FCL Braves
F-BRV · Florida Complex League Florida Complex League South · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 27 | 20 | +6 | 12th of 81 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 19.6 | 18.9 | +0.7 | 23rd of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 2180 | 2137 | +42 | 31st of 81 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 97.6% | 99.2% | −1.5% | 69th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 35 | 0 | +34 | 1st of 81 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 28 | 26 | +1 | 29th of 81 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 62.8% | 63.4% | −0.6% | 41st of 81 |
|
| Blown saves | 7 | 10 | −3 | 12th of 81 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -150 | 0 | −150 | 79th of 81 |
|
| Run differential per game | -2.63 | -0.00 | −2.63 | 79th of 81 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 4.33 | 6.20 | −1.87 | 80th of 81 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 6.96 | 6.20 | +0.76 | 58th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage | .316 | .500 | −.184 | 74th of 81 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .296 | .503 | −.207 | 80th of 81 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | 1.1 | -0.2 | +1.3 | 25th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .529 | .495 | +.034 | 32nd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .176 | .501 | −.325 | 78th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .000 | .525 | −.525 | 42nd of 61 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .429 | .557 | −.128 | 69th of 81 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .207 | .442 | −.235 | 77th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .316 | .501 | −.185 | 69th of 81 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 2 | 5 | −3 | 74th of 81 |
|
Rank is among the Rk 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".