DSL Twins
D-TWI · Dominican Summer League Dominican Summer League East · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 15 | 20 | −5 | 71st of 81 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 17.6 | 18.9 | −1.3 | 80th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 1961 | 2137 | −176 | 59th 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 | 27 | 26 | — | 33rd of 81 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 72.2% | 63.4% | +8.8% | 12th of 81 |
|
| Blown saves | 11 | 10 | — | 46th of 81 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -113 | 0 | −113 | 71st of 81 |
|
| Run differential per game | -2.09 | -0.00 | −2.09 | 72nd of 81 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 6.87 | 6.20 | +0.67 | 22nd of 81 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 8.96 | 6.20 | +2.76 | 79th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage | .352 | .500 | −.148 | 71st of 81 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .381 | .503 | −.122 | 69th of 81 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -1.6 | -0.2 | −1.4 | 58th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .462 | .496 | −.034 | 50th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .250 | .500 | −.250 | 69th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | 1.000 | .525 | +.475 | 1st of 61 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .423 | .557 | −.134 | 71st of 81 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .286 | .443 | −.157 | 67th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .375 | .501 | −.126 | 64th of 81 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 5 | 5 | — | 29th 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".