Tabasco Olmecas
TAB · Mexican League Mexican League Hidalgo · 2019Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 26 | 32 | −6 | 26th of 44 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 29.5 | 28.1 | +1.4 | 12th of 44 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 614 | 1534 | −920 | 37th of 44 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 13.2% | 29.4% | −16.2% | 37th of 44 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 757 | 387 | +369 | 10th of 44 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 22 | 32 | −10 | 40th of 44 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 71.9% | 71.3% | +0.6% | 20th of 44 |
|
| Blown saves | 19 | 19 | — | 18th of 44 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -109 | 0 | −108 | 40th of 44 |
|
| Run differential per game | -1.45 | -0.01 | −1.44 | 41st of 44 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 4.56 | 5.68 | −1.12 | 42nd of 44 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 6.01 | 5.69 | +0.32 | 31st of 44 |
|
| Winning percentage | .373 | .500 | −.127 | 42nd of 44 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .376 | .500 | −.124 | 41st of 44 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -0.2 | -0.0 | −0.2 | 26th of 44 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .500 | .504 | −.004 | 19th of 44 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .241 | .499 | −.258 | 43rd of 44 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .333 | .507 | −.174 | 32nd of 44 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .389 | .519 | −.130 | 38th of 44 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .359 | .483 | −.124 | 37th of 44 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .261 | .506 | −.246 | 41st of 41 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 4 | 5 | −1 | 32nd of 44 |
|
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".