Binghamton Rumble Ponies
BNG · Eastern League Eastern League Northeast · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 38 | 27 | +10 | 2nd of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 24.1 | 24.2 | −0.1 | 18th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 4435 | 4046 | +388 | 11th of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 73.1% | 75.9% | −2.7% | 20th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 12 | 1 | +10 | 2nd of 30 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 47 | 35 | +11 | 1st of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 67.5% | 68.1% | −0.6% | 16th of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 24 | 23 | — | 16th of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -41 | 0 | −41 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.30 | -0.00 | −0.30 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 4.69 | 5.24 | −0.55 | 28th of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 4.99 | 5.24 | −0.25 | 10th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .445 | .500 | −.055 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .472 | .499 | −.027 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -3.7 | 0.1 | −3.8 | 26th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .444 | .499 | −.055 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .439 | .499 | −.060 | 22nd of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .600 | .498 | +.102 | 8th of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .522 | .517 | +.005 | 14th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .368 | .482 | −.114 | 30th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .490 | .501 | −.011 | 15th of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 10 | 6 | +3 | 1st of 30 |
|
Rank is among the AA 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".