Louisville Bats
LOU · International League International League West · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 32 | 32 | — | 18th of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 27.4 | 26.9 | +0.5 | 10th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 2371 | 2176 | +194 | 14th of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 37.5% | 35.4% | +2.1% | 12th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 7 | 105 | −98 | 16th of 30 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 46 | 45 | — | 12th of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 76.8% | 73.8% | +3.0% | 10th of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 27 | 27 | — | 15th of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -78 | 0 | −78 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.52 | 0.00 | −0.52 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 4.71 | 5.31 | −0.60 | 26th of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 5.23 | 5.31 | −0.08 | 17th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .439 | .500 | −.061 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .452 | .501 | −.049 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -1.9 | -0.1 | −1.8 | 20th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .500 | .503 | −.003 | 15th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .375 | .501 | −.126 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .800 | .507 | +.293 | 2nd of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .486 | .516 | −.030 | 20th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .392 | .484 | −.092 | 28th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .439 | .501 | −.062 | 26th 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".