FCL Astros Orange
F-ASO · Florida Complex League Florida Complex League East · 2022Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 24 | 22 | +1 | 30th of 83 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 21.2 | 19.1 | +2.1 | 2nd of 83 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 1863 | 2010 | −147 | 70th of 83 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 94.8% | 99.3% | −4.5% | 82nd of 83 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 0 | 0 | — | 1st of 83 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 28 | 26 | +1 | 28th of 83 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 93.3% | 65.8% | +27.6% | 1st of 83 |
|
| Blown saves | 9 | 8 | — | 44th of 83 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | 35 | 0 | +35 | 26th of 83 |
|
| Run differential per game | 0.65 | 0.00 | +0.65 | 26th of 83 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.11 | 5.00 | +0.11 | 36th of 83 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 4.46 | 5.00 | −0.54 | 22nd of 83 |
|
| Winning percentage | .481 | .500 | −.019 | 43rd of 83 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .562 | .500 | +.062 | 24th of 83 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -4.3 | -0.0 | −4.3 | 80th of 83 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .333 | .505 | −.172 | 73rd of 83 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .706 | .497 | +.209 | 12th of 83 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .667 | .490 | +.177 | 20th of 78 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .481 | .518 | −.038 | 44th of 83 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .481 | .482 | −.001 | 44th of 83 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .481 | .484 | −.003 | 40th of 78 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 7 | 5 | +1 | 13th of 83 |
|
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".