Jacob Webb

P Chicago Cubs

Age 33 RHP 6'2" / 210 lbs MLB peak 0.2 · 2027

Overview

MLBRP40-MAN

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2024	30	MIX3 levels	64	60	3.45	3.37	23.6%	11.0%	0.8	K 24.5% · BB 11.0% · FIP 3.36
2025	31	MIX2 levels	58	69	2.99	3.97	22.0%	6.4%	0.5	K 21.7% · BB 6.4% · FIP 3.98
2026	32	MLBCHC	68	67	3.36	3.98	25.7%	8.8%	0.5
2027PROJ	33	MLBCHC	52	55	4.01	4.28	24.4%	8.4%	0.2
2028PROJ95% MLB	34	MLBCHC	35	37	4.35	4.58	23.5%	8.9%	-0.0
2029PROJ91% MLB	35	MLBCHC	22	23	4.69	4.92	22.6%	9.4%	-0.1

Last 3 seasons WAR 1.8 · Next 3 projected WAR 0.1Projected rows: MLB playing time only, park and league context applied.

Contract

No contract data on file.

Skills · percentileStatcast 2026

K%69

FB Velo45

xwOBA vs43

Form4.79 ERA (proj 4.01) · K 20.5% (proj 24.4%) · BB 9.1% (proj 8.4%) ▼ last 90d · 21 IP through Oct 27

CompsTony Barnette (age 33) · Rafael Betancourt (age 33) · Jim Henderson (age 33)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 113105vR 97

ERA4.01

FIP4.28

K%24.4%

BB%8.4%

K-BB%16.0%

Proj IP55

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 55 IP

Grades · Statcast · Contract

Scouting Grades

STUF5555

CTRL4545

CMD5050

K†6060

Statcast Percentiles

FB Velo

p4594.2

Whiff%

p9033.3%

p6925.7%

xwOBA vs

p430.320

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)
2016	22	MIX MLE	2 levels	14	0	13	58	31	9	1	0%	0.9	53.4%	15.5%	37.9%	1.7%	4.85	1.50	—
2016	22	MIX RAW	2 levels	14	0	13	58	31	9	1	0%	0.9	53.4%	15.5%	37.9%	1.7%	4.85	1.41	—
2017	23	MIX MLE	2 levels	38	0	65	269	74	32	2	0%	1.7	21.6%	13.4%	8.1%	1.0%	2.07	3.52	—
2017	23	MIX RAW	2 levels	38	0	65	269	74	32	2	0%	1.7	27.5%	11.9%	15.6%	0.7%	2.07	2.70	—
2018	24	MIX MLE	2 levels	51	0	54	227	69	18	7	0%	1.1	25.7%	8.5%	17.1%	3.9%	3.15	4.13	—
2018	24	MIX RAW	2 levels	51	0	54	227	69	18	7	0%	1.1	30.4%	7.9%	22.5%	3.1%	3.15	3.23	—
2019	25	MIX MLE	3 levels	47	1	44	183	41	21	5	2%	0.9	21.4%	9.2%	12.2%	3.1%	2.68	4.13	+0.2
2019	25	MIX RAW	3 levels	47	1	44	183	41	21	5	2%	0.9	22.4%	11.5%	10.9%	2.7%	2.68	4.15	+0.2
2020	26	MLB MLE	Atlanta Braves	8	0	10	40	10	4	0	0%	1.2	25.0%	10.0%	15.0%	0.0%	0.00	2.26	+0.3
2020	26	MLB RAW	Atlanta Braves	8	0	10	40	10	4	0	0%	1.2	25.0%	10.0%	15.0%	0.0%	0.00	2.30	+0.3
2021	27	MIX MLE	2 levels	58	0	58	252	67	17	6	0%	1.0	25.0%	6.9%	18.1%	2.5%	3.70	3.21	+0.9
2021	27	MIX RAW	2 levels	58	0	58	252	67	17	6	0%	1.0	26.6%	6.7%	19.8%	2.4%	3.70	3.01	+1.1
2022	28	AAA MLE	Gwinnett Stripers	34	0	36	147	42	9	5	0%	1.0	25.1%	6.4%	18.7%	3.8%	6.06	3.88	—
2022	28	AAA RAW	Gwinnett Stripers	34	0	36	147	42	9	5	0%	1.0	28.6%	6.1%	22.4%	3.4%	6.06	3.32	—
2023	29	MIX MLE	2 levels	70	1	71	318	78	39	6	1%	1.0	23.6%	11.9%	11.7%	1.9%	4.44	3.66	+0.8
2023	29	MIX RAW	2 levels	70	1	71	318	78	39	6	1%	1.0	24.5%	12.3%	12.3%	1.9%	4.44	3.65	+0.8
2024	30	MIX MLE	3 levels	64	0	60	254	60	28	4	0%	0.9	24.5%	11.0%	13.5%	1.7%	3.45	3.36	+0.9
2024	30	MIX MLE	3 levels	64	0	60	254	60	28	4	0%	0.9	24.5%	11.0%	13.5%	1.7%	3.45	3.36	+0.9
2024	30	MIX RAW	3 levels	64	0	60	254	60	28	4	0%	0.9	23.6%	11.0%	12.6%	1.6%	3.45	3.37	+0.8
2025	31	MIX MLE	2 levels	58	0	69	282	62	18	10	0%	1.2	21.7%	6.4%	15.4%	3.5%	2.99	3.98	+0.5
2025	31	MIX MLE	2 levels	58	0	69	282	62	18	10	0%	1.2	21.7%	6.4%	15.4%	3.5%	2.99	3.98	+0.5
2025	31	MIX RAW	2 levels	58	0	69	282	62	18	10	0%	1.2	22.0%	6.4%	15.6%	3.5%	2.99	3.97	+0.5
2026	32	MLB MLE	Chicago Cubs	68	0	67	284	73	25	10	0%	1.0	25.7%	8.8%	16.9%	3.7%	3.36	4.05	+0.4
2026	32	MLB MLE	Chicago Cubs	68	0	67	284	73	25	10	0%	1.0	25.7%	8.8%	16.9%	3.7%	3.36	4.05	+0.4
2026	32	MLB RAW	Chicago Cubs	68	0	67	284	73	25	10	0%	1.0	25.7%	8.8%	16.9%	3.5%	3.36	3.98	+0.5
▸ Career totals (raw MLB only — as recorded)
MLB Career	—			315	0	320	1344	317	121	38	0%	1.0	23.6%	9.0%	14.6%	2.8%	3.07	3.80	+2.9
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	33	MLB	CHC	52	0	55	232	57	19	8	0%	1.1	24.4%	8.4%	16.0%	3.3%	4.01	4.28	+0.2
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	34	MLB MLE	CHC	37	0	39	163	38	15	6	0%	1.0	23.5%	8.9%	14.7%	3.6%	4.35	4.58	-0.0
2029	35	MLB MLE	CHC	24	0	25	106	24	10	4	0%	1.0	22.6%	9.4%	13.1%	3.9%	4.69	4.92	-0.1
2030	36	MLB MLE	CHC	14	0	15	62	13	6	3	0%	1.0	21.6%	10.0%	11.5%	4.3%	5.05	5.28	-0.1
2028	34	MLB CTX	CHC	35	0	37	156	37	14	6	0%	1.1	23.5%	8.9%	14.7%	3.6%	4.35	4.58	-0.0
2029	35	MLB CTX	CHC	22	0	23	97	22	9	4	0%	1.0	22.6%	9.4%	13.1%	3.9%	4.69	4.92	-0.1
2030	36	MLB CTX	CHC	11	0	12	51	11	5	2	0%	1.1	21.6%	10.0%	11.5%	4.3%	5.05	5.28	-0.1
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		383	0	392	1646	386	149	49	0%	1.0	23.5%	9.0%	14.4%	3.0%	3.34	3.92	+2.9
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		196	0	200	841	197	76	25	0%	1.0	23.5%	9.0%	14.4%	3.0%	3.34	3.92	+1.5
Career	—	MLE		510	2	548	2314	568	221	60	0%	1.1	24.5%	9.5%	15.0%	2.6%	3.42	3.67	+2.6
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		186	1	200	845	207	81	22	0%	1.1	24.5%	9.5%	15.0%	2.6%	3.42	3.67	+1.3

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 AAASalt Lake Bees · 17 IPFIP 2.81 → 2.92 (+0.11)K% 24.4% → 21.0%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	24.42%	—	×0.860	21.00%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	13.95%	—	×0.900	12.56%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷1.003	×1.100	0.00%

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 101).

Result: FIP 2.81 → 2.92, 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).

2022 AAAGwinnett Stripers · 36 IPFIP 3.33 → 3.88 (+0.55)K% 28.6% → 25.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	28.57%	—	×0.880	25.14%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	6.12%	—	×1.050	6.43%
HR / BF /BF	3.40%	÷0.981	×1.100	3.81%

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 96).

Result: FIP 3.33 → 3.88, 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 AAAGwinnett Stripers · 24 IPFIP 2.20 → 2.71 (+0.50)K% 34.3% → 30.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	34.34%	—	×0.880	30.22%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	7.07%	—	×1.050	7.42%
HR / BF /BF	2.02%	÷1.001	×1.100	2.22%

Result: FIP 2.20 → 2.71, 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 AAAGwinnett Stripers · 10 IPFIP 4.48 → 5.09 (+0.61)K% 24.5% → 21.6%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	24.49%	—	×0.880	21.55%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	18.37%	—	×1.050	19.29%
HR / BF /BF	2.04%	÷0.899	×1.100	2.50%

Result: FIP 4.48 → 5.09, 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).

2018 AAAGwinnett Stripers · 32 IPFIP 2.94 → 3.42 (+0.48)K% 26.6% → 23.4%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	26.56%	—	×0.880	23.38%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	6.25%	—	×1.050	6.56%
HR / BF /BF	2.34%	÷0.970	×1.100	2.66%

Result: FIP 2.94 → 3.42, 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 AAMississippi Braves · 23 IPFIP 3.61 → 5.06 (+1.45)K% 35.4% → 28.6%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	35.35%	—	×0.810	28.64%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	10.10%	—	×1.100	11.11%
HR / BF /BF	4.04%	÷0.897	×1.200	5.41%

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 79).

Result: FIP 3.61 → 5.06, 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+Florida Fire Frogs · 41 IPFIP 2.45 → 3.33 (+0.87)K% 28.2% → 21.7%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	28.24%	—	×0.770	21.74%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	11.18%	—	×1.150	12.85%
HR / BF /BF	0.59%	÷0.929	×1.250	0.79%

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 86).

Result: FIP 2.45 → 3.33, 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).

2017 AAMississippi Braves · 24 IPFIP 3.10 → 3.85 (+0.75)K% 26.3% → 21.3%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	26.26%	—	×0.810	21.27%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	13.13%	—	×1.100	14.44%
HR / BF /BF	1.01%	÷0.925	×1.200	1.31%

Result: FIP 3.10 → 3.85, 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
Jacob Webb (OGILVIE)	—	—	4.28	24.4%	8.4%	3.3%	—	4.82	22.9%	13.6%	78	+0.54	—	—	—
Tony Barnette R 2017 · 3.56 FIP	33	SU	3.56	22.6%	7.1%	2.7%	.335	2.61	25.0%	20.2%	26	-0.95	2.61	144	82
Rafael Betancourt R 2008 · 4.12 FIP	33	SU	4.12	20.7%	6.5%	3.6%	.304	2.37	31.4%	27.3%	181	-1.75	1.79	686	81
Jim Henderson R 2016 · 4.55 FIP	33	SU	4.55	25.8%	9.0%	4.5%	.287	—	—	—	—	—	1.86	167	80
Dale Thayer R 2014 · 3.56 FIP	33	SU	3.56	23.4%	4.9%	3.3%	.243	4.34	15.8%	8.8%	38	+0.78	2.75	239	77
Blake Parker R 2018 · 4.12 FIP	33	SU	4.12	25.4%	6.5%	4.3%	.290	4.12	24.9%	16.5%	121	+0.00	2.52	406	76
Hirokazu Sawamura R 2021 · 4.48 FIP	33	SU	4.48	26.2%	11.2%	4.0%	.263	4.02	18.1%	6.8%	51	-0.46	4.02	104	72
Zack Segovia R 2016 · 3.33 FIP	33	SU	3.33	20.2%	5.9%	2.2%	.312	4.55	17.6%	4.0%	57	+1.22	3.33	144	72
Jean Machi R 2015 · 4.56 FIP	33	SU	4.56	16.3%	8.6%	3.2%	.276	4.24	18.5%	11.9%	128	-0.32	2.16	306	72
Jose Manuel Lopez R 2017 · 3.61 FIP	32	SU	3.61	20.4%	10.0%	1.8%	.331	6.14	17.9%	3.7%	41	+2.53	3.50	170	71
Arcenio Leon R 2019 · 3.61 FIP	32	SU	3.61	21.4%	8.1%	2.4%	.314	—	—	—	—	—	3.00	115	71
Mark Serrano R 2019 · 5.25 FIP	33	SU	5.25	20.2%	7.9%	5.2%	.289	—	—	—	—	—	3.16	120	71
Bob Wells R 2000 · 3.93 FIP	33	SU	3.93	21.7%	3.7%	4.0%	.266	4.57	14.2%	8.6%	127	+0.64	3.93	627	70
D.J. Carrasco R 2010 · 3.45 FIP	33	SU	3.45	19.7%	9.4%	1.5%	.275	4.47	12.0%	6.7%	49	+1.02	3.23	490	70
Jumbo Diaz R 2017 · 4.17 FIP	33	SU	4.17	20.0%	9.7%	2.8%	.302	2.90	24.2%	15.4%	98	-1.27	2.80	319	70
Adrian Ramirez R 2019 · 4.29 FIP	31	SU	4.29	21.7%	6.3%	4.0%	.327	—	—	—	—	—	3.04	137	70
Tyler Walker R 2009 · 3.72 FIP	33	SU	3.72	18.0%	5.3%	2.7%	.243	3.77	20.7%	16.6%	35	+0.05	2.38	289	70
Neil Wagner R 2017 · 3.11 FIP	33	SU	3.11	20.7%	8.6%	1.2%	.257	—	—	—	—	—	3.11	135	69
Jared Burton R 2014 · 3.90 FIP	33	SU	3.90	16.9%	8.1%	2.2%	.263	3.99	25.1%	15.7%	14	+0.09	3.09	367	69
Jon Edwards R 2019 · 4.43 FIP	31	SU	4.43	25.1%	11.6%	3.6%	.290	—	—	—	—	—	2.40	132	69
Huascar Brazobán R 2023 · 3.52 FIP	33	SU	3.52	25.3%	11.3%	2.1%	.304	3.54	21.9%	11.8%	195	+0.02	3.08	370	69

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	45	23.6%	9.5%	1.18	3.44
Neftalí Feliz ('21)	2.0	49	22.9%	9.7%	1.05	3.55
Ryan Tepera ('23)	1.8	52	24.3%	8.8%	1.13	3.62
David Riske ('10)	2.5	55	20.8%	10.0%	1.19	3.67
Joe Hoerner ('63-'77, 8 WAR*)	2.8	51	23.2%*	7.9%*	1.21*	3.52*
Alberto Reyes ('95-'08, 5 WAR*)	2.1	54	27.1%*	10.2%*	1.18*	3.66*
Rob Murphy ('85-'95, 6 WAR*)	3.1	69	25.2%*	9.2%*	1.07*	3.94*