DSL Braves
D-BRV · Dominican Summer League Dominican Summer League North · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 16 | 20 | −4 | 56th of 81 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 17.8 | 18.9 | −1.1 | 77th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 1655 | 2041 | −386 | 80th of 81 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 100.0% | 99.2% | +0.8% | 1st 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 | 26 | 26 | — | 34th of 81 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 76.3% | 63.1% | +13.3% | 8th of 81 |
|
| Blown saves | 8 | 9 | −1 | 26th of 81 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -121 | 0 | −121 | 75th of 81 |
|
| Run differential per game | -2.42 | 0.00 | −2.42 | 78th of 81 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.10 | 6.19 | −1.09 | 71st of 81 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 7.52 | 6.19 | +1.33 | 72nd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage | .280 | .500 | −.220 | 78th of 81 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .329 | .503 | −.174 | 76th of 81 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -2.4 | -0.1 | −2.3 | 66th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .444 | .493 | −.049 | 52nd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .160 | .503 | −.343 | 80th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .000 | .524 | −.524 | 41st of 59 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .440 | .558 | −.118 | 65th of 81 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .120 | .441 | −.321 | 81st of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .259 | .501 | −.242 | 77th of 81 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 1 | 5 | −4 | 81st 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".