Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp
JAX · International League International League East · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 31 | 30 | — | 10th of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 24.9 | 26.9 | −2.0 | 30th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 4136 | 1851 | +2284 | 1st of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 75.3% | 35.2% | +40.0% | 1st of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 0 | 90 | −90 | 16th of 30 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 37 | 42 | −5 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 69.7% | 73.2% | −3.5% | 21st of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 31 | 23 | +7 | 26th of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | 28 | 0 | +28 | 13th of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | 0.22 | 0.00 | +0.22 | 13th of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.05 | 5.38 | −0.33 | 21st of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 4.83 | 5.38 | −0.55 | 5th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .508 | .500 | +.008 | 13th of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .520 | .501 | +.019 | 13th of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -1.6 | -0.1 | −1.5 | 22nd of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .463 | .503 | −.040 | 21st of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .513 | .500 | +.013 | 16th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .667 | .509 | +.158 | 5th of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .523 | .514 | +.010 | 15th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .492 | .486 | +.006 | 13th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .492 | .501 | −.009 | 18th of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 5 | 6 | −1 | 18th 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".