DSL Twins
D-TWI · Dominican Summer League Dominican Summer League East · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 15 | 20 | −5 | 62nd of 81 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 17.6 | 18.9 | −1.3 | 80th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 1695 | 1947 | −252 | 65th 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 | 26 | 25 | — | 34th of 81 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 72.2% | 62.4% | +9.8% | 12th of 81 |
|
| Blown saves | 8 | 9 | −1 | 28th of 81 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -118 | 0 | −118 | 74th of 81 |
|
| Run differential per game | -2.57 | -0.00 | −2.57 | 78th of 81 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 6.35 | 6.21 | +0.14 | 36th of 81 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 8.91 | 6.22 | +2.69 | 79th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage | .326 | .500 | −.174 | 73rd of 81 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .350 | .502 | −.152 | 72nd of 81 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -1.1 | -0.1 | −1.0 | 53rd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .455 | .492 | −.037 | 52nd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .200 | .503 | −.303 | 74th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | 1.000 | .524 | +.476 | 1st of 59 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .435 | .560 | −.125 | 68th of 81 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .217 | .440 | −.223 | 74th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .346 | .501 | −.155 | 66th of 81 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 3 | 5 | −2 | 62nd 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".