Robert Stephenson
P Los Angeles Angels| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 29 | MIX2 levels | 59 | 0 | 59 | 5.34 | 4.10 | 22.0% | 5.2% | 0.3 | K 22.3% · BB 5.3% · FIP 4.29 | |
| 2023 | 30 | MIX2 levels | 64 | 0 | 56 | 3.40 | 3.24 | 37.6% | 8.6% | 0.9 | K 38.3% · BB 7.0% · FIP 2.99 | |
| 2025 | 32 | MIX3 levels | 20 | 0 | 18 | 3.50 | 4.38 | 26.4% | 4.2% | 0.0 | K 26.4% · BB 4.2% · FIP 4.45 | |
| 2026 | 33 | 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) | |||||||||||||||||||
| ▸ Model inputs — neutral MLE (past 3 seasons + 2027 so far) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 | 22 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 25 | 25 | 134 | 567 | 140 | 70 | 10 | 100% | 5.4 | 20.6% | 13.3% | 7.3% | 2.0% | 3.83 | 4.16 | — |
| 2015 | 22 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 25 | 25 | 134 | 567 | 140 | 70 | 10 | 100% | 5.4 | 24.7% | 12.3% | 12.3% | 1.8% | 3.83 | 3.55 | — |
| 2016 | 23 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 32 | 32 | 174 | 761 | 151 | 89 | 26 | 100% | 5.4 | 18.0% | 12.2% | 5.8% | 3.9% | 4.77 | 5.26 | +0.3 |
| 2016 | 23 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 32 | 32 | 174 | 761 | 151 | 89 | 26 | 100% | 5.4 | 19.8% | 11.7% | 8.1% | 3.4% | 4.77 | 4.84 | +1.1 |
| 2017 | 24 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 33 | 18 | 125 | 544 | 131 | 63 | 20 | 55% | 3.8 | 23.1% | 11.7% | 11.4% | 3.6% | 4.39 | 4.61 | +1.2 |
| 2017 | 24 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 33 | 18 | 125 | 544 | 131 | 63 | 20 | 55% | 3.8 | 24.1% | 11.6% | 12.5% | 3.7% | 4.39 | 4.60 | +1.2 |
| 2018 | 25 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 24 | 23 | 125 | 530 | 146 | 66 | 14 | 96% | 5.2 | 24.5% | 13.0% | 11.5% | 2.9% | 3.47 | 4.25 | +1.7 |
| 2018 | 25 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 24 | 23 | 125 | 530 | 146 | 66 | 14 | 96% | 5.2 | 27.5% | 12.5% | 15.1% | 2.6% | 3.47 | 3.81 | +2.4 |
| 2019 | 26 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 59 | 0 | 67 | 272 | 84 | 21 | 9 | 0% | 1.1 | 30.9% | 7.6% | 23.3% | 3.2% | 3.78 | 3.20 | +1.1 |
| 2019 | 26 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 59 | 0 | 67 | 272 | 84 | 21 | 9 | 0% | 1.1 | 30.9% | 7.7% | 23.2% | 3.3% | 3.78 | 3.28 | +1.0 |
| 2020 | 27 | MLB MLE | Cincinnati Reds | 10 | 0 | 10 | 43 | 13 | 3 | 8 | 0% | 1.0 | 30.2% | 7.0% | 23.3% | 18.6% | 9.90 | 11.64 | -0.8 |
| 2020 | 27 | MLB RAW | Cincinnati Reds | 10 | 0 | 10 | 43 | 13 | 3 | 8 | 0% | 1.0 | 30.2% | 7.0% | 23.3% | 18.6% | 9.90 | 11.80 | -0.8 |
| 2021 | 28 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 50 | 1 | 47 | 203 | 53 | 19 | 5 | 2% | 0.9 | 26.4% | 9.1% | 17.3% | 2.3% | 3.45 | 3.26 | +0.7 |
| 2021 | 28 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 50 | 1 | 47 | 203 | 53 | 19 | 5 | 2% | 0.9 | 26.1% | 9.4% | 16.7% | 2.5% | 3.45 | 3.44 | +0.6 |
| 2022 | 29 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 59 | 0 | 59 | 250 | 55 | 13 | 10 | 0% | 1.0 | 22.3% | 5.3% | 17.0% | 4.4% | 5.34 | 4.29 | +0.2 |
| 2022 | 29 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 59 | 0 | 59 | 250 | 55 | 13 | 10 | 0% | 1.0 | 22.0% | 5.2% | 16.8% | 4.0% | 5.34 | 4.10 | +0.3 |
| 2023 | 30 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 64 | 0 | 56 | 221 | 83 | 19 | 9 | 0% | 0.9 | 38.3% | 7.0% | 31.3% | 4.1% | 3.40 | 2.99 | +1.0 |
| 2023 | 30 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 64 | 0 | 56 | 221 | 83 | 19 | 9 | 0% | 0.9 | 37.6% | 8.6% | 29.0% | 4.1% | 3.40 | 3.24 | +0.9 |
| 2024 | 31 | AAA MLE | Salt Lake Bees | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% | — | 0.0% | 100.0% | -100.0% | 0.0% | — | 15.77 | — |
| 2024 | 31 | AAA MLE | Salt Lake Bees | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% | — | 0.0% | 100.0% | -100.0% | 0.0% | — | 15.77 | — |
| 2024 | 31 | AAA RAW | Salt Lake Bees | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% | — | 0.0% | 100.0% | -100.0% | 0.0% | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 32 | MIX MLE | 3 levels | 20 | 0 | 18 | 72 | 19 | 3 | 4 | 0% | 0.9 | 26.4% | 4.2% | 22.2% | 5.6% | 3.50 | 4.45 | +0.0 |
| 2025 | 32 | MIX MLE | 3 levels | 20 | 0 | 18 | 72 | 19 | 3 | 4 | 0% | 0.9 | 26.4% | 4.2% | 22.2% | 5.6% | 3.50 | 4.45 | +0.0 |
| 2025 | 32 | MIX RAW | 3 levels | 20 | 0 | 18 | 72 | 19 | 3 | 4 | 0% | 0.9 | 26.4% | 4.2% | 22.2% | 5.6% | 3.50 | 4.38 | +0.0 |
| ▸ Career totals (raw MLB only — as recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| MLB Career | — | 283 | 22 | 374 | 1608 | 416 | 147 | 64 | 8% | 1.3 | 25.9% | 9.1% | 16.7% | 4.0% | 4.59 | 4.28 | +1.2 | ||
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 283 | 22 | 374 | 1608 | 416 | 147 | 64 | 8% | 1.3 | 25.9% | 9.1% | 16.7% | 4.0% | 4.59 | 4.26 | +1.3 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 151 | 12 | 200 | 859 | 222 | 79 | 34 | 8% | 1.3 | 25.9% | 9.1% | 16.7% | 4.0% | 4.59 | 4.26 | +0.7 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 376 | 99 | 814 | 3463 | 819 | 375 | 121 | 26% | 2.2 | 23.6% | 10.8% | 12.8% | 3.5% | 4.18 | 4.39 | +1.2 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 92 | 24 | 200 | 851 | 201 | 92 | 30 | 26% | 2.2 | 23.6% | 10.8% | 12.8% | 3.5% | 4.18 | 4.39 | +0.6 | |
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.
2023 AAAIndianapolis Indians · 3 IPFIP 6.48 → 6.53 (+0.05)K% 30.0% → 25.8%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 30.00% | — | ×0.860 | 25.80% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 25.00% | — | ×0.900 | 22.50% |
| HR / BF /BF | 5.00% | ÷1.095 | ×1.100 | 5.02% |
Factors used: pitcher AAA level factors (Triple-A 2023+ robo-zone set: walks improve on promotion) — K ×0.86, BB ×0.90, 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 119).
Result: FIP 6.48 → 6.53, 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 AAALouisville Bats · 113 IPFIP 3.62 → 4.15 (+0.53)K% 28.9% → 25.4%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 28.91% | — | ×0.880 | 25.44% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 12.21% | — | ×1.050 | 12.82% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.57% | ÷0.988 | ×1.100 | 2.86% |
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 98).
Result: FIP 3.62 → 4.15, 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 AAALouisville Bats · 40 IPFIP 4.49 → 4.98 (+0.49)K% 28.0% → 24.6%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 27.95% | — | ×0.880 | 24.60% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 8.07% | — | ×1.050 | 8.48% |
| HR / BF /BF | 4.97% | ÷1.042 | ×1.100 | 5.24% |
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 108).
Result: FIP 4.49 → 4.98, 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 AAALouisville Bats · 137 IPFIP 4.49 → 5.16 (+0.67)K% 20.3% → 17.9%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 20.30% | — | ×0.880 | 17.87% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 12.01% | — | ×1.050 | 12.61% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.88% | ÷0.882 | ×1.100 | 3.59% |
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 76).
Result: FIP 4.49 → 5.16, 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 AAPensacola Blue Wahoos · 78 IPFIP 3.81 → 4.63 (+0.82)K% 27.4% → 22.2%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 27.38% | — | ×0.810 | 22.18% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 13.23% | — | ×1.100 | 14.55% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.46% | ÷1.037 | ×1.200 | 2.85% |
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 107).
Result: FIP 3.81 → 4.63, 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 AAALouisville Bats · 56 IPFIP 3.19 → 3.51 (+0.33)K% 21.1% → 18.5%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 21.07% | — | ×0.880 | 18.55% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 11.16% | — | ×1.050 | 11.71% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.83% | ÷1.009 | ×1.100 | 0.90% |
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 102).
Result: FIP 3.19 → 3.51, 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).