DSL Rojos
D-ROJ · Dominican Summer League Dominican Summer League Central · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 16 | 19 | −3 | 43rd of 81 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 17.8 | 18.9 | −1.1 | 71st of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 1483 | 1725 | −242 | 58th 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 | 18 | 24 | −6 | 63rd of 81 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 61.2% | 60.9% | +0.3% | 35th of 81 |
|
| Blown saves | 10 | 8 | +1 | 57th of 81 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -54 | 0 | −54 | 63rd of 81 |
|
| Run differential per game | -1.26 | -0.00 | −1.26 | 63rd of 81 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.49 | 6.27 | −0.78 | 63rd of 81 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 6.74 | 6.27 | +0.47 | 52nd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage | .442 | .500 | −.058 | 54th of 81 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .407 | .502 | −.095 | 63rd of 81 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | 1.5 | -0.1 | +1.6 | 17th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .700 | .494 | +.206 | 8th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .273 | .503 | −.230 | 68th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .000 | .527 | −.527 | 39th of 58 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .571 | .561 | +.010 | 40th of 81 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .318 | .439 | −.121 | 61st of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .440 | .500 | −.060 | 54th of 81 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 7 | 4 | +2 | 12th 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".