FCL Pirates
F-PIR · Florida Complex League Florida Complex League South · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 30 | 20 | +9 | 7th of 81 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 19.3 | 18.9 | +0.5 | 28th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 2061 | 2137 | −76 | 43rd of 81 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 99.8% | 99.2% | +0.6% | 56th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 0 | 0 | — | 4th of 81 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 40 | 26 | +13 | 4th of 81 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 58.4% | 63.4% | −5.0% | 61st of 81 |
|
| Blown saves | 13 | 10 | +2 | 62nd of 81 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -4 | 0 | −4 | 46th of 81 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.07 | -0.00 | −0.07 | 46th of 81 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.46 | 6.20 | −0.74 | 63rd of 81 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 5.54 | 6.20 | −0.66 | 32nd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage | .464 | .500 | −.036 | 46th of 81 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .494 | .503 | −.009 | 46th of 81 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -1.7 | -0.2 | −1.5 | 61st of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .500 | .495 | +.005 | 37th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .480 | .500 | −.020 | 44th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | 1.000 | .525 | +.475 | 1st of 61 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .519 | .557 | −.038 | 48th of 81 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .414 | .442 | −.028 | 48th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .464 | .501 | −.037 | 52nd of 81 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 6 | 5 | — | 23rd 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".