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 | -60 | 0 | −60 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.48 | 0.00 | −0.48 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 4.90 | 5.57 | −0.67 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 5.38 | 5.56 | −0.18 | 12th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .437 | .500 | −.063 | 25th of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .458 | .502 | −.044 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -2.7 | -0.2 | −2.5 | 25th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .444 | .497 | −.053 | 21st of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .421 | .502 | −.081 | 24th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .375 | .473 | −.098 | 21st of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .462 | .537 | −.075 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .410 | .463 | −.053 | 21st of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .518 | .500 | +.018 | 13th of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 7 | 7 | — | 10th 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".