Is it better to have a guy willing to stand in the outfield who’s not good defensively over a guy who would be so bad in the OF that you’d never in a million years play him there? Maybe – depends on how well the two players hit along with their respective ages and contract situations. The willing if not quite able outfielder has a .722 OPS (one that was a .593 before Tuesday’s two-hit game) in 53 PA for the Mets. The never in a million guy has a .783 OPS in his last 112 PA. Lifetime the willing guy has a 97 OPS+ in 675 PA while the other one has a 106 OPS+ in 1,814. In his age-29 season, the willing one is a year younger and this year made around $800,000 fewer in his final season before arbitration. Both will be arb-eligible next year. Oh, and in very limited playing time in the field this year, the willing OF has a (-60.4) UZR/150 in LF and a (-51.9) UZR/150 in RF. Obviously, a small sample thing. But he’s not good out there.
To me, it’s flip a coin territory. Years ago, people made a fuss over Joe McEwing because he was willing to play every position. But he wasn’t good at any of them. And it was one thing when he had a 107 OPS+, like he did in 2001. It was another thing when he put up a 55 OPS+ combined over his final three years with the Mets.
Defensive versatility is great, providing you can hit. Jeff McNeil is very valuable considering you could play him in an emergency just about everywhere, combined with the fact he’s quite competent at three positions, and is finally starting to hit in his last three weeks. Defensive versatility, when it means playing poorly in an outfield corner, is another matter entirely and should be treated as such.
Defense matters! It’s probably the most underrated skill in baseball.
So please answer this question – Between two similar offensive players, is it preferable to have a guy who’s a negative fielder but one you put in the field anyway or a guy who’s so bad that you don’t play him in the field and don’t suffer thru sub-par defense?
To answer your question: If the players have similar 100 OPS+ and have a power threat, then they can a chance to be would the 26th player on the roster and not play the field because they are the liability. Any player that put up a 139 OPS+ and is a defensive liability should be a DH starter exclusively. A player that is a 100 OPS+ shouldn’t be the DH unless has the player has normal defensive skill and versatility so that he can substitute for a starter so that the starter gets a “DH rest”. The Mets need to structure their roster differently in 2024.
I think the answer, it depends. Why would a player who negatively plays the field? It depends on the position he plays. Does his bat far outweigh his negative value in the field? Does the option to replace the bad fielder with another player have less total value than the bad fielder?
As a fellow fat guy, I don’t like Vogelbach. I like players who can hit and play the field. With only four position roster bench spots, one dimensional players like Vogelbach I think hurts the teams flexibility, especially since he only really plays against righties. To keep a player like him on the roster, for me he would have to be superior for what he does. So, if Vogelbach had and OPS+ of 125, then yes, then I would keep him. But when he carries a 96 OPS+, no way.