El Paso Chihuahuas
ELP · Pacific Coast League Pacific Coast League East · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 34 | 32 | +1 | 7th of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 28.2 | 26.9 | +1.4 | 4th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 295 | 2127 | −1832 | 30th of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 4.6% | 35.2% | −30.6% | 30th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 0 | 103 | −103 | 17th of 30 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 45 | 44 | — | 13th of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 64.7% | 73.8% | −9.1% | 30th of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 41 | 27 | +13 | 29th of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -140 | 0 | −140 | 29th of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.96 | -0.00 | −0.96 | 28th of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.87 | 5.32 | +0.55 | 5th of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 6.83 | 5.33 | +1.50 | 30th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .404 | .500 | −.096 | 29th of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .431 | .501 | −.070 | 26th of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -3.9 | -0.1 | −3.8 | 26th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .371 | .503 | −.132 | 28th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .350 | .501 | −.151 | 28th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .308 | .508 | −.200 | 26th of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .408 | .516 | −.108 | 28th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .400 | .484 | −.084 | 26th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .312 | .501 | −.189 | 30th of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 4 | 6 | −2 | 27th of 30 |
|
Rank is among the AAA 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".