Lehigh Valley IronPigs
LHV · International League International League East · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 34 | 32 | +1 | 7th of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 27.9 | 26.9 | +1.0 | 7th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 1992 | 2176 | −184 | 19th of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 31.8% | 35.4% | −3.6% | 20th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 260 | 105 | +154 | 7th of 30 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 45 | 45 | — | 15th of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 71.8% | 73.8% | −2.0% | 19th of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 18 | 27 | −9 | 2nd of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -120 | 0 | −120 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.81 | -0.00 | −0.81 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 4.82 | 5.31 | −0.49 | 25th of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 5.62 | 5.31 | +0.31 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .456 | .500 | −.044 | 22nd of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .430 | .501 | −.071 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | 3.9 | -0.1 | +4.0 | 4th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .447 | .502 | −.055 | 24th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .300 | .501 | −.201 | 29th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .583 | .509 | +.074 | 8th of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .520 | .516 | +.004 | 14th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .392 | .484 | −.092 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .448 | .501 | −.053 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 6 | 6 | — | 13th 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".