Round Rock Express
RR · Pacific Coast League Pacific Coast League East · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 27 | 27 | — | 17th of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 27.7 | 26.9 | +0.9 | 8th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 792 | 1526 | −734 | 25th of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 18.3% | 34.9% | −16.6% | 25th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 77 | 78 | −1 | 11th of 30 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 46 | 37 | +8 | 3rd of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 64.3% | 71.8% | −7.4% | 29th of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 21 | 18 | +2 | 20th of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -46 | 0 | −46 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.42 | 0.00 | −0.42 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.44 | 5.42 | +0.02 | 13th of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 5.85 | 5.42 | +0.43 | 24th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .473 | .500 | −.027 | 21st of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .466 | .501 | −.035 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | 0.7 | -0.1 | +0.8 | 12th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .459 | .504 | −.044 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .419 | .500 | −.081 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .571 | .505 | +.066 | 12th of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .431 | .519 | −.088 | 25th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .508 | .481 | +.027 | 12th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .509 | .502 | +.007 | 14th of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 5 | 5 | — | 18th of 30 |
|
Rank is among the AAA 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".