Johnson City Cardinals
JC · Appalachian League Appalachian League West · 2018Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 17 | 19 | −2 | 58th of 98 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 21.0 | 19.4 | +1.6 | 10th of 98 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 2808 | 2465 | +342 | 20th of 98 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 100.0% | 99.7% | +0.3% | 1st of 98 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 0 | 0 | — | 2nd of 98 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 18 | 22 | −4 | 77th of 98 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 82.7% | 65.7% | +17.0% | 4th of 98 |
|
| Blown saves | 10 | 9 | — | 46th of 98 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -36 | 0 | −36 | 71st of 98 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.53 | -0.00 | −0.53 | 72nd of 98 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.79 | 4.99 | +0.80 | 15th of 98 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 6.32 | 4.99 | +1.33 | 90th of 98 |
|
| Winning percentage | .456 | .500 | −.044 | 66th of 98 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .460 | .500 | −.040 | 69th of 98 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -0.3 | -0.0 | −0.3 | 54th of 98 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .444 | .504 | −.060 | 70th of 98 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .480 | .494 | −.014 | 56th of 98 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .750 | .533 | +.217 | 14th of 94 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .394 | .528 | −.134 | 80th of 98 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .514 | .472 | +.042 | 36th of 98 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .447 | .501 | −.054 | 50th of 82 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 3 | 5 | −2 | 79th of 98 |
|
Rank is among the Rk 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".