Aaron usually gets listed behind them, when he was roughly their equal.

The media of Los Angeles also does this. It's why a mediocre manager like Tommy Lasorda is in the Hall of Fame, some people think Steve Garvey should be, Sandy Koufax with his brilliant but relatively short peak is raised above Juan Marichal and Bob Gibson, and Vin Scully, who was average at best, gets called the greatest broadcaster of all time.

It's why Kobe Bryant got forgiven for his heinous crime, why LeBron gets called the greatest player, why Jerry West was called the greatest shooter until Steph Curry came along, and why Wayne Gretzky is now thought of as a better hockey player than Gordie Howe. The Los Angeles Times and the L.A. TV stations. Chicago and Boston also do this, to a lesser extent.

Derek Jeter is handsome and personable, never embarrassed his team and his fans unlike Alex Rodriguez, and got the job done, pretty much anytime the Yankees needed it. It made him a star. And so, people who hate the Yankees call him "overrated."

And, yes, they do have a point: He's not "on the Yankee Mount Rushmore" with Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio and Mantle. He's not even the most important player in that era of Yankees: Mariano Rivera made the difference between maybe just 2 or 3 Pennants, and the actually-won 7 Pennants and 5 World Championships. But Jeter was the sellable leader of that team, and so he was put above everyone.

But he was an all-time great. He is, arguably, the best shortstop of the last 100 years. Or, at least, the best player to have played that position. A-Rod? We may never know when he started using performance-enhancing drugs, so how can we know he was truly "better"?

And as for the argument that Jeter was a bad (or even "the worst") defensive shortstop? "Advanced metrics" is bullshit that people who hate somebody made up to feel better about themselves and their team. Use your eyes: Jeter has more "highlight reel" plays preserved than any other player, at any position, including Ozzie Smith.

That doesn't mean that DiMaggio or Willie Mays -- or, if we're limiting this to shortstops, Luis Aparicio -- didn't have more great plays that simply weren't preserved for posterity. It does mean that we have proof that Jeter was a great-fielding shortstop, and anybody who says otherwise is using evidence that simply doesn't hold up.

The Mets' fans of that era needed a star on the same magnitude, so they tried to make one out of Mike Piazza, who, unlike Jeter, might actually be the worst defensive player in the history of his position. The Mets needed a captain on the same magnitude as Jeter, so they tried to make David Wright that. And now, having failed to make Pete Alonso "the face of New York baseball" while Aaron Judge was the better player, they're trying to do it with Francisco Lindor. Child, please.

It's important to note: "Overrated" does not mean "bad." A player can be truly great, as Jeter was, and still be overrated, treated as more or greater than he actually is. Occasionally, a player gets called "overrated" so much and for so long, people forget that how great he was: He becomes "so overrated, he's underrated." As Leonard Nimoy would say, It is not logical, but it is often true.