DSL Arizona Red
D-ARR · Dominican Summer League Dominican Summer League South · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 16 | 20 | −4 | 56th of 81 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 18.2 | 18.9 | −0.7 | 55th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 2286 | 2137 | +148 | 20th 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 | 57th of 81 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 72.2% | 63.4% | +8.8% | 13th of 81 |
|
| Blown saves | 8 | 10 | −2 | 20th of 81 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | 55 | 0 | +55 | 21st of 81 |
|
| Run differential per game | 1.00 | -0.00 | +1.00 | 21st of 81 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 6.27 | 6.20 | +0.07 | 38th of 81 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 5.27 | 6.20 | −0.93 | 21st of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage | .600 | .500 | +.100 | 18th of 81 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .579 | .503 | +.076 | 21st of 81 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | 1.2 | -0.2 | +1.4 | 22nd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .526 | .496 | +.030 | 34th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .714 | .501 | +.213 | 12th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | 1.000 | .525 | +.475 | 1st of 61 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .607 | .557 | +.050 | 31st of 81 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .593 | .443 | +.150 | 15th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .563 | .501 | +.062 | 30th of 81 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 4 | 5 | −1 | 46th 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".