So far this season we're 9th in OPS (.758) and 8th in runs scored per game (4.76). There's a very strong correlation between a team's OPS ranking and its runs per game ranking... so much so that by the end of each season almost every team's ranking in OPS and runs per game will differ by 2 or less.

 

The issues I have with this team are CF and the split in playing time between Olivo and Treanor so I ran some numbers to see where we could be if our CFs hit like an average NL CF and with a slight variation in the catcher's playing time.

 

The average NL CF (excluding ours) has a .762 OPS. Our CFs have a .647 OPS. If our CFs hit like the NL average CF the impact on our OPS would be +.012.

 

So far this season Olivo has 221 PAs and Treanor has 118 PAs. Olivo's OPS is .810 and Treanor's OPS is .596. If the playing time was revised and Olivo got 40% of Treanor's PAs the impact on our OPS would be +.003.

 

Our OPS with an average CF and the revised catching split would be .773 and that would be 5th in the NL just below the Cardinals (.775) and just above the Braves (.769). The Cardinals and Braves are averaging 5.06 and 4.94 runs per gave, respectively. With a .773 OPS we would be averaging something very close to 5.00 runs per game.

 

What would our record be if we averaged 5 runs per game? I guess the this is a way of saying we need to add a CF and give Olivo more playing time. We should be buyers, not sellers.

STATS UP THE WAZOO

nice work.. every team is going to have holes..and CF is ours..this year we're probably going to try guys (prospects) out there to see how they do ex.:abercrombie, reed, ross..it'd be great to fill the gap there w/ someone like crawford who would help us in the runs per game thing...and i think it's necessary that olivo does get more playing time. olivo should start 66%-75% of games. That's 2 of a 3 game series or 3 out of a 4 game series.

STATS UP THE WAZOO

 

wow...some good info there...thanks...i just dont know how much more time i would give to olivo...dont get me wrong, i love the year he is having...but willis and olsen seem to be more comfy with treanor and dont mind giving those guys the benefit of the doubt...and while it would be orgasmic to get crawford here...id settle on a guy in the minors who doesnt make much but is more major league ready than abercrombie, which leaves denofria, stern, etc...im just not in favor of sacrificing any of those pitching prospects until we better know what they can do

Good stuff.

 

I question whether 40% is the best assumption to make. That would have Olivo playing 85% of the time for the equivalent of 136 games. Few starting catchers reach that plateau. 30% (76% playing time, 124 games) would yield a .002 change in OPS rather than the .003 I got with 40%.

 

It's probably also unfair to adjust all 100% of our centerfielder's plate appearances. We'd likely have a backup or two below average. If we assume 80%, that would be a .010 change in team OPS. .007 with 60% and .012 with 100%.

 

And replacing just Reggie's 226 plate appearances: with a average NL centerfielder, a .009 change in team OPS. With a .700 OPS player, a .005 change

every team is going to have holes..and CF is ours..this year we're probably going to try guys (prospects) out there to see how they do

I agree with that but the thing with us is that our hole is huge, bigger than just about any other team's hole. I think with a real CF our lineup would be set top to bottom (when Treanor doesn't play).

I have a different perspective on giving Olivo more playing time.

 

What Girardi is doing is keeping him healthy, or as healthy as you can keep a catcher over a 162 game season. Were the Marlins to find themselves in the wildcard hunt come September 1, two or three games out, I suspect then and only then would you see Olivo's innings upped. Right now he is too important to the team offensively to risk him wearing down under the grind of catching six games a week, week in week out.

very good research and excellent post Thank you for that, I wonder what we could find to fill that hole in CF for more then just this year. Perhaps some of the rookies recently drafted could help, but I wouldnt be surprised if we need to make a move in the offseason to really pick one up.

yeah good post but I disagree with the Olivo/Treanor thing...I think in the long run this is the proper plan, especially for a team that isn't "supposed" to be contending...keep Olivo rested...and he's not Cabrera where he will get big hits on an almost daily basis...if he had more at-bats, he might even see a dip in his average...plus, Treanor has shown an excellent handling of both Olsen and Willis, that combination isn't faltering so I say don't rearrange it. And both catchers have held their grown defensively...Treanor especially surprises me at times...I was at one game where he threw out a runner taking third, I'm pretty sure it was against Toronto June 16...what a moment...

 

 

Now as for a CF...

nice work Polo.

 

 

As to Marlins20003's point, this will likely be the most games in a season that Olivo has caught during his career, so it's not a terrible idea to keep him relatively fresh.

It looks like Girardi is coming around on the more Olivo playing time idea. If Olivo catches 4 out of 5 the rest of the way that would leave him at around 115 starts which is a career high but is not such a high number.

 

I would like to see Girardi tweak the lineup a bit by moving Jeremy to 2nd and moving Uggla to 4th or 5th. This way we would take full advanateg of Jeremy's high OBP and would get Uggla additional ABs with runners on. Uggla has hit too well to not take advantage of his bat with runners on and hitting 2nd he's getting too many ABs with noone on which is what's happening because of the pitcher's spot and the black hole in the 8th spot (when occupied by Reggie or Treanor).

Interesting, however, I'd be interested to see how you statistically quantified the average centerfielder.

 

If it's using the mean of NL centerfielders, it's probably less accurate than using the mode or median as there are several superb centerfielders as far as OPS goes and there are also several substantially below average ones, skewing the "average" OPS.

 

Just my two cents...

Interesting, however, I'd be interested to see how you statistically quantified the average centerfielder.

 

If it's using the mean of NL centerfielders, it's probably less accurate than using the mode or median as there are several superb centerfielders as far as OPS goes and there are also several substantially below average ones, skewing the "average" OPS.

 

Just my two cents...

 

I used the mean of the other 15 NL teams and that came out to .762. The median was .742.

 

It was a very quick calculation but if I was to get more technical about it I would have removed the top 1 or 2 and bottom 1 or 2 to remove the skewing. Removing the top / bottom 1 the mean would be .754 and removing the top / bottom 2 the mean would be .751.

 

The next question would be.. should I use the revised mean or should I use the median? I would probably go around in circles debating what would be the favorable one to use and would end up using some weighted average between the 2.

 

Supposing I had used the median (.742) and not the mean (.762), the impact on the team's OPS would .010 instead of .012... either way, with a real CF we would have one of the top hitting teams in the NL and that's while playing 81 games in a pitcher's park.