Bradenton Marauders
BRD · Florida State League Florida State League West · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 49 | 32 | +16 | 2nd of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 21.6 | 21.3 | +0.3 | 9th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 4799 | 5063 | −264 | 28th of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 98.7% | 99.1% | −0.5% | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 0 | 1 | −1 | 3rd of 30 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 61 | 44 | +16 | 5th of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 62.8% | 64.2% | −1.5% | 18th of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 34 | 20 | +13 | 30th of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -61 | 0 | −61 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.48 | 0.00 | −0.48 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 4.87 | 5.57 | −0.70 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 5.35 | 5.56 | −0.21 | 11th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .433 | .500 | −.067 | 25th of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .457 | .502 | −.045 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -3.0 | -0.2 | −2.8 | 26th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .429 | .497 | −.068 | 22nd of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .421 | .502 | −.081 | 24th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .375 | .470 | −.095 | 21st of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .462 | .538 | −.076 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .403 | .463 | −.060 | 21st of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .512 | .500 | +.012 | 15th of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 7 | 6 | — | 9th 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".