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 pain, he was raised to the level of a sports god. Mark Messier, the most beloved New York Ranger of all time, 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.

Yes, I said it, and I stand by it: Vin Scully was not a great broadcaster.

It's why Kobe Bryant got forgiven for his heinous crime, why LeBron James gets called the greatest player by people who don't fall for the Michael Jordan propaganda, 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 also does this, to a lesser extent. It's why Jordan gets considered the greatest player ever, Ernie Banks and Walter Payton became beloved far outside "Chicagoland," the 1985 Bears are held up as the pinnacle of defense, and Bobby Hull became the 1st hockey player that most Americans loved. (Gordie Howe was respected, but, south of the Canadian border, never truly loved outside Michigan.)

Boston, to, does this, to a lesser extent. It's why the 1967 Red Sox, and Carl Yastrzemski in particular, became so beloved despite having lost the World Series; why Larry Bird is sometimes put on the same level as Jordan and Magic Johnson; why Bobby Orr became America's most beloved hockey player, even though he wasn't American; why David Ortiz is beloved, and his failed steroid test and other failures of character are ignored; and why Tom Brady is considered the greatest quarterback ever, and not the blatant cheating egomaniac he actually is.

Back to New York, and its media's effects. 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 New York, and the Yankees in particular, 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 Rivera was a pitcher. And a relief pitcher, at that. And foreign, with an accent. That last one shouldn't have been a factor, but it was. Jeter is the son of an interracial couple, and faced no illusions while growing up: As a boy, he was reminded that he was black. But he was an "All-American Boy," and seen as "more white" than Rivera. Jeter was the sellable leader of that 1996-2003 Yankee team, and certainly of the 2009 Champions, compared to Rivera, the problematic Alex Rodriguez, and the superb by very foreign Hideki Matsui.

So Jeter was put above everyone. And people inclined to love the Yankees embraced this, and people inclined to hate the Yankees called him "overrated," and some even said that he "sucks" -- to the point where this was addressed when he hosted Saturday Night Live.

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 the beloved St. Louis Cardinals shortstop legend 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, on film or videotape. 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. Bitch, 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.