Brock Burke

P Cincinnati Reds

Age 30 LHP 6'4" / 210 lbs MLB peak 0.4 · 2027

Overview

MLBRP40-MAN

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2024	27	MIX3 levels	52	3	56	5.43	3.44	24.1%	10.1%	0.7	K 22.2% · BB 9.9% · FIP 3.60
2025	28	MLBLAA	69	1	62	3.36	3.78	20.2%	5.4%	0.6
2026	29	MLBCIN	77	0	74	2.30	3.36	23.6%	10.8%	1.1
2027PROJ	30	MLBCIN	54	0	57	3.88	3.99	23.5%	9.3%	0.4
2028PROJ95% MLB	31	MLBCIN	36	0	38	4.08	4.22	22.8%	9.7%	0.1
2029PROJ95% MLB	32	MLBCIN	26	0	27	4.32	4.47	21.9%	10.1%	0.0

Last 3 seasons WAR 2.4 · Next 3 projected WAR 0.6Projected rows: MLB playing time only, park and league context applied.

Contract

No contract data on file.

Skills · percentileStatcast 2026

FB Velo74

xwOBA vs67

K%58

Form1.59 ERA (proj 3.88) · K 32.3% (proj 23.5%) · BB 11.5% (proj 9.3%) ▲▲ last 90d · 23 IP through Oct 27

CompsRaul Valdes (age 32) · Andrew Barbosa (age 29) · Matt Thornton (age 30)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 8796vR 104

ERA3.88

FIP3.99

K%23.5%

BB%9.3%

K-BB%14.1%

Proj IP57

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 57 IP

Statcast · Contract

Statcast Percentiles

FB Velo

p7496.2

Whiff%

p7228.7%

p5823.6%

xwOBA vs

p670.295

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

Real MLB stats plus park-adjusted projections — this season (so far / rest / full), then future seasons and career totals.

show model inputsbasis chips: RAW = as recorded · CTX = with park/league context · A+C = actual + context combined · MLE = level/park-neutral

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	18	ROK MLE	Princeton Rays	11	11	53	219	35	11	3	100%	4.8	10.9%	6.3%	4.6%	1.9%	3.42	4.03	—
2015	18	ROK RAW	Princeton Rays	11	11	53	219	35	11	3	100%	4.8	16.0%	5.0%	11.0%	1.4%	3.42	3.14	—
2017	20	MIX MLE	2 levels	23	23	124	511	108	36	6	100%	5.4	15.9%	8.2%	7.7%	1.6%	2.98	3.67	—
2017	20	MIX RAW	2 levels	23	23	124	511	108	36	6	100%	5.4	21.1%	7.0%	14.1%	1.2%	2.98	2.86	—
2018	21	MIX MLE	2 levels	25	22	137	582	158	44	6	88%	5.5	21.4%	8.6%	12.8%	1.4%	3.08	3.16	—
2018	21	MIX RAW	2 levels	25	22	137	582	158	44	6	88%	5.5	27.1%	7.6%	19.6%	1.0%	3.08	2.33	—
2019	22	MIX MLE	5 levels	19	19	89	380	78	29	9	100%	4.7	17.7%	8.0%	9.7%	2.6%	4.96	4.02	+1.5
2019	22	MIX RAW	5 levels	19	19	89	380	78	29	9	100%	4.7	20.5%	7.6%	12.9%	2.4%	4.96	3.64	+1.9
2021	24	AAA MLE	Round Rock Express	21	20	78	336	97	31	13	95%	3.7	25.4%	9.7%	15.7%	4.4%	5.68	4.62	—
2021	24	AAA RAW	Round Rock Express	21	20	78	336	97	31	13	95%	3.7	28.9%	9.2%	19.6%	3.9%	5.68	3.98	—
2022	25	MLB MLE	Texas Rangers	52	0	82	328	90	23	9	0%	1.6	27.4%	7.0%	20.4%	2.6%	1.97	3.07	+1.5
2022	25	MLB RAW	Texas Rangers	52	0	82	328	90	23	9	0%	1.6	27.4%	7.0%	20.4%	2.7%	1.97	3.17	+1.4
2023	26	MLB MLE	Texas Rangers	53	0	60	250	52	5	13	0%	1.1	20.8%	2.0%	18.8%	4.8%	4.37	4.25	+0.2
2023	26	MLB RAW	Texas Rangers	53	0	60	250	52	5	13	0%	1.1	20.8%	2.0%	18.8%	5.2%	4.37	4.44	+0.1
2024	27	MIX MLE	3 levels	52	3	56	257	62	26	5	6%	1.1	22.2%	9.9%	12.3%	2.0%	5.43	3.60	+0.6
2024	27	MIX MLE	3 levels	52	3	56	257	62	26	5	6%	1.1	22.2%	9.9%	12.3%	2.0%	5.43	3.60	+0.6
2024	27	MIX RAW	3 levels	52	3	56	257	62	26	5	6%	1.1	24.1%	10.1%	14.0%	1.9%	5.43	3.44	+0.7
2025	28	MLB MLE	Los Angeles Angels	69	1	62	257	52	14	8	1%	0.9	20.2%	5.4%	14.8%	3.1%	3.36	3.76	+0.6
2025	28	MLB MLE	Los Angeles Angels	69	1	62	257	52	14	8	1%	0.9	20.2%	5.4%	14.8%	3.1%	3.36	3.76	+0.6
2025	28	MLB RAW	Los Angeles Angels	69	1	62	257	52	14	8	1%	0.9	20.2%	5.4%	14.8%	3.1%	3.36	3.78	+0.6
2026	29	MLB MLE	Cincinnati Reds	77	0	74	314	74	34	5	0%	1.0	23.6%	10.8%	12.7%	1.5%	2.30	3.29	+1.1
2026	29	MLB MLE	Cincinnati Reds	77	0	74	314	74	34	5	0%	1.0	23.6%	10.8%	12.7%	1.5%	2.30	3.29	+1.1
2026	29	MLB RAW	Cincinnati Reds	77	0	74	314	74	34	5	0%	1.0	23.6%	10.8%	12.7%	1.6%	2.30	3.36	+1.1
▸ Career totals (raw MLB only — as recorded)
MLB Career	—			291	8	339	1423	323	101	45	3%	1.2	22.7%	7.1%	15.6%	3.2%	3.53	3.81	+3.0
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	30	MLB	CIN	54	0	57	241	57	23	6	0%	1.1	23.5%	9.3%	14.1%	2.4%	3.88	3.99	+0.4
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	31	MLB MLE	CIN	38	0	40	170	39	16	4	0%	1.1	22.8%	9.7%	13.1%	2.6%	4.08	4.22	+0.2
2029	32	MLB MLE	CIN	27	0	28	119	26	12	3	0%	1.0	21.9%	10.1%	11.8%	2.9%	4.32	4.47	+0.0
2028	31	MLB CTX	CIN	36	0	38	160	37	16	4	0%	1.1	22.8%	9.7%	13.1%	2.6%	4.08	4.22	+0.1
2029	32	MLB CTX	CIN	26	0	27	114	25	12	3	0%	1.0	21.9%	10.1%	11.8%	2.9%	4.32	4.47	+0.0
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		353	8	404	1697	384	128	52	2%	1.1	22.7%	7.5%	15.1%	3.1%	3.64	3.84	+3.4
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		175	4	200	841	190	63	26	2%	1.1	22.7%	7.5%	15.1%	3.1%	3.64	3.84	+1.7
Career	—	MLE		402	99	815	3434	708	270	83	25%	2.0	20.6%	7.9%	12.7%	2.4%	3.63	3.69	+3.1
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		99	24	200	843	174	66	20	25%	2.0	20.6%	7.9%	12.7%	2.4%	3.63	3.69	+1.5

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.

2024 AAARound Rock Express · 20 IPFIP 3.76 → 3.92 (+0.16)K% 17.7% → 15.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	17.71%	—	×0.860	15.23%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	12.50%	—	×0.900	11.25%
HR / BF /BF	1.04%	÷0.928	×1.100	1.24%

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 86).

Result: FIP 3.76 → 3.92, 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).

2021 AAARound Rock Express · 78 IPFIP 3.95 → 4.62 (+0.66)K% 28.9% → 25.4%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	28.87%	—	×0.880	25.40%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.23%	—	×1.050	9.69%
HR / BF /BF	3.87%	÷0.958	×1.100	4.44%

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 92).

Result: FIP 3.95 → 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).

2019 AAFrisco RoughRiders · 45 IPFIP 2.27 → 2.78 (+0.51)K% 26.8% → 21.7%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	26.78%	—	×0.810	21.69%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	6.56%	—	×1.100	7.21%
HR / BF /BF	1.09%	÷1.208	×1.200	1.09%

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 142).

Result: FIP 2.27 → 2.78, 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).

2019 AAANashville Sounds · 8 IPFIP 4.00 → 4.49 (+0.49)K% 26.2% → 23.0%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	26.19%	—	×0.880	23.05%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	14.29%	—	×1.050	15.00%
HR / BF /BF	2.38%	÷0.998	×1.100	2.63%

Result: FIP 4.00 → 4.49, 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).

2019 AHickory Crawdads · 5 IPFIP 2.72 → 2.82 (+0.10)K% 4.5% → 3.4%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	4.55%	—	×0.740	3.36%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	0.00%	—	×1.180	0.00%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷1.183	×1.300	0.00%

Factors used: pitcher A level factors — K ×0.74, BB ×1.18, HR ×1.30. Pitcher translation is level-wide (no per-league rows, no age adjustment); HR/BF is park-adjusted at half strength (park HR factor 137).

Result: FIP 2.72 → 2.82, 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 A+Charlotte Stone Crabs · 82 IPFIP 2.73 → 3.63 (+0.90)K% 24.1% → 18.6%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	24.10%	—	×0.770	18.56%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	8.31%	—	×1.150	9.56%
HR / BF /BF	1.11%	÷0.857	×1.250	1.62%

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 71).

Result: FIP 2.73 → 3.63, 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).

2018 AAMontgomery Biscuits · 55 IPFIP 1.69 → 2.39 (+0.70)K% 32.1% → 26.0%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	32.13%	—	×0.810	26.02%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	6.33%	—	×1.100	6.97%
HR / BF /BF	0.90%	÷0.984	×1.200	1.10%

Result: FIP 1.69 → 2.39, 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+Charlotte Stone Crabs · 66 IPFIP 3.51 → 4.37 (+0.86)K% 17.1% → 13.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	17.13%	—	×0.770	13.19%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	5.59%	—	×1.150	6.43%
HR / BF /BF	2.10%	÷0.917	×1.250	2.86%

Result: FIP 3.51 → 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).

Career Path Comps

What happened to similar pitchers from this age · Y-axis: ERA+ (100 = league avg, 150 = elite, 80 = below) · Bands: P10–P90 outer, P25–P75 inner · Gold: OGILVIE projection

			Profile at Match Age					Next 3 Yrs				Career
Comp	Age	Role	FIP	K%	BB%	HR/BF	BABIP	FIP	K%	K-BB%	IP	ΔFIP	Low FIP	IP	Match
Brock Burke (OGILVIE)	—	—	—	—	—	2.4%	—	4.32	22.4%	12.6%	68	+0.33	—	—	—
Raul Valdes L 2010 · 4.02 FIP	32	SU	4.02	21.4%	9.9%	2.7%	.301	3.14	27.4%	22.5%	78	-0.88	2.29	160	74
Andrew Barbosa L 2017 · 4.67 FIP	29	SU	4.67	20.2%	9.6%	3.8%	.301	—	—	—	—	—	2.70	175	71
Matt Thornton L 2007 · 3.13 FIP	30	SU	3.13	22.1%	8.0%	1.6%	.324	2.19	30.7%	24.4%	200	-0.94	1.71	663	71
Brian Fuentes L 2006 · 3.47 FIP	30	SU	3.47	26.6%	8.0%	2.9%	.246	3.22	24.6%	15.8%	179	-0.25	2.08	602	68
Brian Moran L 2019 · 3.40 FIP	30	SU	3.40	26.9%	10.0%	2.4%	.269	2.99	25.5%	18.5%	99	-0.41	1.80	421	67
Brian Tallet L 2008 · 3.36 FIP	30	SU	3.36	19.6%	7.9%	1.7%	.282	5.06	16.0%	6.3%	251	+1.70	2.59	443	67
Pedro Feliciano L 2007 · 3.07 FIP	30	SU	3.07	22.2%	9.8%	1.1%	.239	3.28	21.8%	14.5%	175	+0.21	2.69	378	67
Daniel Rodriguez L 2015 · 2.89 FIP	30	SU	2.89	20.2%	9.4%	0.6%	.256	4.17	16.3%	5.9%	234	+1.28	2.89	391	67
Armando Almanza L 2003 · 4.95 FIP	30	SU	4.95	21.3%	10.0%	4.3%	.331	5.29	24.1%	14.8%	12	+0.34	2.90	211	66
Doug Slaten L 2010 · 3.22 FIP	30	SU	3.22	20.7%	9.8%	1.1%	.269	4.85	13.5%	3.1%	29	+1.63	3.22	139	66
Nick Hagadone L 2015 · 3.65 FIP	29	SU	3.65	22.6%	8.9%	2.4%	.329	3.74	22.6%	13.3%	33	+0.09	2.97	141	66
Tommy Phelps L 2004 · 4.80 FIP	30	SW	4.80	19.4%	8.3%	4.2%	.286	3.98	13.2%	5.7%	23	-0.82	3.39	120	66
Jason Christiansen L 2000 · 3.08 FIP	30	SU	3.08	25.2%	10.5%	1.4%	.288	4.28	20.1%	10.6%	62	+1.20	2.22	429	65
Hideki Okajima L 2007 · 3.05 FIP	31	SU	3.05	23.2%	5.5%	2.2%	.234	3.87	20.2%	12.6%	169	+0.82	3.05	238	65
Scott Downs L 2006 · 3.97 FIP	30	SU	3.97	18.7%	7.3%	2.8%	.275	2.95	21.5%	14.2%	175	-1.02	2.68	748	65
Zach Phillips L 2017 · 2.85 FIP	30	SU	2.85	19.2%	8.6%	0.5%	.301	3.67	19.1%	10.6%	36	+0.82	2.33	202	65
Jack Taschner L 2008 · 4.09 FIP	30	SU	4.09	17.2%	9.7%	2.2%	.323	4.73	15.2%	3.0%	49	+0.64	3.14	189	64
Sam Freeman L 2017 · 3.03 FIP	30	SU	3.03	23.2%	9.8%	1.2%	.269	4.56	21.5%	9.0%	109	+1.53	3.02	369	64
Yuki Matsui L 2024 · 3.63 FIP	28	SU	3.63	26.8%	8.9%	3.0%	.242	4.25	23.9%	12.6%	140	+0.62	3.63	203	64
Arturo Barradas L 2017 · 3.42 FIP	29	SU	3.42	18.1%	7.0%	1.8%	.288	3.24	16.1%	9.5%	34	-0.18	3.24	163	64

Career Comps

Completed MLB careers (no pro action in 2+ yrs) whose totals — actual + projected — most resemble this player's. Pool: 1,234 reliever careers (754 from 1990-2025 + 480 historical, 1901-2023), also matched on career-to-date at the same age. * Historical (Lahman) careers: rates era-adjusted to 2001-24 league levels; WAR is an OGILVIE proxy.

Player	162s	IP/yr	K%	BB%	HR/9	ERA
OGILVIE CAREER PROJECTION	2.3	52	22.8%	8.7%	1.16	3.67
Neftalí Feliz ('21)	2.0	49	22.9%	9.7%	1.05	3.55
David Riske ('10)	2.5	55	20.8%	10.0%	1.19	3.67
Fernando Salas ('19)	2.4	54	23.1%	7.3%	1.05	3.91
Tom Niedenfuer ('81-'90, 8 WAR*)	3.3	65	23.1%*	8.1%*	1.19*	3.80*
Steve Mingori ('70-'79, 7 WAR*)	2.9	58	19.8%*	8.9%*	1.02*	3.38*
Ken Dayley ('82-'93, 4 WAR*)	2.9	64	21.8%*	9.1%*	0.97*	4.10*