DSL Padres Gold
D-PAG · Dominican Summer League Dominican Summer League Northwest · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 16 | 20 | −4 | 56th of 81 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 18.6 | 18.9 | −0.2 | 38th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 2658 | 2137 | +520 | 5th 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 | 67.7% | 63.4% | +4.3% | 23rd of 81 |
|
| Blown saves | 14 | 10 | +3 | 66th of 81 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | 155 | 0 | +155 | 1st of 81 |
|
| Run differential per game | 2.77 | -0.00 | +2.77 | 1st of 81 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 8.00 | 6.20 | +1.80 | 3rd of 81 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 5.23 | 6.20 | −0.97 | 18th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage | .714 | .500 | +.214 | 3rd of 81 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .685 | .503 | +.182 | 2nd of 81 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | 1.6 | -0.2 | +1.8 | 16th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .647 | .496 | +.151 | 11th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .909 | .501 | +.408 | 1st of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .000 | .525 | −.525 | 42nd of 61 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .714 | .558 | +.156 | 7th of 81 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .714 | .442 | +.272 | 3rd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .719 | .501 | +.218 | 4th of 81 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 12 | 5 | +6 | 2nd 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".