Bradenton Marauders
BRD · Florida State League Florida State League West · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 45 | 30 | +14 | 2nd of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 21.6 | 21.3 | +0.2 | 10th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 4097 | 4273 | −176 | 26th of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 98.8% | 99.1% | −0.2% | 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 | 47 | 38 | +8 | 6th of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 64.3% | 64.0% | +0.3% | 13th of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 31 | 17 | +13 | 30th of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -63 | 0 | −63 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.58 | 0.00 | −0.58 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 4.84 | 5.55 | −0.71 | 28th of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 5.43 | 5.55 | −0.12 | 15th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .426 | .500 | −.074 | 26th of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .448 | .502 | −.054 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -2.4 | -0.2 | −2.2 | 21st of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .417 | .497 | −.080 | 22nd of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .406 | .503 | −.097 | 25th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .375 | .475 | −.100 | 19th of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .434 | .530 | −.096 | 28th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .418 | .470 | −.052 | 21st of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .528 | .500 | +.028 | 12th of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 7 | 6 | — | 8th 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".