Risking a controversial subject here, but I'd like to learn more and see some views on this subject.
IMO, the OPS stat masks the real problem with offenses like the Reds'. A number of important, starting players get a pass because their OPS is acceptable or good. While a good shorthand, OPS can be very misleading and requires deeper analysis.
The slugging half of OPS usually is the dominant half numerically. Slugging percentages generally are higher than OBPs. When a player has a high slugging percentage, his OPS tends to be good. Yet, many such players are low BA and low OBP hitters.
So, on the Reds, Jay Bruce has a .326 OBP and a .481 SLG. Pretty good OPS of .806, but he doesn't get on base much and his BA is .243.
Ryan Ludwick has a .329 OBP and a .535 SLG. Huge differential there. His good OPS of .864 is heavily weighted to slugging, not getting on base.
Frazier is similar, .323/.520. Cozart .294/.407.
Here's my point for discussion. I think that simply saying that guys like Ludwick and Bruce have a good OPS may give them too much credit because a team full of power hitters who don't get singles and don't get on base is often sub-par offensively. (Reds currently have 583 singles, while the Cards have 721.)
Hope the issue I'm presenting for discussion is clear. Fire away.