Albuquerque Isotopes
ABQ · Pacific Coast League Pacific Coast League East · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 28 | 32 | −4 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 26.7 | 26.9 | −0.2 | 19th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 2469 | 2077 | +391 | 9th of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 41.9% | 34.9% | +7.0% | 9th 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 | 44 | 44 | — | 16th of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 82.0% | 73.7% | +8.3% | 3rd of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 36 | 26 | +9 | 26th of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -21 | 0 | −21 | 19th of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.14 | -0.00 | −0.14 | 19th of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 6.50 | 5.33 | +1.17 | 1st of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 6.65 | 5.33 | +1.32 | 28th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .490 | .500 | −.010 | 17th of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .490 | .501 | −.011 | 19th of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | 0.0 | -0.2 | +0.2 | 12th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .389 | .502 | −.113 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .531 | .502 | +.029 | 11th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .538 | .508 | +.030 | 14th of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .457 | .519 | −.062 | 25th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .520 | .481 | +.039 | 9th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .563 | .501 | +.062 | 7th of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 7 | 6 | — | 6th 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".