Louisville Bats
LOU · International League International League West · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 28 | 28 | — | 16th of 30 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 27.1 | 26.9 | +0.2 | 14th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 1809 | 1629 | +179 | 13th of 30 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 39.7% | 35.2% | +4.5% | 11th of 30 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 7 | 81 | −74 | 15th of 30 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 41 | 39 | +1 | 10th of 30 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 76.0% | 72.4% | +3.6% | 11th of 30 |
|
| Blown saves | 21 | 20 | — | 16th of 30 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | -52 | 0 | −52 | 24th of 30 |
|
| Run differential per game | -0.46 | 0.00 | −0.46 | 25th of 30 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 5.08 | 5.44 | −0.36 | 22nd of 30 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 5.54 | 5.44 | +0.10 | 20th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage | .455 | .500 | −.045 | 24th of 30 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .460 | .501 | −.041 | 25th of 30 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -0.5 | -0.1 | −0.4 | 18th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .545 | .503 | +.042 | 10th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .375 | .499 | −.124 | 27th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .800 | .504 | +.296 | 2nd of 30 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .482 | .518 | −.036 | 24th of 30 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .429 | .482 | −.053 | 24th of 30 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .455 | .501 | −.046 | 23rd of 30 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 4 | 5 | −1 | 24th 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".