OPS - What is the target?

[*ochocincos*]

For some (many?) of us, we grew up on batting average and on-base percentage being the metric to judge good hitters.

OPS isn't technically new, but it's become a more predominant metric in judging good hitters nowadays.

Given I'm not nearly as plugged into baseball as I am football or hockey, I wanted to know what is considered a good OPS.

Per this article, an average hitter will have around .750 OPS.
A good hitter should have .800 or better.
An elite one will have .900 or better.

https://brucebolt.us/blogs/news/whats-a-good-ops-in-baseball?srsltid=AfmBOorYi2OGllqr8nHB4Pi3hu_qK9qrGrgp0QrSDEhyGHAEPi8xkF38

If we use this measurement, Reds only have one full-time "good" hitter right now (McLain) and one average hitter (EDLC).
Trevino has the highest OPS, but he's splitting time with Wynns at C right now.

Should the Reds look to use Trevino as DH on off-days from catching, especially once Stephenson is back?
Are the Reds going to be able to survive with ~3-4 guys hitting >.750 OPS?

My thoughts are yes to Question 1, no to Question 2.

Your thoughts?

[CJD]

(04-07-2025, 03:34 PM)ochocincos Wrote: For some (many?) of us, we grew up on batting average and on-base percentage being the metric to judge good hitters.

OPS isn't technically new, but it's become a more predominant metric in judging good hitters nowadays.

Given I'm not nearly as plugged into baseball as I am football or hockey, I wanted to know what is considered a good OPS.

Per this article, an average hitter will have around .750 OPS.
A good hitter should have .800 or better.
An elite one will have .900 or better.

https://brucebolt.us/blogs/news/whats-a-good-ops-in-baseball?srsltid=AfmBOorYi2OGllqr8nHB4Pi3hu_qK9qrGrgp0QrSDEhyGHAEPi8xkF38

If we use this measurement, Reds only have one full-time "good" hitter right now (McLain) and one average hitter (EDLC).
Trevino has the highest OPS, but he's splitting time with Wynns at C right now.

Should the Reds look to use Trevino as DH on off-days from catching, especially once Stephenson is back?
Are the Reds going to be able to survive with ~3-4 guys hitting >.750 OPS?

My thoughts are yes to Question 1, no to Question 2.

Your thoughts?

Fangraphs has a series of articles that they published back in 2010 through 2015 that does a really good job of charting what the tiers of quality are for each stat. I know 2010 is old, but I don't think the tiers have changed all that much since. For example, in their article on OBP, they have a chart that shows an OBP of 0.290 is "awful," whereas an OBP of .320 is "average" and 0.390 is "excellent." This series of articles has really helped me contextualize the stats that are being thrown at us all the time in baseball.

When it comes to OPS, their chart shows 0.570 is awful, 0.600 is poor, 0.670 is below average, .710 is average, 0.800 is above average, 0.900 is great and 1.000 is excellent.

They have a bunch of other sabermetric stats too if you're curious, https://library.fangraphs.com/offense/offensive-statistics-list/

They also have pitching stats here: https://library.fangraphs.com/pitching/complete-list-pitching/

I'd caution against using the players' stats for this particular year, as we are only 11 games into the season. One or two good games can skew a statline when the sample size is that small. I'd focus on career stats, and when it comes to that, the best hitters on this team, by OPS, are:
1. Matt McLain (Career OPS 0.864)
2. Elly De La Cruz (Career OPS 0.770)
3. Tyler Stephenson (currently injured) (Career OPS 0.770)
3. TJ Friedl (Career OPS 0.764)
4. Spencer Steer (Career OPS 0.753)
5. Austin Hays (currently injured) (Career OPS 0.745)
6. Jeimer Candelario (Career OPS 0.731)
7. Jake Fraley (Career OPS 0.730)
8. Gavin Lux (Career OPS 0.706)
9. Christian Encarnacion-Strand (Career OPS 0.697)
10. Santiago Espinal (Career OPS 0.683)
11. Jose Trevino (Career OPS 0.641)
12. Austin Wynns (Career OPS 0.611)

Then there's players like Jacob Hurtubise and Blake Dunn who have less than 100 career at bats between them, so you can't really take their career stats in the majors to mean much, but they're currently in the .500s for OPS.

There are other factors to consider. For example, CES is fairly low on the list, but he only has 371 career at bats, which is less than a full season's workload. This is due to being called up halfway through 2023 and being injured in 2024. 

For someone like CES, you might look at his minor league stats, where has has a career 0.990 OPS. Minor league stats don't really translate 1 to 1 to the majors, but they show he was definitely an elite hitter in the minors, so the expectation is that he reaches that point in the majors too.

Similar situation for Matt McLain, but in the opposite direction, as he also only has 393 career at bats for similar reasons. 

Then there are veteran players who are likely not going to hit at their career OPS due to age, like Jeimer Candelario.

But that's the basic tier list of hitters on this team. 

Matt McLain, Tyler Stephenson, Elly De La Cruz, and maybe CES have the potential to be above average to great hitters.

Friedl, Steer, Hays, Candelario, Fraley, and Lux have the potential to be slightly above average hitters.

And then the final 3, Espinal, Trevino and Wynns, are below average to poor hitters.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

OPS+ is probably better than OPS, because what an average OPS is can change quite a bit from year-to-year, let alone era-to-era. The + puts it on a scale compared to the rest of the league that year with 100 being average and any point above or below that representing 1% above or below average. My main problem with OPS+ is it factors in parks, which could be helpful (otherwise all the Colorado guys would look super amazing), but I also don't fully agree with or trust how park factors work.

With just raw OPS, though...
In 2024, the league average OPS was .711
In 2019 it was .758
In 2014 it was .700
In 2009 it was .751
In 2004 it was .763

Keep in mind that's not the average starter, just the average. So a rough rule of thumb is a MLB-competency line of .700, which is more or less applicable to the last 100 years or so, with some acceptance that sometimes it's more around .750 and sometimes more around .650.. There's some exceptions to that, like if you're a glove-first catcher and can throw guys out and frame well or a shortstop with a great glove and speed on the bags. 

Also another knock again raw OPS is that in reality OBP is more valuable than 1:1 with SLG. 
Player A: .300/.500/.300 (.800 OPS)
Player B: .300/.300/.500 (.800 OPS)
Same OPS, but Player A is creating many more runs because the ultimate currency of baseball is Outs and 1 point of OBP is roughly equal to 2 points of SLG.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-07-2025, 10:33 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: OPS+ is probably better than OPS, because what an average OPS is can change quite a bit from year-to-year, let alone era-to-era. The + puts it on a scale compared to the rest of the league that year with 100 being average and any point above or below that representing 1% above or below average. My main problem with OPS+ is it factors in parks, which could be helpful (otherwise all the Colorado guys would look super amazing), but I also don't fully agree with or trust how park factors work.

With just raw OPS, though...
In 2024, the league average OPS was .711
In 2019 it was .758
In 2014 it was .700
In 2009 it was .751
In 2004 it was .763

Keep in mind that's not the average starter, just the average. So a rough rule of thumb is a MLB-competency line of .700, which is more or less applicable to the last 100 years or so, with some acceptance that sometimes it's more around .750 and sometimes more around .650.. There's some exceptions to that, like if you're a glove-first catcher and can throw guys out and frame well or a shortstop with a great glove and speed on the bags. 

Also another knock again raw OPS is that in reality OBP is more valuable than 1:1 with SLG. 
Player A: .300/.500/.300 (.800 OPS)
Player B: .300/.300/.500 (.800 OPS)
Same OPS, but Player A is creating many more runs because the ultimate currency of baseball is Outs and 1 point of OBP is roughly equal to 2 points of SLG.

I get what you are saying, but when I say an "average" hitter will have around .750 OPS, I'm not basing that off what the yearly average is.
I could have used a different word than average to convey my meaning more, I guess.
Solid, maybe?

An example, I consider a .250 BA to be solid, a .270 BA to be good, and a .290+ BA to be really good.
If the group as a whole averages, for example, .230 BA, I just see that as more people performed below expectations.
I don't move the marker based on what the group does or doesn't.

I look at it the same way as how a classroom of students performs on a test.
If most of the group got a D, I'm looking at most of the group underperforming.
On the flip side, if most of the group got an A, I'm at the majority of the group doing really well.

[basballguy]

i'm definitely a casual fan now so my take is a hot one....

Baseball has fallen the way of the NBA where "analytics" says it makes more sense to go big or go home. NBA games are 3 point contests and MLB games are HR or K every at bat. Now not every team even has a .300 hitter anymore.

Adam Dunn was born 20 years too early.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-15-2025, 11:17 AM)basballguy Wrote: i'm definitely a casual fan now so my take is a hot one....

Baseball has fallen the way of the NBA where "analytics" says it makes more sense to go big or go home.  NBA games are 3 point contests and MLB games are HR or K every at bat.  Now not every team even has a .300 hitter anymore.

Adam Dunn was born 20 years too early.

I like analytics if they help tell an accurate story of how someone is doing or what can be determined as a goal.
What I am not supportive of is people changing their style to support better metrics.
I hate the new model of the three outcomes at the plate - HR, walk, or strikeout.

Gimme singles and doubles all day every day over these Adam Dunn type of stats for players.

[basballguy]

(04-15-2025, 12:51 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Gimme singles and doubles all day every day over these Adam Dunn type of stats for players.

Not so fun facts:

Last season was the first time we saw a 200+ hit performance in 7 seasons....SEVEN.
The batting average across the board in the MLB in 2024 is .243.  Dudes used to be in danger of being sent down when batting that low
MLB batters have struck out more times than they have hit the ball fair.  In 2024 players struck out ~42,000 times vs ~38,000 hits

I should change my username to BitterBasballguy

[*ochocincos*]

(04-15-2025, 01:47 PM)basballguy Wrote: Not so fun facts:

Last season was the first time we saw a 200+ hit performance in 7 seasons....SEVEN.
The batting average across the board in the MLB in 2024 is .243.  Dudes used to be in danger of being sent down when batting that low
MLB batters have struck out more times than they have hit the ball fair.  In 2024 players struck out ~42,000 times vs ~38,000 hits

I should change my username to BitterBasballguy

An interesting fact:
This change in hitting such that it's more boom-or-bust rather than getting on base doesn't actually seem to be resulting in more runs per game.

2024:
team with most runs per game - 5.47
team with least runs per game - 3.13
middle of the pack - 4.32

2015:
team with most runs per game - 5.45
team with least runs per game - 3.54
middle of the pack - 4.28

Actually, if you go back to 2007, it may show hitting is getting worse:
team with most runs per game - 5.91
team with least runs per game - 4.19
middle of the pack - 4.78

[*bengalfan74*]

(04-15-2025, 08:14 PM)ochocincos Wrote: An interesting fact:
This change in hitting such that it's more boom-or-bust rather than getting on base doesn't actually seem to be resulting in more runs per game.

2024:
team with most runs per game - 5.47
team with least runs per game - 3.13
middle of the pack - 4.32

2015:
team with most runs per game - 5.45
team with least runs per game - 3.54
middle of the pack - 4.28

Actually, if you go back to 2007, it may show hitting is getting worse:
team with most runs per game - 5.91
team with least runs per game - 4.19
middle of the pack - 4.78

OH, hitting has taken two giant steps backwards from where it was. I've thought and thought on what has made it that way?

For example: 

1974 - 11 teams had a .260 or above team batting average, for the season.

1976 - 9 teams .260 or better including the Reds .280 to lead the Majors.

1980 - 16 teams .260 or better including three teams above .280

1985 - 11 teams .260 or better

2024 - 3 teams, yes only 3 teams with a team average over .260

It was pretty much normal back then to have two, three, even four guys on a team batting at or very near .300 What has changed?

I get it, it's still way early this season but there's 3 or 4 guys on this club that have to change what they're doing at the plate. How that relates to OBS I'm not sure?

[*ochocincos*]

(04-16-2025, 10:21 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: OH, hitting has taken two giant steps backwards from where it was. I've thought and thought on what has made it that way?

For example: 

1974 - 11 teams had a .260 or above team batting average, for the season.

1976 - 9 teams .260 or better including the Reds .280 to lead the Majors.

1980 - 16 teams .260 or better including three teams above .280

1985 - 11 teams .260 or better

2024 - 3 teams, yes only 3 teams with a team average over .260

It was pretty much normal back then to have two, three, even four guys on a team batting at or very near .300 What has changed?

I get it, it's still way early this season but there's 3 or 4 guys on this club that have to change what they're doing at the plate. How that relates to OBS I'm not sure?

I wonder if it's because of a potential jump in talent for pitchers nowadays compared to back then?

For example, average fastball in 2002 was 89 mph.
It went to 91.9 mph in 2008.
Most recent data shows 94.2 mph.
Back in 1980, it was in the high 80's.

[*bengalfan74*]

(04-16-2025, 12:33 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I wonder if it's because of a potential jump in talent for pitchers nowadays compared to back then?

For example, average fastball in 2002 was 89 mph.
It went to 91.9 mph in 2008.
Most recent data shows 94.2 mph.
Back in 1980, it was in the high 80's.

Oh I'm fairly certain pitchers being better/different is a big part of it. The different part being the spin rate and speed.

But I also think there's more to the story. I mean just the way the game has changed thru the years. Some good, some bad IMHO. Small ball is gone or very nearly gone on the bulk of teams. Launch angle was never a thing back then. They fought for years to keep the DH out of the NL. 

The hit and run was a large part of most teams back then, suicide squeeze, sacrifice flys, bunts, and so on. Today it's HR or strike out and to me it makes it even more boring.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-16-2025, 12:33 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I wonder if it's because of a potential jump in talent for pitchers nowadays compared to back then?

For example, average fastball in 2002 was 89 mph.
It went to 91.9 mph in 2008.
Most recent data shows 94.2 mph.
Back in 1980, it was in the high 80's.

It's not a jump in talent, Ocho. 

It's coaching/gurus/camps/clinics teaching people to ignore their bodies to burn brighter but shorter. They have lasers now that they'll set up on your body and tell you exactly how to go about getting an extra mph or something by changing your delivery... but everyone throws differently for a reason, everyone's body is different. You used to see SO many different looking deliveries and now almost everyone is getting funneled towards the same motion optimized for velocity and spin, while ignoring that it is not your natural motion that is the best one for your body. Then you get all the TJs. That is then combined with an increase in both bullpen usage AND bullpen size, and you can afford to bring in a bunch of revolving guys who throw high 90s FBs for 40-60 innings a year and blow out their elbows to get replaced by other guys who throw high 90s FBs for 40-60 innings per year.

In 1980 there was 1 pitcher who threw at least 300ip, 16 pitchers who threw at least 250ip, and 56 pitchers who threw at least 200ip.
In 2002 those numbers were 0, 2, and 42.
In 2008 those numbers were 0, 1, and 34.
In 2024 those numbers were 0, 0 , and 4.

In 1980 there were 17 pitchers who threw at least 100ip in relief and 47 pitchers who threw at least 81ip
In 2024 those numbers were 0 and 3.

It's all technology and a complete and utter disregard for durability and sustainability.