DSL Cubs Blue
D-CUB · Dominican Summer League Dominican Summer League Central · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 17 | 20 | −3 | 48th of 81 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 18.3 | 18.9 | −0.6 | 48th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 1991 | 2090 | −99 | 48th 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 | 18 | 26 | −8 | 77th of 81 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 60.1% | 63.0% | −2.9% | 52nd of 81 |
|
| Blown saves | 8 | 9 | −1 | 23rd of 81 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | 89 | 0 | +89 | 14th of 81 |
|
| Run differential per game | 1.71 | -0.00 | +1.71 | 12th of 81 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 6.19 | 6.20 | −0.01 | 41st of 81 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 4.48 | 6.20 | −1.72 | 4th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage | .615 | .500 | +.115 | 16th of 81 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .644 | .503 | +.141 | 10th of 81 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -1.5 | -0.2 | −1.3 | 54th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .385 | .494 | −.109 | 63rd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .783 | .502 | +.281 | 7th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .000 | .525 | −.525 | 42nd of 61 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .680 | .557 | +.123 | 19th of 81 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .556 | .443 | +.113 | 23rd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .567 | .501 | +.066 | 27th of 81 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 7 | 5 | +1 | 14th 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".