RSW Mango Butter
Advanced · All seasons
Every rate on this page shows its denominator in the column beside it. A percentage drawn from fewer than 10 games (or 5 series) is still shown, marked like this — it is a real figure, it just should not be read as confidently as one built on eighty.
Series shape
| Format | Series | W–L | Avg games | Swept opp. | Were swept | Went the distance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best of 5 | 36 | 11–25 | 3.61 | 6 | 15 | 7 |
One row per format, never pooled. A career average across formats measures which seasons a club played, not how it plays: Seasons 0 and 2 ran best-of-3 regular seasons and the rest best-of-5. Sweeps and going the distance are counted against each format’s own target, so they do compare.
Home and away
| Side | Games | W–L | Win % | Stock diff | Series | Series W–L |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home | 60 | 20–40 | 33.3% | -35 | 16 | 5–11 |
| Away | 70 | 27–43 | 38.6% | -33 | 20 | 6–14 |
Read a gap here cautiously. Across all 1,146 games in league history the home side has won 51.9%, which is not distinguishable from a coin flip, and Season 3 leans the other way. One club’s split is a few dozen games a side.
With the series on the line
| Situation | Games | W–L | Win % | Stock diff |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facing eliminationA loss ends the series | 33 | 8–25 | 24.2% | -28 |
| On series pointA win ends the series | 20 | 11–9 | 55.0% | +4 |
| Winner take allThe last game of a full-length series | 7 | 3–4 | 42.9% (small sample) | 0 |
| ClutchGame 3 or later | 58 | 19–39 | 32.8% | -34 |
| Leading the seriesAhead going into the game | 28 | 16–12 | 57.1% | +6 |
| Series tiedLevel going into the game | 55 | 21–34 | 38.2% | -22 |
| Trailing the seriesBehind going into the game | 47 | 10–37 | 21.3% | -52 |
The state of the series going intoeach game. The last three rows partition every game; the first four overlap each other and them — a winner-take-all game is also facing elimination, on series point and clutch. Clutch is game 3 or later, the league’s own definition. Whether a game is on the brink is judged by the wins that actually took the series, not by the stored best-of, which is wrong for seven Season 1 playoff series.
After game 1
| Series state | Series | W–L | Conversion |
|---|---|---|---|
| After winning game 1Series taken from an opening win | 15 | 8–7 | 53.3% |
| After losing game 1Series taken from an opening loss | 21 | 3–18 | 14.3% |
| After leading by twoSeries where this club went two games clear | 10 | 9–1 | 90.0% |
| After trailing by twoSeries where this club fell two games behind | 22 | 0–22 | 0.0% |
Series, not games. Comebacks are rare everywhere — league-wide only about one series in twenty is won from two games down — so a club’s own count is usually a handful, and most conversion rates here will carry the small-sample mark.
By game in the series
Where RSW Mango Butter wins and loses within a series. Bars are scaled to the busiest position, so length reads as how often and the split as how it went.
Character deployment
| Character | Games | W | L | Win % | Opens | Closes | Stock diff |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 1 | 2 | 33.3% (small sample) | 133% | 133% | -1 | |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% (small sample) | 1100% | 00% | -2 | |
| 8 | 8 | 0 | 100.0% (small sample) | 113% | 113% | +10 | |
| 19 | 3 | 16 | 15.8% | 526% | 842% | -21 | |
| 10 | 4 | 6 | 40.0% | 220% | 110% | -7 | |
| 4 | 0 | 4 | 0.0% (small sample) | 125% | 125% | -5 | |
| 27 | 10 | 17 | 37.0% | 933% | 1037% | -14 | |
| 21 | 9 | 12 | 42.9% | 838% | 419% | -6 | |
| 27 | 7 | 20 | 25.9% | 415% | 726% | -19 | |
| 10 | 5 | 5 | 50.0% | 440% | 330% | -3 |
Opens is game 1; closes is the game that ended a series of three or more. These are real roles rather than trivia, because of a league rule visible nowhere in the data: a character that wins a game does not play again in that series — league-wide a winner is followed by a different character 99.9% of the time, a loser only 68%. A club cannot ride its best pick, so something else has to close.
Stage by character
| Stage | Character | Games | W | L | Win % | Stock diff |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small Battlefield | 10 | 4 | 6 | 40.0% | -6 | |
| Small Battlefield | 7 | 2 | 5 | 28.6% (small sample) | -5 | |
| Smashville | 7 | 2 | 5 | 28.6% (small sample) | -6 | |
| Small Battlefield | 6 | 1 | 5 | 16.7% (small sample) | -5 | |
| Hollow Bastion | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0.0% (small sample) | -9 | |
| Hollow Bastion | 5 | 2 | 3 | 40.0% (small sample) | -3 | |
| Pokémon Stadium 2 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 20.0% (small sample) | -6 | |
| Battlefield | 4 | 2 | 2 | 50.0% (small sample) | +1 | |
| Hollow Bastion | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0.0% (small sample) | -5 | |
| Smashville | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0.0% (small sample) | -7 | |
| Smashville | 4 | 1 | 3 | 25.0% (small sample) | -3 | |
| Town and City | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0.0% (small sample) | -5 | |
| Battlefield | 3 | 1 | 2 | 33.3% (small sample) | -1 | |
| Final Destination | 3 | 2 | 1 | 66.7% (small sample) | 0 | |
| Kalos Pokémon League | 3 | 2 | 1 | 66.7% (small sample) | +2 | |
| Pokémon Stadium 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 33.3% (small sample) | -3 | |
| Pokémon Stadium 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 66.7% (small sample) | 0 | |
| Small Battlefield | 3 | 1 | 2 | 33.3% (small sample) | -3 | |
| Battlefield | 2 | 2 | 0 | 100.0% (small sample) | +2 | |
| Dreamland | 2 | 2 | 0 | 100.0% (small sample) | +2 | |
| Dreamland | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.0% (small sample) | -2 | |
| Final Destination | 2 | 1 | 1 | 50.0% (small sample) | 0 | |
| Hollow Bastion | 2 | 1 | 1 | 50.0% (small sample) | -1 | |
| Kalos Pokémon League | 2 | 1 | 1 | 50.0% (small sample) | 0 |
The interaction the overview’s stage table cannot show: which stage a particular pick actually wins on. Cells go thin fast — league-wide only about a tenth of character-by-stage combinations reach 10 games — so most rates here carry the small-sample mark. Showing the top 24 of 56 combinations for the current sort, so re-sorting changes which rows appear. The club’s plain stage splits are on the overview.