I have done an underrated/overrated comparison of Luis Aparicio and Bert Campaneris.  The on-field skills of Campaneris and Aparicio are essentially identical; in fact, there are no other players in major league history whose skill sets are so nearly identical as Campaneris and Aparicio.  If you put a string of seasons by Campaneris and Aparicio in a chart and don’t include the fluke season when Campaneris hit 22 homers, you literally cannot tell whether those are Luis’ or Campy’s.  The only "tell" is that, because Campaneris came along eight years later in a time when strikeout rates were accelerating rapidly, Campaneris’ struck out about 10 more times in an average season, but their runs scored, hits, doubles, triples, homers, walks, stolen bases, caught stealing. . .they’re the same.   No other two players are so much the same. 

            Another difference between them is early-career defense.   Aparicio’s father was a star shortstop in Venezuela, and Aparicio had been playing shortstop against high-level competition, in Venezuela, since he was about 16 years old.   Defense at many positions peaks at an earlier age than offense does, I believe.   When Aparicio came to the major leagues at age 22, his defensive skills were mind-blowing, like Ozzie Smith’s.   Roy McMillan, the Mark Belanger of his time, was the reigning king of defensive shortstops, but by 1958, Aparicio’s third year in the league, He had moved to the top of the list.

            I believe this is fair and valid; I believe that Aparicio was not merely believed to be the best shortstop of his time, but actually was.   Campaneris, on the other hand, came to the majors without a position.   Campy was the same age when he reached the majors as Aparicio was, but due in part to the dislocations of the Cuban revolution he had not played nearly as much high-level baseball as Aparicio, and much of his playing time was in the outfield.  He didn’t settle in as a shortstop until late in his second season in the majors.  Whereas Aparicio never played an inning at any position other than shortstop, Campaneris played about 1200 innings in the outfield and at third and second base. 

            Once Campaneris learned to play the position, in my view there was no difference between them as defensive players, just as there was no difference between them as offensive players.  From age 28 on, Campaneris was as good a shortstop as Aparicio, but in those early years—ages 22 to 27—there was a difference, and a large difference, in their defensive value. 

            In their careers, Aparicio is credited with 293 Win Shares and 55.9 WAR, Campaneris with 280 Win Shares and 53.1 WAR.   Adjusted for playing time, Campaneris is actually significantly ahead, more than 10% ahead.  Aparicio has 5% more Win Shares and 5% more WAR, but with 17% more career playing time (Plate Appearances and Defensive Innings.) 

            In spite of this, it was always my impression that Aparicio was a much, much bigger star than Campaneris.   Aparicio won 9 Gold Gloves; Campaneris won none.  Aparicio was elected to the Hall of Fame in his sixth year of eligibility; Campaneris dropped off the ballot after receiving three percent in his first year of eligibility.   The Gold Gloves are not used as an element in the overrated/underrated analysis; the system simply assumes that whoever won the Gold Glove deserved to do so.  Of course, some players DO win Gold Gloves based on reputation, but I am not comfortable enough with the defensive statistics of that era, of most of baseball history, to start second-guessing those awards, thus saying that so-and-so is overrated because he won the Gold Glove and he didn’t deserve it. 

            So anyway, I thought Aparicio and Campaneris would be a good workup because they’re going to score as almost identical on many elements of the chart, but nonetheless I always believed that one of them was overrated, and the other under.  Will the system work in that situation?  Here is the chart:

            The system seems to work, although I see how it could be made to work better.  On the seven items below, the system shows them as being consistently similar, both underrated, but with Campaneris significantly MORE underrated due to small differences going consistently in Aparicio’s favor:

1)     Overall offense vs. RBI,

2)     Overall offense vs. Batting Average,

3)     Walk Rate,

4)     Performance in MVP voting,

5)     At Bat distribution,

6)     Rookie of the Year voting, and

7)     Positional Adjustment

Aparicio won the Rookie of the Year Award, but that’s not evidence that he was overrated, because he deserved the Award.  Campaneris is overrated by 9 points based on batting average, Aparicio by 21 points.  Aparicio has small advantages almost everywhere.   The total of these seven items is 37-74 for Campaneris (.333) and 63-71 for Aparicio (.470).  Campaneris gets 10 points back because he had more World Series exposure than Aparicio, so that makes Campaneris 47-74 rather than 37-74.

But then on All Star recognition and Hall of Fame recognition, Campaneris shows as underrated by a total of 8-43, whereas Aparicio is overrated 40-5.   This shows Aparicio and Campaneris as being similar in terms of performance profile, but vastly different in terms of star recognition, thus shows Campaneris as very underrated and Aparicio as somewhat overrated.   I think that is an accurate summary, so I think the system works. 

There is, however, a pretty obvious way that it could have worked much better.   Luis Aparicio did not actually WIN the MVP Award in 1959, which would have made his overrated score much higher, but he finished second in the voting.  He had 19 Win Shares, which was sixth on his own team and tied for 21^st in the American League, but he was second in MVP voting.   That’s obviously an indication of an overrated player, but the system does not pick it up.  Aparicio in his career had a total of 1.24 MVP vote shares, while Campaneris, with essentially the same career, had 0.42.   The system scores them even in MVP voting overrated/underrated performance, both at 0-0, since neither man was ever actually better than the elected MVP.   Obviously the system could be improved with some reconsideration of that element of the evaluation.

Thanks for reading.  And thanks for not rioting and trying to take over the government; we all appreciate your good judgment there.  Keep reading; stop rioting.   Thanks.