ACL Brewers
A-BRW · Arizona Complex League Arizona Complex League Central · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 23 | 19 | +3 | 19th of 81 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 19.2 | 18.9 | +0.3 | 31st of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 2309 | 1730 | +578 | 3rd of 81 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 99.7% | 99.2% | +0.5% | 57th 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 | 34 | 25 | +8 | 11th of 81 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 78.5% | 61.0% | +17.5% | 5th of 81 |
|
| Blown saves | 8 | 8 | — | 36th of 81 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -48 | 0 | −48 | 62nd of 81 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.80 | -0.00 | −0.80 | 59th of 81 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 6.23 | 6.26 | −0.03 | 39th of 81 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 7.03 | 6.27 | +0.76 | 60th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage | .433 | .500 | −.067 | 57th of 81 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .445 | .502 | −.057 | 59th of 81 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -0.7 | -0.1 | −0.6 | 50th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .643 | .493 | +.150 | 14th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .353 | .503 | −.150 | 61st of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .667 | .527 | +.140 | 25th of 58 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .367 | .560 | −.193 | 73rd of 81 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .500 | .440 | +.060 | 26th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .273 | .500 | −.227 | 74th of 81 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 3 | 4 | −1 | 61st 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".