FCL Phillies
F-PHI · Florida Complex League Florida Complex League North · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 23 | 20 | +2 | 20th of 81 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 20.0 | 18.9 | +1.1 | 16th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 2107 | 2137 | −30 | 37th of 81 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 99.4% | 99.2% | +0.2% | 60th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 9 | 0 | +8 | 3rd of 81 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 27 | 26 | — | 33rd of 81 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 64.3% | 63.4% | +1.0% | 33rd of 81 |
|
| Blown saves | 6 | 10 | −4 | 5th of 81 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -121 | 0 | −121 | 74th of 81 |
|
| Run differential per game | -2.05 | -0.00 | −2.05 | 71st of 81 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.03 | 6.20 | −1.17 | 72nd of 81 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 7.08 | 6.20 | +0.88 | 63rd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage | .373 | .500 | −.127 | 68th of 81 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .349 | .503 | −.154 | 73rd of 81 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | 1.4 | -0.2 | +1.6 | 19th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .500 | .496 | +.004 | 37th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .182 | .500 | −.318 | 76th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | 1.000 | .525 | +.475 | 1st of 61 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .414 | .557 | −.143 | 72nd of 81 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .333 | .443 | −.110 | 58th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .373 | .501 | −.128 | 66th of 81 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 4 | 5 | −1 | 47th 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".