FCL Red Sox
F-RSX · Florida Complex League Florida Complex League South · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 22 | 19 | +2 | 25th of 81 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 19.4 | 18.9 | +0.5 | 26th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 2008 | 1686 | +321 | 20th of 81 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 97.8% | 99.2% | −1.4% | 68th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 0 | 0 | — | 4th of 81 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 28 | 24 | +3 | 26th of 81 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 58.6% | 60.7% | −2.1% | 49th of 81 |
|
| Blown saves | 14 | 8 | +5 | 76th of 81 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -17 | 0 | −17 | 53rd of 81 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.30 | -0.00 | −0.30 | 51st of 81 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 6.89 | 6.28 | +0.61 | 23rd of 81 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 7.20 | 6.28 | +0.92 | 64th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage | .411 | .500 | −.089 | 62nd of 81 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .480 | .502 | −.022 | 52nd of 81 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -3.9 | -0.1 | −3.8 | 76th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .533 | .496 | +.037 | 32nd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .480 | .503 | −.023 | 44th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | 1.000 | .519 | +.481 | 1st of 57 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .519 | .561 | −.042 | 54th of 81 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .310 | .438 | −.128 | 62nd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .411 | .500 | −.089 | 57th of 81 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 4 | 4 | — | 43rd 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".