Daniel Corcino
P Oklahoma City Dodgers| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 26 | MIX2 levels | 23 | 2 | 41 | 4.20 | 3.30 | 27.7% | 10.2% | — | K 21.7% · BB 11.4% · FIP 3.93 | |
| 2018 | 27 | MIX3 levels | 30 | 19 | 115 | 3.37 | 3.46 | 23.3% | 9.4% | 2.7 | K 20.8% · BB 10.0% · FIP 3.84 | |
| 2019 | 28 | AAAOklahoma City… | 24 | 21 | 119 | 4.90 | 5.60 | 19.9% | 11.6% | — | K 17.5% · BB 12.2% · FIP 5.83 | |
| 2020 | 29 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2021 | 30 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2022 | 31 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2023 | 32 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2024 | 33 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2025 | 34 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2026 | 35 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
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) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 | 23 | MLB MLE | Cincinnati Reds | 5 | 3 | 19 | 80 | 15 | 10 | 2 | 60% | 3.7 | 18.8% | 12.5% | 6.2% | 2.3% | 4.34 | 4.37 | +0.2 |
| 2014 | 23 | MLB RAW | Cincinnati Reds | 5 | 3 | 19 | 80 | 15 | 10 | 2 | 60% | 3.7 | 18.8% | 12.5% | 6.2% | 2.5% | 4.34 | 4.49 | +0.2 |
| 2015 | 24 | AA MLE | Tulsa Drillers | 4 | 2 | 7 | 37 | 11 | 8 | 0 | 50% | 1.7 | 29.7% | 21.6% | 8.1% | 0.0% | 8.10 | 3.33 | — |
| 2015 | 24 | AA RAW | Tulsa Drillers | 4 | 2 | 7 | 37 | 11 | 8 | 0 | 50% | 1.7 | 29.7% | 21.6% | 8.1% | 0.0% | 8.10 | 3.40 | — |
| 2016 | 25 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 30 | 0 | 41 | 169 | 35 | 12 | 4 | 0% | 1.4 | 17.2% | 7.5% | 9.7% | 3.2% | 3.32 | 4.37 | — |
| 2016 | 25 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 30 | 0 | 41 | 169 | 35 | 12 | 4 | 0% | 1.4 | 20.7% | 7.1% | 13.6% | 2.4% | 3.32 | 3.54 | — |
| 2017 | 26 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 23 | 2 | 41 | 177 | 49 | 18 | 4 | 9% | 1.8 | 21.7% | 11.4% | 10.3% | 2.2% | 4.20 | 3.93 | — |
| 2017 | 26 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 23 | 2 | 41 | 177 | 49 | 18 | 4 | 9% | 1.8 | 27.7% | 10.2% | 17.5% | 2.3% | 4.20 | 3.30 | — |
| 2018 | 27 | MIX MLE | 3 levels | 30 | 19 | 115 | 481 | 112 | 45 | 10 | 63% | 3.8 | 20.8% | 10.0% | 10.8% | 2.3% | 3.37 | 3.84 | +2.1 |
| 2018 | 27 | MIX RAW | 3 levels | 30 | 19 | 115 | 481 | 112 | 45 | 10 | 63% | 3.8 | 23.3% | 9.4% | 13.9% | 2.1% | 3.37 | 3.46 | +2.7 |
| 2019 | 28 | AAA MLE | Oklahoma City Dodgers | 24 | 21 | 119 | 527 | 105 | 61 | 25 | 88% | 5.0 | 17.5% | 12.2% | 5.4% | 4.9% | 4.90 | 5.83 | — |
| 2019 | 28 | AAA RAW | Oklahoma City Dodgers | 24 | 21 | 119 | 527 | 105 | 61 | 25 | 88% | 5.0 | 19.9% | 11.6% | 8.3% | 4.7% | 4.90 | 5.60 | — |
| ▸ Career totals (raw MLB only — as recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| MLB Career | — | 7 | 3 | 23 | 98 | 16 | 13 | 2 | 43% | 3.2 | 16.3% | 13.3% | 3.1% | 2.0% | 3.97 | 4.56 | -0.0 | ||
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 7 | 3 | 23 | 98 | 16 | 13 | 2 | 43% | 3.2 | 16.3% | 13.3% | 3.1% | 2.0% | 3.97 | 4.52 | +0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 62 | 26 | 200 | 865 | 141 | 115 | 18 | 43% | 3.2 | 16.3% | 13.3% | 3.1% | 2.0% | 3.97 | 4.52 | +0.1 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 116 | 47 | 341 | 1471 | 286 | 163 | 48 | 41% | 2.9 | 19.4% | 11.1% | 8.4% | 3.2% | 4.14 | 4.64 | -0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 68 | 28 | 200 | 863 | 168 | 96 | 28 | 41% | 2.9 | 19.4% | 11.1% | 8.4% | 3.2% | 4.14 | 4.64 | -0.0 | |
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.
2019 AAAOklahoma City Dodgers · 119 IPFIP 5.49 → 5.83 (+0.34)K% 19.9% → 17.5%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 19.92% | — | ×0.880 | 17.53% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 11.57% | — | ×1.050 | 12.15% |
| HR / BF /BF | 4.74% | ÷1.073 | ×1.100 | 4.86% |
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 115).
Result: FIP 5.49 → 5.83, 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 AAAOklahoma City Dodgers · 103 IPFIP 3.45 → 3.84 (+0.39)K% 23.7% → 20.8%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 23.67% | — | ×0.880 | 20.83% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 9.51% | — | ×1.050 | 9.99% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.09% | ÷1.020 | ×1.100 | 2.25% |
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 104).
Result: FIP 3.45 → 3.84, 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 AATulsa Drillers · 8 IPFIP 2.84 → 3.41 (+0.57)K% 28.1% → 22.8%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 28.12% | — | ×0.810 | 22.78% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 3.12% | — | ×1.100 | 3.44% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.12% | ÷1.147 | ×1.200 | 3.27% |
Factors used: pitcher AA level factors — K ×0.81, BB ×1.10, HR ×1.20. Pitcher translation is level-wide (no per-league rows, no age adjustment); HR/BF is park-adjusted at half strength (park HR factor 129).
Result: FIP 2.84 → 3.41, 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).
2017 A+Rancho Cucamonga Quakes · 25 IPFIP 2.22 → 3.03 (+0.81)K% 29.2% → 22.5%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 29.25% | — | ×0.770 | 22.52% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 8.49% | — | ×1.150 | 9.76% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.94% | ÷1.085 | ×1.250 | 1.09% |
Factors used: pitcher A+ level factors — K ×0.77, BB ×1.15, HR ×1.25. Pitcher translation is level-wide (no per-league rows, no age adjustment); HR/BF is park-adjusted at half strength (park HR factor 117).
Result: FIP 2.22 → 3.03, 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).
2017 AATulsa Drillers · 16 IPFIP 4.88 → 5.28 (+0.40)K% 25.4% → 20.5%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 25.35% | — | ×0.810 | 20.54% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 12.68% | — | ×1.100 | 13.94% |
| HR / BF /BF | 4.23% | ÷1.295 | ×1.200 | 3.92% |
Factors used: pitcher AA level factors — K ×0.81, BB ×1.10, HR ×1.20. Pitcher translation is level-wide (no per-league rows, no age adjustment); HR/BF is park-adjusted at half strength (park HR factor 159).
Result: FIP 4.88 → 5.28, 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 AATulsa Drillers · 36 IPFIP 3.68 → 4.37 (+0.69)K% 21.2% → 17.2%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 21.23% | — | ×0.810 | 17.20% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 6.85% | — | ×1.100 | 7.53% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.74% | ÷1.020 | ×1.200 | 3.22% |
Factors used: pitcher AA level factors — K ×0.81, BB ×1.10, HR ×1.20. Pitcher translation is level-wide (no per-league rows, no age adjustment); HR/BF is park-adjusted at half strength (park HR factor 104).
Result: FIP 3.68 → 4.37, 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 A+Rancho Cucamonga Quakes · 5 IPFIP 2.73 → 3.24 (+0.50)K% 17.4% → 13.4%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 17.39% | — | ×0.770 | 13.39% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 8.70% | — | ×1.150 | 10.00% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷1.003 | ×1.250 | 0.00% |
Factors used: pitcher A+ level factors — K ×0.77, BB ×1.15, HR ×1.25. Pitcher translation is level-wide (no per-league rows, no age adjustment); HR/BF is park-adjusted at half strength (park HR factor 101).
Result: FIP 2.73 → 3.24, 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 AATulsa Drillers · 7 IPFIP 3.33 → 4.08 (+0.75)K% 29.7% → 24.1%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 29.73% | — | ×0.810 | 24.08% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 21.62% | — | ×1.100 | 23.78% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷1.039 | ×1.200 | 0.00% |
Factors used: pitcher AA level factors — K ×0.81, BB ×1.10, HR ×1.20. Pitcher translation is level-wide (no per-league rows, no age adjustment); HR/BF is park-adjusted at half strength (park HR factor 108).
Result: FIP 3.33 → 4.08, 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).