OPS - What is the target?

[*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.