Round Rock Express
RR · Pacific Coast League Pacific Coast League East · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 28 | 28 | — | 18th of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 27.7 | 26.9 | +0.8 | 8th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 897 | 1687 | −790 | 26th of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 19.0% | 35.1% | −16.1% | 26th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 77 | 84 | −7 | 11th of 30 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 50 | 40 | +9 | 3rd of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 61.6% | 72.6% | −11.0% | 30th of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 28 | 21 | +6 | 25th of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -51 | 0 | −51 | 25th of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.43 | 0.00 | −0.43 | 25th of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.38 | 5.41 | −0.03 | 14th of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 5.81 | 5.41 | +0.40 | 24th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .467 | .500 | −.033 | 22nd of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .465 | .501 | −.036 | 24th of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | 0.2 | -0.1 | +0.3 | 16th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .450 | .502 | −.052 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .429 | .500 | −.071 | 22nd of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .625 | .514 | +.111 | 8th of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .421 | .519 | −.098 | 26th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .508 | .481 | +.027 | 10th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .492 | .500 | −.008 | 17th of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 5 | 5 | — | 18th 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".