Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp
JAX · International League International League East · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 33 | 32 | — | 13th of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 24.8 | 26.9 | −2.1 | 30th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 4738 | 2176 | +2561 | 1st of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 76.2% | 35.4% | +40.9% | 1st of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 0 | 105 | −105 | 17th of 30 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 37 | 45 | −8 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 69.2% | 73.8% | −4.6% | 24th of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 33 | 27 | +5 | 23rd of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | 8 | 0 | +8 | 17th of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | 0.05 | 0.00 | +0.05 | 17th of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.02 | 5.31 | −0.29 | 21st of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 4.97 | 5.31 | −0.34 | 12th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .497 | .500 | −.003 | 16th of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .505 | .501 | +.004 | 17th of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -1.2 | -0.1 | −1.1 | 17th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .447 | .503 | −.056 | 24th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .467 | .501 | −.034 | 20th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .500 | .507 | −.007 | 14th of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .507 | .515 | −.008 | 17th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .486 | .485 | +.001 | 13th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .487 | .501 | −.014 | 17th of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 5 | 6 | −1 | 20th of 30 |
|
Rank is among the AAA clubs with a value for that metric, best first. Descriptive metrics (roster age, WAR concentration) are ranked but not colored — for them, "high" isn't "good".