Tacoma Rainiers
TAC · Pacific Coast League Pacific Coast League West · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 30 | 26 | +3 | 5th of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 28.3 | 26.9 | +1.3 | 6th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 395 | 1423 | −1028 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 9.3% | 34.5% | −25.2% | 27th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 257 | 74 | +182 | 1st of 30 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 26 | 36 | −10 | 30th of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 67.2% | 71.6% | −4.4% | 22nd of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 17 | 17 | — | 14th of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | 23 | 0 | +23 | 13th of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | 0.22 | 0.00 | +0.22 | 13th of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.27 | 5.41 | −0.14 | 17th of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 5.06 | 5.41 | −0.35 | 14th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .425 | .500 | −.075 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .519 | .501 | +.018 | 13th of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -10.0 | -0.1 | −9.9 | 30th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .324 | .505 | −.181 | 30th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .607 | .501 | +.106 | 5th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .250 | .495 | −.245 | 25th of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .436 | .518 | −.082 | 26th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .412 | .482 | −.070 | 26th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .361 | .502 | −.141 | 28th of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 4 | 5 | −1 | 24th 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".