Playing 140-150 games a year is a huge bonus, but I still wouldn’t call Suzuki underrated. I also think 3rd is a stretch when you figure VMart’s season was split beween two teams, Wieters didn’t have a full year behind the plate, and Napoli would play more if it wasn’t for Scioscia’s bizarre infatuation with Jeff Mathis. Napoli and Wieters are also both good defensively.

Also, Suzuki is pretty much universally loved inside and outside the organization, when the A’s play other teams they refer to “Kurt Suzuki and the A’s” (which is kind of sad, but that’s beside the point). He’s a good player, but I wouldn’t call him underrated.

I wonder if rating a catcher by his hitting or defense is as relevant as his ability to help pitchers develop and pitch a good game? And if game calling is that important, how can it be assessed and weighted compared to other parts of his game?

I know this is from a while ago, but I just saw this now and….thank you for proving my point. I know this is a simplistic way of looking at it, but Mike Napoli has an .850 career OPS and has thrown out 23% of potential basestealers. Suzuki has a .727 career OPS and has thrown out 29% of potential basestealers. When you factor in durability, park effects, and whatever mystical game-calling abilities you want to attribute to Suzuki (though it should be noted that the Angels have managed to fleece out some solid performances from Matt Palmer and various other retreads these past few years), it closes the gap some, but a 120 point gap in OPS, is, to use the technical term, “a lot.” I think it’s at the very least reasonable to suggest Napoli is better Suzuki, yet the consensus among fans and baseball people alike seems to be Suzuki is MUCH better than Napoli. Hence, I think it’s difficult to stick Suzuki with an overrated tag.