Julio Urías
P Los Angeles Dodgers| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 24 | MLBLAD | 32 | 32 | 186 | 2.96 | 2.90 | 26.2% | 4.7% | 5.9 | ||
| 2022 | 25 | MLBLAD | 31 | 31 | 175 | 2.16 | 3.61 | 24.1% | 6.0% | 3.8 | ||
| 2023 | 26 | MIX2 levels | 22 | 22 | 121 | 4.52 | 4.23 | 25.2% | 5.0% | 1.7 | K 24.3% · BB 5.0% · FIP 4.30 | |
| 2024 | 27 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2025 | 28 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2026 | 29 | 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) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2015 | 18 | MIX MLE | 4 levels | 18 | 18 | 80 | 330 | 88 | 22 | 5 | 100% | 4.5 | 22.4% | 6.2% | 16.2% | 1.7% | 3.81 | 2.94 | — |
| 2015 | 18 | MIX RAW | 4 levels | 18 | 18 | 80 | 330 | 88 | 22 | 5 | 100% | 4.5 | 26.7% | 6.7% | 20.0% | 1.5% | 3.81 | 2.54 | — |
| 2016 | 19 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 29 | 22 | 122 | 504 | 133 | 39 | 7 | 76% | 4.2 | 25.2% | 7.8% | 17.4% | 1.4% | 2.66 | 2.74 | +4.1 |
| 2016 | 19 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 29 | 22 | 122 | 504 | 133 | 39 | 7 | 76% | 4.2 | 26.4% | 7.7% | 18.7% | 1.4% | 2.66 | 2.62 | +4.2 |
| 2017 | 20 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 11 | 11 | 55 | 225 | 43 | 28 | 2 | 100% | 5.0 | 17.4% | 12.8% | 4.6% | 0.9% | 3.79 | 3.75 | +1.1 |
| 2017 | 20 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 11 | 11 | 55 | 225 | 43 | 28 | 2 | 100% | 5.0 | 19.1% | 12.4% | 6.7% | 0.9% | 3.79 | 3.54 | +1.2 |
| 2018 | 21 | MIX MLE | 4 levels | 11 | 6 | 16 | 65 | 26 | 8 | 3 | 55% | 1.4 | 40.0% | 12.3% | 27.7% | 4.6% | 4.02 | 3.81 | +0.3 |
| 2018 | 21 | MIX RAW | 4 levels | 11 | 6 | 16 | 65 | 26 | 8 | 3 | 55% | 1.4 | 40.0% | 12.3% | 27.7% | 4.6% | 4.02 | 3.80 | +0.3 |
| 2019 | 22 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 38 | 9 | 82 | 337 | 87 | 26 | 7 | 24% | 2.1 | 26.1% | 8.0% | 18.1% | 2.1% | 2.64 | 3.04 | +1.5 |
| 2019 | 22 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 38 | 9 | 82 | 337 | 87 | 26 | 7 | 24% | 2.1 | 25.8% | 7.7% | 18.1% | 2.1% | 2.64 | 3.04 | +1.5 |
| 2020 | 23 | MLB MLE | Los Angeles Dodgers | 11 | 10 | 55 | 224 | 45 | 18 | 5 | 91% | 5.0 | 20.1% | 8.0% | 12.1% | 2.1% | 3.27 | 3.60 | +1.2 |
| 2020 | 23 | MLB RAW | Los Angeles Dodgers | 11 | 10 | 55 | 224 | 45 | 18 | 5 | 91% | 5.0 | 20.1% | 8.0% | 12.1% | 2.2% | 3.27 | 3.63 | +1.2 |
| 2021 | 24 | MLB MLE | Los Angeles Dodgers | 32 | 32 | 186 | 745 | 195 | 35 | 19 | 100% | 5.8 | 26.2% | 4.7% | 21.5% | 2.4% | 2.96 | 2.83 | +6.1 |
| 2021 | 24 | MLB RAW | Los Angeles Dodgers | 32 | 32 | 186 | 745 | 195 | 35 | 19 | 100% | 5.8 | 26.2% | 4.7% | 21.5% | 2.6% | 2.96 | 2.90 | +5.9 |
| 2022 | 25 | MLB MLE | Los Angeles Dodgers | 31 | 31 | 175 | 689 | 166 | 41 | 23 | 100% | 5.6 | 24.1% | 6.0% | 18.1% | 3.2% | 2.16 | 3.58 | +3.9 |
| 2022 | 25 | MLB RAW | Los Angeles Dodgers | 31 | 31 | 175 | 689 | 166 | 41 | 23 | 100% | 5.6 | 24.1% | 6.0% | 18.1% | 3.3% | 2.16 | 3.61 | +3.8 |
| 2023 | 26 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 22 | 22 | 121 | 497 | 125 | 25 | 24 | 100% | 5.5 | 24.3% | 5.0% | 19.3% | 4.8% | 4.52 | 4.30 | +1.6 |
| 2023 | 26 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 22 | 22 | 121 | 497 | 125 | 25 | 24 | 100% | 5.5 | 25.2% | 5.0% | 20.1% | 4.8% | 4.52 | 4.23 | +1.7 |
| ▸ Career totals (raw MLB only — as recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| MLB Career | — | 158 | 122 | 717 | 2917 | 710 | 188 | 84 | 77% | 4.5 | 24.3% | 6.4% | 17.9% | 2.9% | 3.11 | 3.43 | +17.2 | ||
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 158 | 122 | 717 | 2917 | 710 | 188 | 84 | 77% | 4.5 | 24.3% | 6.4% | 17.9% | 2.9% | 3.11 | 3.44 | +17.1 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 44 | 34 | 200 | 814 | 198 | 52 | 23 | 77% | 4.5 | 24.3% | 6.4% | 17.9% | 2.9% | 3.11 | 3.44 | +4.8 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 203 | 161 | 891 | 3616 | 881 | 242 | 94 | 79% | 4.4 | 24.4% | 6.7% | 17.7% | 2.6% | 3.11 | 3.31 | +17.2 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 46 | 36 | 200 | 811 | 198 | 54 | 21 | 79% | 4.4 | 24.4% | 6.7% | 17.7% | 2.6% | 3.11 | 3.31 | +4.8 | |
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.
2018 A+Rancho Cucamonga Quakes · 7 IPFIP 6.51 → 8.53 (+2.02)K% 41.9% → 32.3%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 41.94% | — | ×0.770 | 32.29% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 12.90% | — | ×1.150 | 14.84% |
| HR / BF /BF | 9.68% | ÷1.058 | ×1.250 | 11.44% |
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 112).
Result: FIP 6.51 → 8.53, 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).
2017 AAAOklahoma City Dodgers · 31 IPFIP 2.89 → 3.28 (+0.39)K% 26.0% → 22.9%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 26.02% | — | ×0.880 | 22.89% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 12.20% | — | ×1.050 | 12.80% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.81% | ÷0.989 | ×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 98).
Result: FIP 2.89 → 3.28, 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 AAAOklahoma City Dodgers · 45 IPFIP 1.89 → 2.33 (+0.43)K% 29.2% → 25.7%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 29.17% | — | ×0.880 | 25.67% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 4.76% | — | ×1.050 | 5.00% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.19% | ÷0.947 | ×1.100 | 1.38% |
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 89).
Result: FIP 1.89 → 2.33, 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 · 68 IPFIP 2.30 → 2.94 (+0.64)K% 27.6% → 22.4%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 27.61% | — | ×0.810 | 22.37% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 5.60% | — | ×1.100 | 6.16% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.49% | ÷1.039 | ×1.200 | 1.72% |
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 2.30 → 2.94, 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 AAAOklahoma City Dodgers · 4 IPFIP 4.23 → 4.52 (+0.30)K% 16.7% → 14.7%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 16.67% | — | ×0.880 | 14.67% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 20.00% | — | ×1.050 | 21.00% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷0.866 | ×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 73).
Result: FIP 4.23 → 4.52, 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 A+Rancho Cucamonga Quakes · 5 IPFIP 4.11 → 5.50 (+1.39)K% 19.0% → 14.7%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 19.05% | — | ×0.770 | 14.67% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 0.00% | — | ×1.150 | 0.00% |
| HR / BF /BF | 4.76% | ÷0.898 | ×1.250 | 6.63% |
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 80).
Result: FIP 4.11 → 5.50, 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).