What kind of idiot picks Yankees’ Alex Verdugo over Mets’ Brandon Nimmo?

Brandon Nimmo. Nice man. Terrific baseball player. And, as it turns out, understanding when people tell the world that Alex Verdugo is a better choice in left field.

Before the Subway Series last month, I constructed my annual Mankees team, choosing a 26-man roster that combines the best of the Yankees and Mets. The most difficult call by far was left field. I chose Verdugo, and made Nimmo the top bench player.

I stand by a large chunk of my reasoning, which I’ll lay out below. But the act of justifying the choice to Nimmo, which he gave me the opportunity to do, provoked additional reflection and finally a concession that I should have selected him. I was wrong.

First, the rationale for Verdugo. As one of a handful of people who watches the Yankees and Mets from a press box every week, I see how impactful he is as a defender. Forget the metrics; players know that eyes still measure defense better than Statcast.

Verdugo’s strong arm, lateral range, ability to go back on deep fly balls and in on shallow hits make him a standout left fielder.

In many ways, this discussion boils down to a fundamental philosophical stance: Is left field primarily an offensive or defensive position? You can find seasoned baseball folks on both sides of that question.

The Yankees’ internal tool ranking for left field, in order of importance, are:

1 Hit

2 Power

3 Field

4 Run

5 Arm

Many organizations would disagree, ranking the field tool fourth or fifth. Mets president of baseball operations David Stearns values defense up the middle but considers corner defense a bonus. The Yankees front office sees it differently.

Range and athleticism at the position matter more in New York than other cities, because both Yankee Stadium and (to a slightly lesser extent) Citi Field have large left fields. This is why the Yanks wanted Brett Gardner, an 80 left fielder on the 20-80 scouting scale, out there for so many years, and why Verdugo appealed to them as a trade target last winter.

With a career OPS of .756 and elite defensive tools at what I believe is a defensive position — and the ability to, as one Yankee coach puts it, “help you win a game in so many little ways that don’t get noticed,” Verdugo was my choice.

On June 24, the day that I constructed the Mankees, Verdugo’s season OPS was .708, down enough from his career mark to give me pause. But I’d been watching him all year, and saw a true impact player.

Nimmo is also a good outfielder, capable of providing plus defense in left and even holding down center. But the case for him over Verdugo, which I have come to accept, centers around his offensive production.

Nimmo’s career OPS is .828. After a cold start, this year that number stood at .788 when I built the Mankees.

Eighty points of OPS, the difference between Nimmo and Verdugo on that day, is a significant contrast. A .700 OPS player is below league average, while a player pushing .800 is at least a borderline All-Star hitter.

Is the defensive gap between the two, even in the vast left fields of New York, wide enough to cancel out the difference in production? Probably not.

Since Mankees day, Nimmo has done nothing but make my initial choice look ridiculous. His OPS between the first game of the Yankees series and the beginning of play on Thursday was 1.082 — and that was before he drove in three runs with a bases-clearing double against the Nationals (Nimmo denies that he is hitting the ball harder because he imagines my face on it).

In that same span, Verdugo’s OPS is, gulp, .606. That didn’t help my case, but one doesn’t make decisions based on hot and cold streaks. Verdugo is a very good player, and his slump will end.

But in the final analysis, a 72-point gap in career OPS should have been enough for me to choose Nimmo in the first place, especially considering Nimmo’s plus defense. The numbers are too good to leave him on the Mankee bench.

I stand by my initial comment that it was a tough, complex call. But I’m ready to eat a slice of humble pie over my conclusion.