DSL Rojos
D-ROJ · 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 | 17.9 | 18.9 | −1.0 | 69th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 1894 | 2090 | −196 | 57th 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 | 22 | 26 | −4 | 54th of 81 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 62.5% | 63.0% | −0.5% | 44th of 81 |
|
| Blown saves | 12 | 9 | +2 | 56th of 81 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -74 | 0 | −74 | 64th of 81 |
|
| Run differential per game | -1.40 | -0.00 | −1.40 | 64th of 81 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.40 | 6.20 | −0.80 | 64th of 81 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 6.79 | 6.20 | +0.59 | 52nd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage | .415 | .500 | −.085 | 59th of 81 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .396 | .503 | −.107 | 66th of 81 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | 1.0 | -0.2 | +1.2 | 25th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .692 | .494 | +.198 | 6th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .250 | .502 | −.252 | 68th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .500 | .525 | −.025 | 30th of 61 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .462 | .557 | −.095 | 64th of 81 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .370 | .443 | −.073 | 53rd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .387 | .501 | −.114 | 62nd 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".