Rancho Cucamonga Quakes
RC · California League California League South · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 31 | 31 | — | 14th of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 21.0 | 21.3 | −0.3 | 21st of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 5004 | 4698 | +305 | 2nd of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 98.6% | 99.1% | −0.6% | 24th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 22 | 1 | +20 | 2nd of 30 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 33 | 41 | −8 | 24th of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 60.0% | 64.4% | −4.3% | 21st of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 11 | 18 | −7 | 2nd of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -13 | 0 | −13 | 19th of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.11 | 0.00 | −0.11 | 19th of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.66 | 5.57 | +0.09 | 10th of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 5.76 | 5.57 | +0.19 | 20th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .484 | .500 | −.016 | 20th of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .491 | .501 | −.010 | 19th of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -0.9 | -0.2 | −0.7 | 18th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .387 | .496 | −.109 | 25th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .522 | .501 | +.021 | 11th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .625 | .470 | +.155 | 7th of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .613 | .530 | +.083 | 4th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .350 | .471 | −.121 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .532 | .500 | +.032 | 10th of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 4 | 6 | −2 | 28th of 30 |
|
Rank is among the A 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".