Trevor Cahill
P Syracuse Mets| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 32 | MLBSF | 11 | 6 | 25 | 3.24 | 3.86 | 29.2% | 13.2% | 0.5 | ||
| 2021 | 33 | MLBPIT | 9 | 8 | 37 | 6.57 | 3.91 | 19.3% | 8.4% | 0.7 | ||
| 2022 | 34 | MIX2 levels | 9 | 7 | 21 | 6.53 | 6.49 | 20.0% | 19.0% | — | K 15.1% · BB 20.2% · FIP 6.74 | |
| 2023 | 35 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2024 | 36 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2025 | 37 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2026 | 38 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
Statcast · Contract
Contract
No contract data on file. Pre-MLB players and minor-league free agents do not yet have salary projections — entries are added at first 40-man roster placement.
Career Stats + Projections
Methodology▸ how WAR & MLE are computed
Stats are park-neutral MLB equivalents. The "TEAM" column shows current org affiliation only — we do NOT project at that team's park.
Rates (K%, BB%, HR-BF) are park-stripped; MiLB stat lines are translated to their MLB-equivalent via per-level MLE factors.
WAR is computed from projected runs prevented vs a replacement pitcher (the marginal arm a team would call up if this pitcher were unavailable) — calibrated to the standard WAR scale.
| Year | Age | Lvl | Team | G | GS | IP | BF | K | BB | HR | GS% | IP/G | K% | BB% | K-BB% | HR% | ERA | FIP | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ Career — actual stats, one row per year (as recorded, no adjustments) | |||||||||||||||||||
| ▸ Career — adjusted (each season translated to a park/league-neutral MLB-equivalent line; levels combined per year) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2009 | 21 | MLB MLE | Oakland Athletics | 32 | 32 | 179 | 773 | 90 | 71 | 27 | 100% | 5.6 | 11.6% | 9.2% | 2.5% | 3.5% | 4.63 | 5.20 | +0.4 |
| 2009 | 21 | MLB RAW | Oakland Athletics | 32 | 32 | 179 | 773 | 90 | 71 | 27 | 100% | 5.6 | 11.6% | 9.2% | 2.5% | 3.5% | 4.63 | 5.25 | +0.3 |
| 2010 | 22 | MLB MLE | Oakland Athletics | 30 | 30 | 197 | 783 | 118 | 62 | 19 | 100% | 6.6 | 15.1% | 7.9% | 7.2% | 2.7% | 2.97 | 4.29 | +2.6 |
| 2010 | 22 | MLB RAW | Oakland Athletics | 30 | 30 | 197 | 783 | 118 | 62 | 19 | 100% | 6.6 | 15.1% | 7.9% | 7.2% | 2.4% | 2.97 | 4.10 | +3.0 |
| 2011 | 23 | MLB MLE | Oakland Athletics | 34 | 34 | 208 | 901 | 147 | 81 | 19 | 100% | 6.1 | 16.3% | 9.0% | 7.3% | 2.3% | 4.16 | 4.13 | +3.1 |
| 2011 | 23 | MLB RAW | Oakland Athletics | 34 | 34 | 208 | 901 | 147 | 81 | 19 | 100% | 6.1 | 16.3% | 9.0% | 7.3% | 2.1% | 4.16 | 4.04 | +3.4 |
| 2012 | 24 | MLB MLE | Arizona Diamondbacks | 32 | 32 | 200 | 839 | 156 | 74 | 16 | 100% | 6.2 | 18.6% | 8.8% | 9.8% | 1.9% | 3.78 | 3.68 | +4.2 |
| 2012 | 24 | MLB RAW | Arizona Diamondbacks | 32 | 32 | 200 | 839 | 156 | 74 | 16 | 100% | 6.2 | 18.6% | 8.8% | 9.8% | 1.9% | 3.78 | 3.69 | +4.2 |
| 2013 | 25 | MLB MLE | Arizona Diamondbacks | 26 | 25 | 147 | 636 | 102 | 63 | 13 | 96% | 5.6 | 16.0% | 9.9% | 6.1% | 2.0% | 3.99 | 4.11 | +2.2 |
| 2013 | 25 | MLB RAW | Arizona Diamondbacks | 26 | 25 | 147 | 636 | 102 | 63 | 13 | 96% | 5.6 | 16.0% | 9.9% | 6.1% | 2.0% | 3.99 | 4.15 | +2.2 |
| 2014 | 26 | MLB MLE | Arizona Diamondbacks | 32 | 17 | 111 | 499 | 105 | 53 | 9 | 53% | 3.5 | 21.0% | 10.6% | 10.4% | 1.8% | 5.61 | 3.65 | +2.3 |
| 2014 | 26 | MLB RAW | Arizona Diamondbacks | 32 | 17 | 111 | 499 | 105 | 53 | 9 | 53% | 3.5 | 21.0% | 10.6% | 10.4% | 1.8% | 5.61 | 3.70 | +2.3 |
| 2015 | 27 | MIX MLE | 4 levels | 39 | 10 | 85 | 371 | 72 | 34 | 7 | 26% | 2.2 | 16.4% | 9.4% | 7.0% | 2.2% | 4.85 | 4.13 | +0.4 |
| 2015 | 27 | MIX RAW | 4 levels | 39 | 10 | 85 | 371 | 72 | 34 | 7 | 26% | 2.2 | 19.4% | 9.2% | 10.2% | 1.9% | 4.85 | 3.67 | +0.9 |
| 2016 | 28 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 56 | 7 | 85 | 379 | 91 | 44 | 10 | 12% | 1.5 | 23.2% | 11.8% | 11.5% | 2.9% | 3.16 | 4.22 | +0.3 |
| 2016 | 28 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 56 | 7 | 85 | 379 | 91 | 44 | 10 | 12% | 1.5 | 24.0% | 11.6% | 12.4% | 2.6% | 3.16 | 4.04 | +0.5 |
| 2017 | 29 | MIX MLE | 3 levels | 23 | 16 | 90 | 408 | 94 | 46 | 17 | 70% | 3.9 | 22.8% | 11.5% | 11.3% | 4.5% | 5.02 | 5.13 | +0.3 |
| 2017 | 29 | MIX RAW | 3 levels | 23 | 16 | 90 | 408 | 94 | 46 | 17 | 70% | 3.9 | 23.0% | 11.3% | 11.8% | 4.2% | 5.02 | 5.01 | +0.4 |
| 2018 | 30 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 24 | 23 | 124 | 506 | 117 | 49 | 8 | 96% | 5.2 | 22.7% | 9.8% | 13.0% | 1.7% | 3.64 | 3.37 | +3.1 |
| 2018 | 30 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 24 | 23 | 124 | 506 | 117 | 49 | 8 | 96% | 5.2 | 23.1% | 9.7% | 13.4% | 1.6% | 3.64 | 3.24 | +3.3 |
| 2019 | 31 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 38 | 12 | 105 | 469 | 86 | 40 | 27 | 32% | 2.8 | 17.8% | 8.6% | 9.2% | 5.4% | 6.45 | 5.64 | -1.3 |
| 2019 | 31 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 38 | 12 | 105 | 469 | 86 | 40 | 27 | 32% | 2.8 | 18.3% | 8.5% | 9.8% | 5.8% | 6.45 | 5.96 | -1.7 |
| 2020 | 32 | MLB MLE | San Francisco Giants | 11 | 6 | 25 | 106 | 31 | 14 | 3 | 55% | 2.3 | 29.2% | 13.2% | 16.0% | 3.1% | 3.24 | 3.98 | +0.4 |
| 2020 | 32 | MLB RAW | San Francisco Giants | 11 | 6 | 25 | 106 | 31 | 14 | 3 | 55% | 2.3 | 29.2% | 13.2% | 16.0% | 2.8% | 3.24 | 3.86 | +0.5 |
| 2021 | 33 | MLB MLE | Pittsburgh Pirates | 9 | 8 | 37 | 166 | 32 | 14 | 4 | 89% | 4.1 | 19.3% | 8.4% | 10.8% | 2.6% | 6.57 | 3.97 | +0.6 |
| 2021 | 33 | MLB RAW | Pittsburgh Pirates | 9 | 8 | 37 | 166 | 32 | 14 | 4 | 89% | 4.1 | 19.3% | 8.4% | 10.8% | 2.4% | 6.57 | 3.91 | +0.7 |
| 2022 | 34 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 9 | 7 | 21 | 105 | 21 | 20 | 4 | 78% | 2.3 | 15.1% | 20.2% | -5.0% | 4.3% | 6.53 | 6.74 | — |
| 2022 | 34 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 9 | 7 | 21 | 105 | 21 | 20 | 4 | 78% | 2.3 | 20.0% | 19.0% | 1.0% | 3.8% | 6.53 | 6.49 | — |
| ▸ Career totals (raw MLB only — as recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| MLB Career | — | 361 | 233 | 1508 | 6460 | 1151 | 603 | 170 | 65% | 4.2 | 17.8% | 9.3% | 8.5% | 2.6% | 4.26 | 4.24 | +20.6 | ||
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 361 | 233 | 1508 | 6460 | 1151 | 603 | 170 | 65% | 4.2 | 17.8% | 9.3% | 8.5% | 2.6% | 4.26 | 4.22 | +20.9 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 48 | 31 | 200 | 857 | 153 | 80 | 23 | 65% | 4.2 | 17.8% | 9.3% | 8.5% | 2.6% | 4.26 | 4.22 | +2.8 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 395 | 259 | 1612 | 6941 | 1237 | 669 | 190 | 66% | 4.1 | 17.8% | 9.6% | 8.2% | 2.7% | 4.32 | 4.32 | +20.6 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 49 | 32 | 200 | 861 | 154 | 83 | 24 | 66% | 4.1 | 17.8% | 9.6% | 8.2% | 2.7% | 4.32 | 4.32 | +2.7 | |
How the minor-league lines were translated
One row per minor-league stint. Open a row to see each step: the raw rate, the park adjustment, the league/level factor, the age adjustment (hitters) and the resulting MLE rate. Factors are the same ones listed on the MLE Factors page.
2022 AAASyracuse Mets · 19 IPFIP 6.30 → 6.74 (+0.44)K% 17.2% → 15.1%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 17.17% | — | ×0.880 | 15.11% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 19.19% | — | ×1.050 | 20.15% |
| HR / BF /BF | 4.04% | ÷1.033 | ×1.100 | 4.30% |
Factors used: pitcher AAA level factors — K ×0.88, BB ×1.05, HR ×1.10. Pitcher translation is level-wide (no per-league rows, no age adjustment); HR/BF is park-adjusted at half strength (park HR factor 107).
Result: FIP 6.30 → 6.74, computed from the rates in the table with the same formula before and after. The MLE line is not regressed to the mean — regression is applied when seasons are blended into a projection (how).
2018 AAANashville Sounds · 14 IPFIP 2.35 → 2.74 (+0.40)K% 30.4% → 26.7%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 30.36% | — | ×0.880 | 26.71% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 14.29% | — | ×1.050 | 15.00% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷0.988 | ×1.100 | 0.00% |
Factors used: pitcher AAA level factors — K ×0.88, BB ×1.05, HR ×1.10. Pitcher translation is level-wide (no per-league rows, no age adjustment); HR/BF is park-adjusted at half strength (park HR factor 98).
Result: FIP 2.35 → 2.74, computed from the rates in the table with the same formula before and after. The MLE line is not regressed to the mean — regression is applied when seasons are blended into a projection (how).
2016 AAAIowa Cubs · 20 IPFIP 4.21 → 4.97 (+0.75)K% 26.3% → 23.2%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 26.32% | — | ×0.880 | 23.16% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 12.63% | — | ×1.050 | 13.26% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.16% | ÷0.890 | ×1.100 | 3.90% |
Factors used: pitcher AAA level factors — K ×0.88, BB ×1.05, HR ×1.10. Pitcher translation is level-wide (no per-league rows, no age adjustment); HR/BF is park-adjusted at half strength (park HR factor 78).
Result: FIP 4.21 → 4.97, computed from the rates in the table with the same formula before and after. The MLE line is not regressed to the mean — regression is applied when seasons are blended into a projection (how).
2015 AAAIowa Cubs · 36 IPFIP 4.20 → 4.62 (+0.42)K% 14.9% → 13.1%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 14.91% | — | ×0.880 | 13.12% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 10.56% | — | ×1.050 | 11.09% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.86% | ÷0.916 | ×1.100 | 2.24% |
Factors used: pitcher AAA level factors — K ×0.88, BB ×1.05, HR ×1.10. Pitcher translation is level-wide (no per-league rows, no age adjustment); HR/BF is park-adjusted at half strength (park HR factor 83).
Result: FIP 4.20 → 4.62, computed from the rates in the table with the same formula before and after. The MLE line is not regressed to the mean — regression is applied when seasons are blended into a projection (how).