OK Mount Up Outsporters-this should be a wild ride. ESPN's Jeff Morran has released his list of the top 10 most overrated athletes,and it's a doozy.From what I've seen posted elsewhere,some of these selections border on sacriledge. eek! Can't wait to hear your thoughts. :cool:

www.espn.go.com/page2/s/list/mostoverrated.html

yeah, very interesting, curious to see in his alsoruns: de la Hoya, Roddick and Lindros. I recall a few years ago Sports Illustrated did a similiar list and Frank DeFord put Steffi Graf on the list. Brilliant. And Lindros has spent most of his time on the disabled list--when I lived in Philadelphia, he had a concussion every other week.

[ June 25, 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: shore ]

I will have to pretty much agree with that list. Though I wouldnt necessarily say "overrated". Id have to list most of them as "underachievers" who didnt live up to their hype.
Vince Carter should have stayed at UNC a couple more seasons and boosted his college stats before going to the crappy Raptors. Though could have been worse. He was orignally drafted by Golden State (traded in draft for UNC teammate Antawn Jamison, another underachiever)
Mike Tyson I disagree on. The man was the yougest heavyweight champ and a career killer. Too bad he killed his own career.
Derek Jeter. Set a class A league record with the most errors in a season when he played for the Greensboro Hornets(Bats). Heckled by his own fans every game as well.
And then going down the list its pretty much a given.

Shore:

What's so "brilliant" about Deford putting Steffi Graf on the "SI" overrated list? She won the Golden Slam and had only seven losses in three years (1987-1989), not to mention her other accomplishments. With so many other players to choose from, why choose Graf? Unless you're being sarcastic and it went right over my head, or the "brilliant" referred to the ESPN list.

ESPN's list is pretty much right on. Vince Carter can't or won't show his potential, Mike Tyson was good in his heyday, but compared to heavyweights of the past he's not even close to the top of the list. Lindros was, unfortunately, a flop and never lived up to his potential. Roddick is only 19, 20 years old and doesn't deserve to have any votes thrown at him, yet. If he's 22,23 and still not showing results, then I would reconsider.

[ June 25, 2003, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: antarctica17 ]

I think the list is pretty much complete except I would footnote Pluumer and Lindros as the "Most Beautiful Overrated Athletes" and presently I would add Pat Burrell -- but that's just a Philly thing, I suppose

Have never found Lindros attractive,just personal taste. Jake the Snake is another story- great body wth a face to match,and always comes across as a real nice guy.Lindros is a definite underachiever for someone who was hailed as the second coming.I think it's a little too early and unfair to characterize Jake that way, because the Cardinals are sooo Bad eek! Not sure Anyone could look good in that situation. I'll be really interested in seeing how he performs as a Bronco under Shanahan's guidance.Definitely the pivotal point in his career...

[ June 25, 2003, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Tim ]

I'm trying to read this, but every time I click on the link, an Orbitz pop-up ad appears and then disappears, but somehow manages to shut down the ESPN page--I can't scroll down, and I can't get rid of the Orbitz ad window at the bottom. All I can do to get rid of it is use ctl-alt-delete to bring up the "close program" box and that ends up closing all of Internet Explorer. f**king ESPN website really sucks ever since they've cluttered up the pages with MSN crap and that ESPN Motion thing and so on.

Anyway...now that I've finally gotten to read it...he says Derek Jeter is a "probable Hall of Famer" and yet he's overrated? Is that even possible?

[ June 25, 2003, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

If these people are overrated... who overrated them? ESPN et al? There was an article in Toronto (since our Vince Carter was #1) saying it was rather hypocritical of ESPN, who jumped on the Carter bandwagon, hyping him beyond belief in his Slam Dunk days... now saying he's overrated.

All closers #4? Why then was George Steinbrenner & NYC in a tizzy over Juan Acevedo (now pitching for the Toronto Blue Jays). Why do opposing teams moan when Smoltz or Gagne come in to close a game. Closers are not overrated.

Darrin Erstad #5? Last time I checked he was not considered a superstar in the league... how then can he be overrated?

Antoine Walker #7? Anybody who knows the NBA knows that he's not one of the top-tier players. Everybody knows his deficiencies... his propensity to jack up threes willy-nilly ( why did they ever put him in the three-point shooting competition in the All Star game?), for example. I don't think he's overrated because I don't rate him highly.

Ben Wallace (only 6'9" yet dominant rebounder and shot blocker?! I'd call him an overachiever) and Alfonso Soriano (near 40-40 man?! Who were the last guys to do that? Bonds? Sosa?) overrated?! :confused:

[ June 26, 2003, 04:36 AM: Message edited by: canmark ]

Antartica17, I said "Brilliant" because I thought DeFord was being wonderfully provocative with that opinion. His point as I remember it was that she won all those tournaments during a "drought" of competition. I liked Steffi, especially later in her career, so it's not to take anything away from her.

Sorry shore that I misunderstood you. Yes, it was ballsy and provactive, but since I'm a Graf fan, it rankled me.

Oh yes they are -- that was my vote.

(chorus) Read \"Moneyball.\"

Any competent MLB pitcher can be made into a decent closer. It's ONE FREAKIN' INNING!

I would say "yes." I think even though Nolan Ryan IS a deserving Hall of Famer, he is overrated. Jeter might have been one of the 12 or 15 best players til recently, but some people have called him one of the top 5. That's still overrated.

[ June 26, 2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

Hmmmmm......At what point is someone overrated? Andy Roddick is still awfully young to be considered overrated, I think. I'd put someone like Marat Safin, or Roger Federer, on the list before Andy. And I'd certainly put "champions" like roy Emerson and Steffi Graf on the list, for I think in any other decade they'd have been toast. I baseball, I don't understand Soriano being on the list. If anything, he's exceeded the expectations everyone has had of him. Also, again, he's awfully young to be making any pronouncements about the worth of his career. I'd certainly put guys like Paul Molitor and Barry Bonds on the list, though (pause for a moment of silence while Bill W has a stroke and readies a radioactive response about the virtues of Barry). In football, I always thought Fran Tarkenton was way overrated, while I think Brett Favre is one of the best that's ever played and just doesn't get the adulation he merits.

So why don't they do it, then? Why do teams scramble for closers when they could easily insert any "competent MLB pitcher?" The fact that it's "ONE FREAKIN' INNING" makes it harder. Give up a homer or a couple of runs as a starter--no big deal. You've got several innings to work with and time for your team to rally. Give up a homer in the ninth and the game is over. Just ask Juan Acevedo.

Because it's uncommon for baseball decision-makers to act counterintuitively once a "common wisdom" has been established.

Look at the Oakland A's -- yes, "Moneyball" again... (I'm not giving up til a second Outsporter reads it.) Why do you think they've gone from Isringhausen to Koch to Foulke, with no change in their annual contention? Because it's way more efficient to get a cheaper version than overpaying one guy to do this job over a few seasons.

A good pitcher can deal with the pressures of pitching one inning. Chokers don't make the big leagues.

And there's no evidence of any such thing as a special ability to "hit in the clutch" either....

[ June 27, 2003, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

This would be more impressive if the A's actually won a World Series or two.

Well, Billy Beane answers that question in "Moneyball" also:

"My shit only works in the regular season. Everything after that is f**king luck."

They did win a World Series... in '89, when they had Dennis Eckersley, the star closer. wink

HA! wink And of course Billy Beane wasn't around then...

But that quote about everything after the regular season being "luck" is a little scary. Sure, there's luck involved. There's luck in everything...and that includes the regular season. But not everything happens because of luck. To me, you've got to put the pieces in place as much as possible so you can take advantage of any good luck you receive.

[ June 27, 2003, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

If the Eck was so invulnerable in a World Series, what happened in 1990? wink Or to Mariano Rivera vs Arizona? (Ah, the moment when Steinbrenner discovered the injustice of the postseason seeing-eye hit!)

You misunderstand Beane's philosophy (and stack the deck by using the BEST modern relief pitcher as an all-purpose example). It's not that there aren't relief aces who are valuable, it's that they're less rare than ace starters or slugging centerfielders.

No, "not everything happens because of luck" ... but it's apt to play a much bigger role in a 5- or 7-game series than a 162-game season, right? That's simple mathematical logic.

Since playoff baseball was invented, we can all name teams that might've been the 5th (or 8th) best team in baseball the year they won the WS -- '88 Dodgers, '96 Yankees, '02 Angels etc. I read recently that a .350 winning-pct team has a 15% chance of SWEEPING a .650 team in a 3-game series. That's not negligible. (And of course, what does Beelzebud want to do? Add another round of playoffs.)

You philistines can parry me on the Gospel of Sabermetrics in other threads!

Yes, but IMHO, the problem seems to be that there aren't that many quality closers around. You can blame this on expansion, whatever. The pressure closers are under can also have an impact on the game. One bad pitch and many closers can, seriously, be mentally scarred for life (Eck, Donnie Moore, Mitch Williams).

Of course, just because you have a great save record in the regular season doesn't mean you'll have a good save record in the postseason (just ask poor Armando Benitez). So maybe Billy Beane's theory does hold some water.

In case anyone's interested, here are the current stats for all the pitchers in the MLB so far this year:
http://snurl.com/1odx
I wonder how much money Fernando Rodney is making?


Shore: (sorry to bother you again)

To me, the "drought" of competition always seems suspect to me, because if "drought" were taken into effect, then I would put Margaret Court Smith as the most overrated player because she won 11 Australian Opens, nearly all of them when the top players didn't consider it worth their time to go down to Australia.

Also, as to "drought", using this example: the players that Steffi played and beat during Monica's absence were the same players Monica played and beat for many of her titles (Martina N., Sabatini, Novotna, ASV, Fernandez, etc.), so, I am puzzled by why "drought" is cited. (I am not saying Monica is overrated, by all accounts she is definitely in my top 10 and hovering close to the top 5 of all time.)

I am just interested in your insights on this, that's all.