Oklahoma City Comets
OKC · Pacific Coast League Pacific Coast League East · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 27 | 32 | −5 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 27.2 | 26.9 | +0.3 | 13th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 2014 | 2077 | −63 | 16th of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 33.9% | 34.9% | −1.0% | 16th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 72 | 103 | −31 | 13th of 30 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 42 | 44 | −2 | 20th of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 72.2% | 73.7% | −1.5% | 15th of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 29 | 26 | +2 | 20th of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | 175 | 0 | +175 | 1st of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | 1.22 | -0.00 | +1.22 | 1st of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 6.01 | 5.33 | +0.68 | 4th of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 4.78 | 5.33 | −0.55 | 5th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .587 | .500 | +.087 | 2nd of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .603 | .501 | +.102 | 1st of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -2.2 | -0.2 | −2.0 | 24th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .500 | .502 | −.002 | 14th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .689 | .502 | +.187 | 2nd of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .583 | .508 | +.075 | 7th of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .603 | .519 | +.084 | 4th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .571 | .481 | +.090 | 3rd of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .642 | .501 | +.141 | 1st of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 14 | 6 | +7 | 1st 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".