Kade McClure

P Indianapolis Indians

Age 31 RHP 6'7" / 220 lbs AAA

Overview

AAAPROSPECT

MLB%10%

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2022	26	AAACWS	44	5	87	4.97	4.40	24.8%	7.2%	—	K 21.8% · BB 7.6% · FIP 4.09
2023	27	AAASF	9	0	23	5.79	5.63	11.8%	10.0%	—	K 10.2% · BB 9.0% · FIP 5.46
2024	28	MIX2 levels	9	0	11	15.55	8.65	14.8%	14.8%	—	K 13.8% · BB 14.4% · FIP 9.08
2025	29	No MLB games played
2026	30	No MLB games played
2027PROJ	31	MLBPIT	—	—	0	4.63	4.63	21.6%	10.0%	—
2028PROJ37% MLB	32	MLBPIT	6	0	6	4.73	4.82	21.3%	10.3%	-0.0

Next 2 projected WAR -0.0Projected rows: MLB playing time only, park and league context applied.

Contract

No contract data on file.

CompsRobert Stock (age 31) · Elian Leyva (age 30) · Edgar Alberto Garcia (age 29)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 121113vR 105

ERA4.63

FIP4.63

K%21.6%

BB%10.0%

K-BB%11.6%

Proj IP5

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 5 IP

Grades · Contract

Scouting Grades

K†5050

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)
2017	21	MIX MLE	2 levels	10	0	11	40	19	3	1	0%	1.1	47.5%	7.5%	40.0%	2.5%	0.82	1.41	—
2017	21	MIX RAW	2 levels	10	0	11	40	19	3	1	0%	1.1	47.5%	7.5%	40.0%	2.5%	0.82	1.65	—
2018	22	A MLE	Kannapolis Intimidators	8	8	42	180	42	14	2	100%	5.2	17.3%	9.2%	8.1%	1.4%	3.02	3.57	—
2018	22	A RAW	Kannapolis Intimidators	8	8	42	180	42	14	2	100%	5.2	23.3%	7.8%	15.6%	1.1%	3.02	2.72	—
2019	23	MIX MLE	2 levels	22	22	122	510	99	29	11	100%	5.5	14.7%	6.6%	8.0%	2.7%	3.25	4.16	—
2019	23	MIX RAW	2 levels	22	22	122	510	99	29	11	100%	5.5	19.4%	5.7%	13.7%	2.2%	3.25	3.36	—
2021	25	MIX MLE	2 levels	24	24	105	447	113	35	16	100%	4.4	21.0%	8.4%	12.6%	3.7%	4.87	4.43	—
2021	25	MIX RAW	2 levels	24	24	105	447	113	35	16	100%	4.4	25.3%	7.8%	17.4%	3.6%	4.87	3.93	—
2022	26	AAA MLE	Charlotte Knights	44	5	87	387	96	28	17	11%	2.0	21.8%	7.6%	14.2%	3.4%	4.97	4.09	—
2022	26	AAA RAW	Charlotte Knights	44	5	87	387	96	28	17	11%	2.0	24.8%	7.2%	17.6%	4.4%	4.97	4.40	—
2023	27	AAA MLE	Sacramento River Cats	9	0	23	110	13	11	4	0%	2.6	10.2%	9.0%	1.2%	3.8%	5.79	5.46	—
2023	27	AAA RAW	Sacramento River Cats	9	0	23	110	13	11	4	0%	2.6	11.8%	10.0%	1.8%	3.6%	5.79	5.63	—
2024	28	MIX MLE	2 levels	9	0	11	61	9	9	4	0%	1.2	13.8%	14.4%	-0.6%	9.7%	15.55	9.08	—
2024	28	MIX MLE	2 levels	9	0	11	61	9	9	4	0%	1.2	13.8%	14.4%	-0.6%	9.7%	15.55	9.08	—
2024	28	MIX RAW	2 levels	9	0	11	61	9	9	4	0%	1.2	14.8%	14.8%	0.0%	6.6%	15.55	8.65	—
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	31	MLB	PIT	—	—	0	—	—	—	—	—	—	21.6%	10.0%	11.6%	3.1%	4.63	4.63	—
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	32	MLB MLE	PIT	17	0	18	74	16	8	2	0%	1.0	21.3%	10.3%	11.0%	3.3%	4.73	4.82	-0.1
2028	32	MLB CTX	PIT	6	0	6	25	5	3	1	0%	1.0	21.3%	10.3%	11.0%	3.3%	4.73	4.82	-0.0
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		6	0	6	27	6	3	1	0%	1.1	21.3%	10.3%	11.0%	3.3%	4.73	4.44	+0.0
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		190	0	200	844	186	93	31	0%	1.1	21.3%	10.3%	11.0%	3.3%	4.73	4.44	+0.3
Career	—	MLE		126	59	401	1735	323	139	57	47%	3.2	18.6%	8.0%	10.6%	3.3%	4.44	4.34	-0.1
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		63	29	200	865	161	69	28	47%	3.2	18.6%	8.0%	10.6%	3.3%	4.44	4.34	-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.

2024 AAAIndianapolis Indians · 9 IPFIP 8.17 → 9.08 (+0.91)K% 16.0% → 13.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	16.00%	—	×0.860	13.76%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	16.00%	—	×0.900	14.40%
HR / BF /BF	8.00%	÷0.909	×1.100	9.68%

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 82).

Result: FIP 8.17 → 9.08, 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).

2023 AAASacramento River Cats · 23 IPFIP 5.36 → 5.46 (+0.09)K% 11.8% → 10.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	11.82%	—	×0.860	10.16%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	10.00%	—	×0.900	9.00%
HR / BF /BF	3.64%	÷1.057	×1.100	3.79%

Result: FIP 5.36 → 5.46, 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).

2022 AAACharlotte Knights · 87 IPFIP 4.33 → 4.09 (−0.25)K% 24.8% → 21.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	24.81%	—	×0.880	21.83%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	7.24%	—	×1.050	7.60%
HR / BF /BF	4.39%	÷1.421	×1.100	3.40%

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 184).

Result: FIP 4.33 → 4.09, 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 AABirmingham Barons · 68 IPFIP 3.64 → 4.37 (+0.73)K% 27.4% → 22.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	27.40%	—	×0.810	22.20%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	7.12%	—	×1.100	7.83%
HR / BF /BF	3.56%	÷1.087	×1.200	3.93%

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 118).

Result: FIP 3.64 → 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).

2021 AAACharlotte Knights · 37 IPFIP 4.40 → 4.52 (+0.13)K% 21.7% → 19.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	21.69%	—	×0.880	19.08%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.04%	—	×1.050	9.49%
HR / BF /BF	3.61%	÷1.190	×1.100	3.34%

Result: FIP 4.40 → 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).

2019 A+Winston-Salem Dash · 66 IPFIP 3.98 → 4.64 (+0.66)K% 17.8% → 13.7%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	17.82%	—	×0.770	13.72%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	6.18%	—	×1.150	7.11%
HR / BF /BF	2.91%	÷1.113	×1.250	3.27%

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 123).

Result: FIP 3.98 → 4.64, 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 AKannapolis Intimidators · 55 IPFIP 2.65 → 3.61 (+0.96)K% 21.3% → 15.7%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	21.28%	—	×0.740	15.74%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	5.11%	—	×1.180	6.03%
HR / BF /BF	1.28%	÷0.849	×1.300	1.96%

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 70).

Result: FIP 2.65 → 3.61, 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 AKannapolis Intimidators · 42 IPFIP 2.72 → 3.57 (+0.85)K% 23.3% → 17.3%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	23.33%	—	×0.740	17.27%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	7.78%	—	×1.180	9.18%
HR / BF /BF	1.11%	÷1.034	×1.300	1.40%

Result: FIP 2.72 → 3.57, 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
Kade McClure (OGILVIE)	—	—	4.63	21.6%	10.0%	3.1%	—	4.82	21.3%	11.0%	18	+0.19	—	—	—
Robert Stock R 2021 · 4.18 FIP	31	SW	4.18	23.0%	8.5%	3.5%	.301	7.20	14.3%	0.1%	23	+3.02	2.74	378	72
Elian Leyva R 2019 · 4.30 FIP	30	SP-	4.30	17.0%	8.5%	2.9%	.323	—	—	—	—	—	3.10	158	68
Edgar Alberto Garcia R 2017 · 4.01 FIP	29	SP-	4.01	17.3%	10.9%	1.8%	.305	—	—	—	—	—	4.01	272	67
Mike Burns R 2009 · 4.90 FIP	31	SP-	4.90	17.2%	6.6%	4.4%	.307	—	—	—	—	—	3.10	104	65
Yoanner Negrin R 2015 · 3.79 FIP	31	SW	3.79	15.1%	7.5%	1.9%	.256	3.29	15.0%	8.5%	270	-0.50	3.15	485	64
Angel Sánchez R 2023 · 4.90 FIP	33	SW	4.90	19.0%	10.5%	3.8%	.333	3.77	11.8%	6.8%	27	-1.13	3.77	284	64
Mitch Lively R 2017 · 3.47 FIP	31	SP-	3.47	17.0%	6.4%	1.8%	.304	—	—	—	—	—	2.39	158	63
Jared Fernandez R 2003 · 3.57 FIP	31	SP-	3.57	11.8%	6.2%	1.2%	.269	—	—	—	—	—	3.57	101	63
Jorge Martinez R 2016 · 3.53 FIP	31	SP-	3.53	12.9%	5.3%	1.6%	.266	3.71	16.5%	11.5%	154	+0.18	3.53	214	62
Paolo Espino R 2018 · 4.51 FIP	31	SW	4.51	18.7%	9.6%	3.2%	.348	4.42	20.4%	14.7%	202	-0.09	3.42	933	60
Jose A. Flores R 2018 · 4.77 FIP	29	SP-	4.77	13.7%	10.3%	2.8%	.350	—	—	—	—	—	2.94	237	60
Murphy Smith R 2018 · 4.57 FIP	30	SW	4.57	13.6%	9.3%	2.6%	.273	—	—	—	—	—	3.16	300	60
Marco Antonio Duarte R 2019 · 5.03 FIP	32	SW	5.03	12.2%	9.1%	3.3%	.420	—	—	—	—	—	4.07	203	60
Derek Eitel R 2017 · 4.72 FIP	29	SP-	4.72	17.2%	16.0%	1.9%	.273	—	—	—	—	—	3.96	138	59
Rudy Gonzalez R 2015 · 4.52 FIP	34	SW	4.52	13.5%	9.6%	2.4%	.347	3.84	14.0%	6.5%	79	-0.68	3.31	119	59
A.J. Morris R 2016 · 4.60 FIP	29	SW	4.60	16.9%	6.9%	3.7%	.345	—	—	—	—	—	3.02	123	58
Bradin Hagens R 2019 · 5.46 FIP	30	SW	5.46	13.2%	12.6%	3.4%	.303	—	—	—	—	—	3.79	254	57
Juan Omar Espinoza R 2015 · 4.81 FIP	31	SP-	4.81	8.9%	6.6%	3.0%	.346	4.84	8.4%	-0.8%	52	+0.03	4.81	104	57
Tim Dillard R 2015 · 3.58 FIP	32	SW	3.58	15.9%	7.7%	1.5%	.330	3.85	16.7%	8.1%	144	+0.27	2.92	432	57
Cody Satterwhite R 2017 · 4.22 FIP	30	SU	4.22	17.0%	7.1%	3.0%	.310	—	—	—	—	—	3.69	147	57