Albuquerque Isotopes
ABQ · Pacific Coast League Pacific Coast League East · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 22 | 26 | −4 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 26.7 | 26.9 | −0.2 | 15th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 1838 | 1390 | +447 | 9th of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 45.3% | 34.6% | +10.8% | 9th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 0 | 64 | −64 | 15th of 30 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 35 | 36 | −1 | 14th of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 85.6% | 71.5% | +14.2% | 1st of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 17 | 17 | — | 14th of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -50 | 0 | −50 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.48 | 0.00 | −0.48 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 6.35 | 5.42 | +0.93 | 2nd of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 6.83 | 5.42 | +1.41 | 28th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .490 | .500 | −.010 | 15th of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .467 | .501 | −.034 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | 2.4 | -0.1 | +2.5 | 10th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .429 | .506 | −.076 | 24th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .479 | .500 | −.021 | 18th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .857 | .496 | +.362 | 1st of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .490 | .518 | −.028 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .491 | .482 | +.009 | 12th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .554 | .502 | +.052 | 9th of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 7 | 5 | +1 | 4th 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".