Not about Beltre? I'm surprised.

My guess was Ibanez.

Is Pujols really under-appreciated? I think he's almost universally regarded as the best player in the game.

pujols really IS underappreciated. you see, he's just great all the freaking time. he doesn't suck for 3 months then have a great september like the media wants him to do.

i hear CONSTANTLY about how the media thinks arod/manny is unquestionably the best RH ballplayer in baseball and almost no one ever mentions Uncle

and it is not like he can't hit AL pitchers neither

oh yeah

and albert has got a GREAT glove. and a GREAT baserunner - which he gets NO credit for.

and this year he played with an elbow than needs surgery and he STILL put up the numbers that he did.

Well, there's still that thing about his last name sounding like poo holes, maybe those guys giggle. I had to run the scoreboard for a youth league baseball tournament recently, and there was a kid named Alex Cox, whose name I could never hear the right way once the emphasis was placed in a naughty way.

Albert Pujols just wrapped up his eighth full year in the Major Leagues. His worst offensive season so far was better than Rice’s best.

I think it depends what measurement you use-- although the point is probably close enough to true that it's rhetorical force isn't really diminished. For the record, though, Rice's best seasons were in '78 and '79, and he had OPS+'s of 157 and 154, respectively. Pujols's worst season was his sophomore effort, when he had a 151 OPS+. He's also had a 157 OPS+ twice.

More generally, though, yes: Pujols is decidedly unappreciated (his arrival was sort of overshadowed by the Barry Bonds show: imagine if he'd won the MVP, oh, three times in his first five or six years?), and much, much better than Jim Rice.

Most underappreciated player? Chase Utley. Try telling a casual fan that Utley has been one of the 5 or so best players in the game for the past 4 years.

Doesn't consistent excellence almost always go underappreciated to some degree? Guys like Musial and Eddie Murray were similar in that regard, it seems. Bonds was somewhat different in that while always supernaturally great, the greatness was demonstrated in different ways (lanky all-around stud to home run threat to batting champ). If we think we know what a plaeyr is going to deliver when the year starts, and the player goes out and delivers just taht, it's human nature to start to take that for granted.

Albert Pujols just wrapped up his eighth full year in the Major Leagues. His worst offensive season so far was better than Rice’s best.

This is flat false in my opinion. Its not even close to being true. The reason is context -1978 was the not the same as 2002, not by a mile. In 1978, Jim Rice led the league in virtually everything offensive, including every advanced statistic. In many categories, it wasn't even close - he dominated. In 2002, Pujols barely cracked the top ten in the league in most advanced statistical categories, because it was a lot easier to put up those kind of numbers in 2002. Lots of guys were doing it. An OPS+ of 157 was extremely impressive in 1978. An OPS+ in the 150's was not nearly as impressive in the early years of Pujols's career.

Doesn't consistent excellence almost always go underappreciated to some degree? Guys like Musial and Eddie Murray were similar in that regard, it seems.

I think this is particularly true when a great player derives value from so many areas. Pujols hits for average, hits for power, doesn't strike out, is a surprisingly good base runner and a great defender at a typically weak defensive position.

If Albert had the same overall value but it was concentrated in or two areas (say he hit around .270/.330/.700) then he would get more ink from writers marveling at that outstanding skill. As it stands, he is as unspectacular as the best player in baseball can be.

It would be more accurate to say that Pujol's worst seasons are comparable to Rice's best. But it's a needless comparison, as Rice, if he makes it, will be one of the most borderline HOFers since all those players from the 30's got in. Comparable to Cepeda, Perez, or Puckett. Pujols on the other hand is probably going to wind up the 2nd best 1B ever, after Lou Gehrig.

Most unappreciated player? Could be if the writers decide to hose him on the MVP award yet again. Take the first half of Chipper Jones and add to the second half of Carlos Delgado. The result will resemble Pujols' season stats.

He's underappreciated in that he's clearly the best player in baseball, and yet sportswriters are making cases to give the MVP award to a guy who stunk until after the all-star break (Delgado) or a guy who has only been with his team since August(Manny).

An OPS+ in the 150's was not nearly as impressive in the early years of Pujols's career.

Does OPS+ not account for era at all? I'm not exactly a stat maven, obviously. If it doesn't, then, yeah, you're absolutely right. I sort of thought that it did.

In any case, it's true that Pujols didn't top the leaderboards at all in those years, and Rice did.

As long as people try to justify giving the MVP award to players other than Pujols, he's underappreciated.

Does OPS+ not account for era at all? I'm not exactly a stat maven, obviously

It does to some extent, but not completely. If you look at the leaderboards, you notice that in some eras, the top five players in the league were reguarly putting up OPS+ of between 170 and 200. In other eras, no one would put up an OPS+ of 165 or above for years. The average, or course, would be 100 in all eras, but the typical OPS+ of a leader varies quite a bit.

I'm as big an Albert fan as you'll find, but I think the recent rash of "Albert's under-rated" articles are evidence to the contrary. He's not in danger of being over-rated per se, but you can't keep saying he's under-rated if there have already been a wave of such articles in circulation.

Then again, you'll note that I didn't say "stop."

Pujols is so over-under-sideways-down-rated, he's a veritable Darin Erstad.

Nice one, yardbird.

i hear CONSTANTLY about how the media thinks arod/manny is unquestionably the best RH ballplayer in baseball

Who've you been speaking to? Rod may be, but I haven't heard anyone seriously say that Many is the best all-around ballplayer in the game.

Is Garret Anderson no longer the most underrated player in baseball? He held that title forever.

Is Garret Anderson no longer the most underrated player in baseball? He held that title forever.

Garret Anderson was UNDERrated?

In any case, it's true that Pujols didn't top the leaderboards at all in those years, and Rice did.

??????
You mean when Rice went 157 and 154 and finished 1st and 4th in OPS+?, whereas when Pujols went 157 and 151 he finished 10th both times?

That ignores the fact that when Rice Hit 157 and 151 he was 25 and 26, when Pujols was 25 and 26 he hit 168 and 178 good for 2nd and 1st.

Specifically, when Rice finished 1st with 157, there were players at 153 and 152 and 151 and 150 and 149.
When Rice finished 4th with 151, the leader had 176, someone else had 164, someone else had 155, and Reggie was right behind at 150.
From 1968-1988 here are the annual AL OPS+ leading marks:
170
189
177
181
199
161
166
168
155- Reggie
178
157- Rice
176
203
164
166
158- Brett
156- Mattingly
178
161
173
170

Typically you had to hit better than Rice's 157 to lead the league.
IMHO Pujol's OPS+ advantage is "real" there's no funny era adjustment that needs to be made other than the way it's calculated at present.
Rice won an OPS+ title with 157 simply because- unusually- no one had a better mark that year- but if you look at the leader boards for that year you see that Rice had no separation from the pack- 6 players were within 10 OPS+ points of him- by comparison when Pujols won in 2006 and 2008 no one was within 10 of him either year. An din 2003, hew as a distant second (to Bonds) but #3 was 20 back from Pujols.

I think Utley is. Maybe Beltran.

I would imagine that when most people talk about Jim Rice and leaderboards, they are thinking of 1978. He led the league in G, AB, PA, Hits, HR, RBI, SLG, OBP, XBH, Triples of all things, and famously had the 406 Total Bases, which was 113 more than anyone else in his league. Plus all the saber-stat categories included on B-Ref and probably any others that could be devised, including Pancake Flops. That's enough black ink to start your own newspaper company.

Pancake Flops!! I forgot about those, Bob.

Mark Ellis.

Mark Ellis.

That was my first guess Danny.

Mark Ellis.

It's definitely a second baseman. Utley, who is great, is never recognized as such. Ellis is very good and never recognized as such. Roberts, Polanco and Aaron Hill (before this year) are or were pretty good players and were never really mentioned. Other than Beltran, as MHS points out, I think all of the prime candidates are at second.

Rice hit into lots of DPs, which would definitely help in Pancake Flops.

@21: the key phrase being "in those years." I was specifically comparing Rice's ~150 OPS+ years with Pujols's ~150+ years, and purely in terms of what that meant relative to league. I already acknowledged the painfully obvious: that Pujols is the greater hitter by an enormous margin.

Not the most underrated, but Randy Winn seems pretty underrated. Acceptable to slightly above average offense for his position, very good / great D, yet most people seem to regard him as some 4th OF type.

Pujols's first eight years are quite close to Frank Thomas 1990-1997. Pujols has a career line of .334/.425/.624 in 1239 games; Thomas hit .330/.452/.600 in 1075 games (he came up in August 1990). Pujols's OPS+ is 170; I don't have Thomas's for that period, but it was around 180. Pujols may have the edge on Thomas to this point in their careers due to baserunning and defense, but it's close. 1998 was the year that Thomas dropped precipitously, due in part to nagging injuries. I hope Pujols's elbow problems don't become chronic.

Not the most underrated, but Randy Winn seems pretty underrated. Acceptable to slightly above average offense for his position, very good / great D, yet most people seem to regard him as some 4th OF type.

I agree. Being an All-Star for the Devil Rays a few years ago and then traded for Lou Piniella seems to have made him into a punchline forever.

I'd say Shin-Soo Choo is pretty darn underrated (led the Indians in BA, OBP, and SLG this year, albeit in only 370 at-bats...but he wasn't being platooned) but this year could be a fluke. Even so, he led the team in BA, OBP and SLG!

I don't have Thomas's for that period, but it was around 180.

close, it was 182 (per PI)
Bonds' was 181 for the same time period (pre-steroids no less)

Mark Ellis is awfully good. Now shift his stellar second base over to play well above average shortstop and make him 25.

You've got J.J. Hardy, and I think that's the real answer.

The answer to this question obviously depends on how you define "underappreciated," which I think Jeff Sullivan (at Lookout Landing) would distinguish from "underrated." And even then it's Everybody KNOWS Albert Pujols is a great player, so he's not underrated per se. He's underappreciated because, by rights, he ought to have 3 or 4 MVPs by now and even many of the professional sportswriters out there think of him only as a bat - they fail to realize just how much he adds on defense and the basepaths. Is he the MOST underappreciated? Again, who the hell can say? We could be here all night and never even agree on the definitions that properly ground the discussion.

BTW, I recommend that everyone click through and read Sullivan's complete article. It's very, very good. Fun read.

He's underappreciated because, by rights, he ought to have 3 or 4 MVPs by now

I'm assuming you did check on this, because Pujols has not been robbed of 2 or 3 MVPs. There's only one year where he should have won the MVP but didn't (not including what happens this year). There's a natural tendency to think that Pujols must have been robbed of several MVP's when you find out he's only won one, but when you go year by year, you find that's not the case.

For me, it's Raul Ibanez.

He's not putting up fantastic numbers, but I've never thought of him as a star-level player, but he's been rock-solid good/great for the past 3 years.

I guess I keep associating him with bad team (KC, Seattle) and thinking he must suck too.

The answer to this question obviously depends on how you define "underappreciated," which I think Jeff Sullivan (at Lookout Landing) would distinguish from "underrated." And even then it's Everybody KNOWS Albert Pujols is a great player, so he's not underrated per se. He's underappreciated because, by rights, he ought to have 3 or 4 MVPs by now and even many of the professional sportswriters out there think of him only as a bat - they fail to realize just how much he adds on defense and the basepaths. Is he the MOST underappreciated? Again, who the hell can say? We could be here all night and never even agree on the definitions that properly ground the discussion.

By that argument, it's still not Pujols, it's A-Rod.

Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 03, 2008 at 03:02 PM (#2966498)
For me, it's Raul Ibanez.

He's not putting up fantastic numbers, but I've never thought of him as a star-level player, but he's been rock-solid good/great for the past 3 years.

I guess I keep associating him with bad team (KC, Seattle) and thinking he must suck too.

His D is awful.

By that argument, it's still not Pujols, it's A-Rod.

No kidding. A-Rod has 3 MVPs, but probably deserved 7 or 8.

Going back to the first post, I think Beltre is definitely way underappreciated.

Note that I never took a position on who the most underappreciated player is, and whether that's Albert Pujols. I honestly can't say.

The most underappreciated _this season_ was Aubrey Huff. Go figure.

Does OPS+ not account for era at all?

Some. Or depends on what you like. OPS+ is measured relative to average, so as averages shift across eras, OPS+ keeps up.

But it doesn't adjust for changes in the distribution or standard deviation of OPS (OK, OBP and SLG) across eras.

Now we all know (don't we?) that OPS+ is (OBP/lgOBP) + (SLG/lgSLG) - 1 (adjusted for park) but let's pretend it is measured relative to OPS. Now suppose league average OPS is 750 and the SD is 75. An 825 then is 10% greater than the mean and it's also 1 SD above the mean.

In another era, maybe league average OPS is 800 and the SD is 90. An 880 OPS would be 10% above the mean but slightly less than one SD above the mean. It is therefore "easier" to get a 110 OPS+ in this era.

Whether SD variation across eras is enough to make a real difference in comparing OPS+s across eras I have no idea.

Now Pujols vs. Gehrig could end up being very interesting. Pujols is unlikely to catch him in OPS+ but, assuming he stays healthy (otherwise there's no point comparing him to Gehrig anyway), Albert will end up with more games and his counting stats will be better. Lord only knows how we could compare defense and baserunning across that time, but it's hard to argue that Gehrig was better.

I know nobody will ever replace Gehrig in the fans' pantheon but he has a shot at replacing him in the saber pantheon.

I checked our recent Hall of Merit "rank the all-time first basmen" ballot thread to see how many voters ventured into slipping active players onto the list. I only found one: andrew siegel, who placed Pujols 8th, just behind Greenberg but ahead of Leonard, Murray, and McCovey. It's clear from his comments that Andrew was talking only about Pujols's value through the 2007 season (this was at the end of May, so not much of 2008 was known yet.) And I suspect that Andrew was being more cautious than some of us might have been.

The "is there an era adjustment for OPS+" discussion falls into Dan R.'s territory, if he'd care to comment.

I know nobody will ever replace Gehrig in the fans' pantheon but he has a shot at replacing him in the saber pantheon.

Which brings up the question: how do you classify Stan Musial? If you regard LF, CF, and RF as three separate positions, then Musial's plurality position was 1B, and that's not just a matter of moving there when he was old - he played some seasons at 1B during his peak years. If you were to classify Musial as a first baseman, then many of us would rank Musial ahead of Gehrig.

So passing Gehrig might well be an easier target for Pujols than passing Musial - and because of the St. Louis connection, we will try to compare him to Musial.

Which brings up the question: how do you classify Stan Musial?

What, people don't memorize all my posts?

I classify players by the positions they played. Stan Musial only played 1000 games at 1B, fewer even than Pujols. He's not very high on my list. (Note, I'm happy to lump LF and RF together into one.)

I don't see why this is so confusing really. Why this obsession with classifying players to one and only one position. Musial is one of the all-time greatest players but in terms of where he ranks at 1B, it's how did he produce in the years he played 1B. Admittedly that's harder for Musial since he split time within-seasons but fine, about 35% of his career was spent playing 1B so assign 35% of his value there.

Same goes for Banks at SS, Brett at 3B, Yount at SS, Dawson in CF, etc. Musial ranks very high on the overall list but he doesn't rank that high on positional lists. I have no problem with that. And for folks who do, I'd suggest at least creating a separate category for multi-position players.

Why this obsession with classifying players to one and only one position.

Because having one of the ten best players ever show up 40th on position-specific would be lame.

He's underappreciated because, by rights, he ought to have 3 or 4 MVPs by now

I'm assuming you did check on this, because Pujols has not been robbed of 2 or 3 MVPs. There's only one year where he should have won the MVP but didn't (not including what happens this year). There's a natural tendency to think that Pujols must have been robbed of several MVP's when you find out he's only won one, but when you go year by year, you find that's not the case.

Agreed. Albert really wasn't as good as Barry in any of the 2001-2004 years. 2006 was the only year he was actually robbed, but in all honesty, Derek Lee was just as good and maybe even a little better in 2005 when Pujols actually won. So the one MVP Albert has won so far is actually about right (at least until they screw him over this year).

Certainly, it was easier to put up a gaudy OPS+ score in the 90s-00s than in the 70s and 80s--it was a much higher run scoring environment, and you had two expansions back-to-back. Generally speaking, you could regress Steroid Era OPS+ to the mean by about 8% (note that this pulls UP the OPS+ of below-average players, even as it pulls down their wins above replacement as long as they have positive WARP) to compare them on a level playing field to OPS+ marks from the prior period. But this is not completely applicable to Rice himself, since his (apparent!) peak directly coincided with the 1977 AL expansion, which juices his own marks.

The '03 vote is debatable. If you take UZR at face value, which has Pujols at a mere +18 in the field that season (split between LF and 1B), then the combination of his far superior defense and 27 extra games played definitely would put him ahead of Barry. But Dewan's Plus/Minus isn't nearly as impressed with Albert's fielding that year. It's close.

Underappreciated team:

1b: Adrian Gonzalez
2b: mark Ellis
Ss: Jose Reyes. (All you ever hear about is what he doesn't do. And that's made up since I don't know that he can't do it all)
3b: Aramis Ramirez
C: AJ. (All you hear is that he is a jerk. But he can play)
Lf: Ibanez
Cf: mike Cameron
Rf: Jermaine Dye

This is flat false in my opinion. Its not even close to being true. The reason is context -1978 was the not the same as 2002, not by a mile. In 1978, Jim Rice led the league in virtually everything offensive, including every advanced statistic. In many categories, it wasn't even close - he dominated. In 2002, Pujols barely cracked the top ten in the league in most advanced statistical categories, because it was a lot easier to put up those kind of numbers in 2002. Lots of guys were doing it. An OPS+ of 157 was extremely impressive in 1978. An OPS+ in the 150's was not nearly as impressive in the early years of Pujols's career.

What about defense?

The standard deviation of defense has basically just been falling over the entire course of baseball history--as you would expect from the increase in Three True Outcomes, if nothing else. I don't have a defense-only stdev broken out, but I doubt it was too too different in the 70s/80s than it is now, maybe a few percentage points.

Nate McLouth

Walt: That was mostly just a rhetorical device to get Musial into the conversation. Personally, I'm happy to lump LF and RF together, and when we did the by-position rankings, we classified Musial as LF, where he finished unanimously second behind Williams. (We're re-doing the LF ballot now to slip Monte Irvin into it, but that has no effect on Musial.)

Our actual standard for classifying a player at a particular position is the position at which he accumulated the most value - which may not necessarily be where he played the most games. Hence, Banks is a SS, Musial is a LF, Rose is a RF, Molitor is a 3B, and ARod will almost surely remain a SS.

I'm much more willing to lump LF and RF together, more so than many of my HoM colleagues. The top of my L/RF ballot:

1. Ruth, 2. Williams, 3. Musial, 4. Aaron, 5. Ott, 6. Robinson, 7. Henderson, 8. Delahanty, 9. R. Jackson, 10. Crawford.

Others will disagree. And I'm not even ready to think about placing Pujols on the 1B list, not while he's still at his peak and we don't know how long his peak or prime will last.

Adrian Gonzalez is hugely underappreciated. Good call on that one.

A.J. Pierzynski, though, seems appropriately appreciated to me. He has made a couple of All-Star teams, which seems about right. At catcher I'd nominate Chris Iannetta - how many people realize he outhit Geovany Soto this year?

Yeah, people need to have a look at what Gonzalez has been doing away from PETCO the last three years. It's very, very impressive.

Not about Beltre? I'm surprised.


That was my first thought as well. Of course, unlike yet another Beltre article this one actually makes sense for the stated proposition, too