FCL Red Sox
F-RSX · Florida Complex League Florida Complex League South · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 22 | 20 | +1 | 26th of 81 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 19.4 | 18.9 | +0.5 | 25th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 2008 | 2137 | −129 | 49th of 81 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 97.8% | 99.2% | −1.4% | 68th 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 | 28 | 26 | +1 | 29th of 81 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 58.6% | 63.4% | −4.8% | 59th of 81 |
|
| Blown saves | 14 | 10 | +3 | 66th of 81 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -17 | 0 | −17 | 52nd of 81 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.30 | -0.00 | −0.30 | 52nd of 81 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 6.89 | 6.20 | +0.69 | 19th of 81 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 7.20 | 6.20 | +1.00 | 64th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage | .411 | .500 | −.089 | 61st of 81 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .480 | .503 | −.023 | 53rd of 81 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -3.9 | -0.2 | −3.7 | 75th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .533 | .496 | +.037 | 29th 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 | .310 | .443 | −.133 | 62nd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .411 | .501 | −.090 | 58th of 81 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 4 | 5 | −1 | 46th 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".