Questions: Statistics, trades, pitching prospects.

by nickler on May 30, 2011 1:37 AM CDT

As always, thanks again in advance for your wisdom. Although I am always a fan, I don't have the opportunity to follow the Cubs as closely as most of you as I don't live in the area. The games I have had the chance to watch, on WGN have been pretty depressing.

1. What is considered a "good" OPS and SLG percentage? Typically, the stats offered during games are the BA and OBP. However, on this board the OPS and SLG seem to be emphasized more. What would be considered "league average" and what would be considered "good"? I know this is a basic question, and I apologize for annoying those who are smarter than I am, but I can't seem to find the answer anywhere.

2. What is the OPS+ value? Is this a better measure for hitting than OPS itself? What is the best measure for a player's offensive ability?

3. I am not saying we should give up on the season (yet), but when IS it time to consider trading players for the future? Right now we are 7.5 games out, and cannot win a series against the Pirates. At what point would a good GM consider saying that things are not working out and that it is not realistic to think that this team is a contender? Are there any veteran players that would actually net something on this team?

4. For those of you who follow the minors closely, which pitching prospects look to be the most encouraging so far? I would assume that the team would like to trade the current veteran pitching or allow the contracts to run out; I would think the latter is the most likely possibility. Does the team seem to have a strong pitching farm system for the future, or are the Cubs most likely to again look to free agency to cover its pitching needs? [While I can look up the stats, they don't always convert to a prospects' potential. For example, I thought Sean Gallagher was going to be an all-star pitcher back in the day.]

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

You're asking deep shyte...and I'm drunk...

1 – If a hitter could put up an ,850+ OPS and his scouting reports and K:BB are to my liking, I I like the hitter. It depends though. If the guy is a stone athletically but he can put up good offensive numbers in the minors, I might question if he he’ll translate that well to the majors because maybe he’s not that great of an athlete. That said, if I’m seeing an .850 OPS and scouts are saying that he’s got the athleticism to play then I’ll take it more seriously. Obviously I expect better from different positions, but .850 will get me to check the other stats and try to get a picture of what kind of player he might be. You can look at a guy like Szczur…his numbers scream leadoff hitter…high OBP, SB%, good batting average…and scouting wise he’s your “4 with the the potential for 4.5 to 5 tools” guy. Even then it gets confusing, because Brett Jackson, in general, has those kind of numbers, yet scouting wise the speed and maybe even defense edge goes to Szczur. OTOH, Jackson has more present power. Having players like this offers flexibility to the organization, and its why they’re heading the right direction. The varied skills and convoluted upsides make farm systems interesting…

2. OPS+ is as valuable as any number. You see as 127 OPS+ you go “ah, so he hit 27% better than the league average” and then you check out the other numbers + scouting erpots.

3. Trade players when other teams are more willing to give up more, which is when they’re more sure of what they want to do. Wait until July as far as that goes, especially since our trade pieces have to rebound a little.

4. I don’t see a stud pitcher in the system, btu I’d put my money on Hayden Simpson. I’m a homer for buying the organization’s silent bs, but I like the way he threw in the minute scouting videos on MLB,com. He’s loose and athletic, and the breaking ball could be awesome. It’s like drafting Jarrod Parker, except a little further into the injury nexus. Post-mono is like post-TJ, and a great chance to put some steroids into him.

by SenorGato on May 30, 2011 2:36 AM CDT reply actions

But...

Take the Indians. Michael Brantley is one of the true young stars of that team. Yet his OPS is .727. The only players with OPS values of >.850 are Travis Hafner and Asdrubal Cabrera, but you can’t expect every player to have values like that unless you’re the Red Sox.

I guess my question is what is an OPS for a solid player.

As an example, I have a general idea that a BA of >270 is pretty good, an ERA <3.50 is good, and that a WHIP of <1.30 is solid. I have no idea what consitutes a “solid” OPS.

by nickler on May 30, 2011 4:47 AM CDT up reply actions

What is your definition of solid?

That’s really what decides the cutoff. For instance, about half of all qualified hitters last year had a BA > .270 to qualify as “pretty good” for you. However, only about a third of all qualified starting pitchers last year met your “good” metric of ERA < 3.50, while just over half of them rate as “solid” with a WHIP of < 1.30. From the numbers you’ve provided here, I’m guessing that your definition of solid is “better than the average everyday player.” (In which case, you should amend your ERA metric to < 3.75).

Thus, for OPS, the number you’re looking for is about .770 for last year.

However, these numbers do fluctuate from year to year. Looking back to 2009, the 50th percentile for qualified hitters/starting pitchers were: BA of > .280, OPS of > .800, ERA < 3.90, and WHIP was again < 1.30. So in 2009, offense was a bit higher compared to 2010. For what its worth, I believe the 2009 numbers are closer to my own definition of solid than the 2010 numbers. And I haven’t considered 2011 yet, since the sample size is still too small to draw meaningful conclusions for individual players.

Finally, as mentioned by SenorGato, you can look at OPS+ to understand how a hitter did compared to the league average. The league average OPS is going to be a bit lower than the average for qualified hitters, since the overall league average includes all the backup scrubs at bats as well. OPS+ also accounts for “park effects” which lets you easily compare players numbers directly even if one plays in a pitchers park and one in a hitters park. OPS+ is very easy to use, since it is a percentage scale, with 100 being league average. So an OPS+ of 90 means they are 10% worse than league average or 110 means 10% better than league average.

by smoldering on May 30, 2011 7:22 AM CDT up reply actions

I meant minors.

An 850 ml ops is a little harder.

by SenorGato on May 30, 2011 9:53 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Btw .850 is anyone I pulled out of my buttocks....

Yet I dint feel so bad. It feels like a good guess.

by SenorGato on May 30, 2011 9:57 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Feels...yes I'm always that scientific.

by SenorGato on May 30, 2011 9:58 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Small sample size...

I wouldn’t base much on less than two months of play so far. That said, Brantley isn’t hitting all that well, and his .727 OPS reflects that. He had a solid April (.380 OBP with no power), but he’s been pretty bad in May. So I wouldn’t call him a true young star at this point. He’s young and could get better, but I wouldn’t yet call him a star.

Only Hafner (in limited time), Sizemore, and Cabrera are having good offensive seasons for the Indians. Cabrera is surprising, and Hafner’s line is inflated by his AVG. LaPorta has been above average, but not a monster year. The Indians appear to be winning with pitching.

by SouthernCub on May 30, 2011 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions

Not all of these have definitive answers...

1. A good OPS is relative to the position played. Middle infielders and catchers can get away with lower OPS values than 1B or corner OF, because 2B and SS and C are premium defensive positions. Go take a look at ESPN’s stats sorted by position to get a better feel:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting/_/sort/OPS
You’ll see that 6 catchers, 7 2B, 5 3B, 8 SS, 26 OF, and 12 1B have an OPS of .780ish or higher.
2. OPS+ is an adjusted value of OPS to take into account the league average while taking into account park factors. 100 is league average (higher is better). It’s better than OPS, and easier to digest. There are better metrics, but it’s plenty good enough for the average fan.
3. Depends on the situation. There isn’t a hard date at which you should trade for the future. The team should always be taking stock of where they are now and where they are headed (and the same for their competition). Deciding to trade veterans depends on the standings, other teams’ interest, your roster and prospects, your payroll, etc. Since those factors vary by team and by season and even by time within season, there isn’t a black-and-white answer. Three weeks ago, Marlon Byrd looked like a likely trade piece. Now, that’s really questionable. Aside from Fukudome, Pena, and Byrd, I don’t think we have much to offer in a trade. Soriano and Ramirez aren’t going to be tradeable, and I doubt we move Dempster or Zambrano.
4. I don’t think we have anyone who is a sure-fire pitching prospect right now. McNutt rose quickly last year and could be an MLB starter. But he’s in AA and hasn’t been dominant this year. Simpson is a nice prospect, but he’s struggled this year recovering from mono and is in A ball. Those are probably the hottest names now, but neither is close to a sure thing. There’s nobody in AAA that’s exciting. There are other names beyond these two guys, but none are close to MLB ready either.

by SouthernCub on May 30, 2011 9:39 AM CDT reply actions

I agree that it's position specific

There are 16 teams in the NL. If players were distributed randomly, you’d expect the average team to have two out of the eight starting position players be in the top 4 at their position in offensive production, and two more be in the top for at their position in defensive production. Of the sortable stats at ESPN’s site (linked above) I happen to prefer RC27 over OPS for offensive production.

The Cub starters offensive rank at their position.
Top 4: Soriano, Fukodome*
Next 4: Castro, Soto* , Pena, Barney, Ramirez, Byrd

*: Not enough AB to be “qualified” in the rankings, Soto due to injury, Fukodome due to platooning.

So the good news is that they have no real offensive suckitude at any position (Neifi!! type players or even just mediocre guys like Ben Francisco.) Barney leads all NL rookies, and Castro will eventually be a top-4 player if he ever takes a few walks – and his numbers are probably deflated from having to bat 3rd a couple of years before he’s ready.

The bad news is that these numbers start to explain why the offense can look so awful at times – a bunch of above average but not star players who can’t consistently create runs.

It's a simple question, Doctor: would you eat the moon if it were made of ribs??

by Invalid User on May 30, 2011 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions

I think a better way to look at it is by team position...

as teams platoon and some guys move around in the OF (causing them not to qualify with PA). The Cubs NL ranks in OPS by position are as follows:

C: 14th
1B: 9th
2B: 4th (boosted by Baker’s platoon numbers)
3B: 4th
SS: 4th
LF: 4th
CF: 4th
RF: 8th
P: 5th

As a team, the Cubs are 4th in OPS (.732) and 3rd in OBP (.331) in the NL, which is pretty amazing, as those aren’t very impressive OPS and OBP numbers (those are usually at or below league average).

Where we’re getting killed is in runs allowed. We’ve given up the 2nd most runs and 3rd most earned runs.

by SouthernCub on May 30, 2011 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions

Our OPS is held up by a strong BA...

but we are dead last in walks. Somewhat alarming. It also seems odd that our SLG% is decent (4th), yet we rank rather low for extra base hits (highlighted by 12th in HRs).

by Kansas25 on May 30, 2011 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions