Wigberto Nevarez
| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | PA | AVG/OBP/SLG | HR | SB | wRC+ | WAR | MLE AVG/OBP/SLG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 24 | ARome Braves | 195 | .177/.242/.246 | 2 | 1 | -4 | — | .133/.179/.178 |
| 2016 | 25 | A/INTL2 orgs | 187 | .164/.219/.234 | 1 | 0 | -11 | — | .116/.164/.174 |
| 2017 | 26 | A+Florida Fire … | 50 | .217/.280/.326 | 1 | 1 | 11 | — | .149/.200/.234 |
Career Stats + Projections
Methodology▸ how these numbers are built
All seasons translated to park-neutral MLB-equivalent (MLE) and combined per year. 2027 = full-season projection (no games played yet). 2028+ via Advanced Marcel + aging curve.
| Year | Age | Lvl | Team | MLB% | PA | AB | H | 2B | 3B | HR | BB | SO | HBP | SB | CS | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | ISO | BABIP | K% | BB% | wOBA | wRC+ | BAT | RUN | FLD | POS | REP | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ Career — actual stats, one row per stint (as recorded, no adjustments) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 | 23 | ROK | Danville Braves | — | 104 | 93 | 23 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 19 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 247 | 320 | 355 | 675 | 108 | 292 | 18 | 7 | 305 | 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2015 | 24 | A | Rome Braves | — | 195 | 175 | 31 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 12 | 47 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 177 | 242 | 246 | 488 | 69 | 223 | 24 | 6 | 222 | -4 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 25 | A | Rome Braves | — | 148 | 134 | 22 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 43 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 164 | 233 | 239 | 472 | 75 | 233 | 29 | 7 | 217 | -12 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 25 | INTL | Melbourne Aces | — | 39 | 37 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 162 | 162 | 216 | 378 | 54 | 240 | 33 | 0 | 159 | -6 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 26 | A+ | Florida Fire Frogs | — | 50 | 46 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 217 | 280 | 326 | 606 | 109 | 321 | 34 | 6 | 276 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| ▸ Career — adjusted (every ACTUAL line translated to park/league-neutral MLB equivalents) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2014 | 23 | ROK MLE | Danville Braves | — | 104 | 96 | 17 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 27 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 177 | 233 | 240 | 473 | 62 | 222 | 26 | 4 | 211 | 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2015 | 24 | A MLE | Rome Braves | — | 195 | 180 | 24 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 67 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 133 | 179 | 178 | 357 | 44 | 190 | 34 | 4 | 163 | -4 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 25 | A MLE | Rome Braves | — | 148 | 138 | 16 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 60 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 116 | 164 | 174 | 338 | 58 | 195 | 41 | 5 | 150 | -12 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 26 | A+ MLE | Florida Fire Frogs | — | 50 | 47 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 149 | 200 | 234 | 434 | 85 | 285 | 50 | 4 | 184 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2014 | 23 | ROK MLE | Danville Braves | — | 104 | 96 | 17 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 27 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 177 | 233 | 240 | 473 | 62 | 235 | 26 | 4 | 211 | 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2014 | 23 | ROK RAW | Danville Braves | — | 104 | 93 | 23 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 19 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 247 | 320 | 355 | 675 | 108 | 292 | 18 | 7 | 305 | 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2015 | 24 | A MLE | Rome Braves | — | 195 | 180 | 24 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 67 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 133 | 179 | 178 | 357 | 44 | 198 | 34 | 4 | 163 | -4 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2015 | 24 | A RAW | Rome Braves | — | 195 | 175 | 31 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 12 | 47 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 177 | 242 | 246 | 488 | 69 | 223 | 24 | 6 | 222 | -4 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 25 | A MLE | 2 teams | — | 187 | 174 | 20 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 76 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 115 | 158 | 167 | 325 | 52 | 194 | 41 | 4 | 150 | -12 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 25 | A RAW | 2 teams | — | 187 | 171 | 28 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 56 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 164 | 219 | 234 | 452 | 70 | 235 | 30 | 6 | 205 | -12 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 26 | A+ MLE | Florida Fire Frogs | — | 50 | 47 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 149 | 200 | 234 | 434 | 85 | 286 | 50 | 4 | 184 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 26 | A+ RAW | Florida Fire Frogs | — | 50 | 46 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 217 | 280 | 326 | 606 | 109 | 321 | 34 | 6 | 276 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2014 | 23 | ROK MLE | Danville Braves | — | 104 | 96 | 17 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 27 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 177 | 233 | 240 | 473 | 62 | 222 | 26 | 4 | 211 | 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2015 | 24 | A MLE | Rome Braves | — | 195 | 183 | 24 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 67 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 131 | 179 | 175 | 354 | 44 | 190 | 34 | 4 | 163 | -4 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 25 | A MLE | 2 teams | — | 187 | 176 | 20 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 76 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 114 | 158 | 165 | 323 | 51 | 195 | 41 | 4 | 150 | -12 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 26 | A+ MLE | Florida Fire Frogs | — | 50 | 47 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 149 | 200 | 234 | 434 | 85 | 285 | 50 | 4 | 184 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| ▸ Career Totals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | MLE | — | 536 | 497 | 68 | 15 | 0 | 4 | 21 | 195 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 137 | 184 | 191 | 376 | 54 | 211 | 36 | 4 | 170 | 1 | -63 | -0 | +0 | -10 | +12 | -6.3 | |
| / 162G | — | MLE | — | 650 | 603 | 82 | 18 | 0 | 5 | 25 | 236 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 136 | 183 | 191 | 374 | 55 | 209 | 36 | 4 | 170 | 1 | -77 | +0 | +0 | -12 | +14 | -7.6 | |
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.
2017 A+Florida Fire Frogs · 50 PAwOBA .269 → .184 (−84)K% 34.0% → 50.1%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | GB/FB × | Age × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /PA | 34.00% | ÷0.963 | ×1.420 | — | — | 50.11% |
| BB% (unintentional) /PA | 6.00% | ÷1.091 | ×0.750 | — | ×0.968 | 3.99% |
| HBP% /PA | 2.00% | — | ×0.930 | — | ×0.968 | 1.80% |
| Singles /BIP | 24.14% | ÷0.978 | ×0.920 | — | ×0.968 | 21.98% |
| Doubles /BIP | 6.90% | ÷1.148 | ×0.960 | — | ×0.968 | 5.58% |
| Triples /BIP | 0.00% | ÷1.150 | ×0.810 | — | ×0.968 | 0.00% |
| Home runs /BIP | 3.45% | ÷0.929 | ×0.880 | — | ×0.968 | 3.16% |
Factors used: league row FSL. Park (home-season share, regressed): HR 86, 1B 96, 2B 130, 3B 130, K 93, BB 118 — applied at half strength. Age: age 26 vs a level average of 22.8 → −3.2% on BB/HBP/hit rates (3.2 yr older than average).
Result: wOBA .269 → .184; ISO .109 → .072; BABIP .321 → .285. Both wOBAs use the same linear weights, so the change is the translation alone. The MLE line is not regressed to the mean — regression happens later, when seasons are blended into a projection (how).
2016 ARome Braves · 148 PAwOBA .212 → .150 (−62)K% 29.1% → 40.5%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | GB/FB × | Age × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /PA | 29.05% | ÷0.961 | ×1.340 | — | — | 40.52% |
| BB% (unintentional) /PA | 7.43% | ÷1.050 | ×0.660 | — | ×0.970 | 4.53% |
| HBP% /PA | 0.68% | — | ×0.770 | — | ×0.970 | 0.50% |
| Singles /BIP | 15.38% | ÷1.036 | ×0.920 | ×0.983 | ×0.970 | 13.02% |
| Doubles /BIP | 7.69% | ÷0.953 | ×0.820 | ×0.983 | ×0.970 | 6.32% |
| Triples /BIP | 0.00% | ÷1.041 | ×0.940 | ×0.983 | ×0.970 | 0.00% |
| Home runs /BIP | 1.10% | ÷0.965 | ×0.820 | — | ×0.970 | 0.91% |
Factors used: league row SAL. Park (home-season share, regressed): HR 93, 1B 107, 2B 90, 3B 108, K 92, BB 110 — applied at half strength. Age: age 25 vs a level average of 22.0 → −3.0% on BB/HBP/hit rates (3.0 yr older than average). Ground-ball/fly-ball mix moves 1B/2B/3B by ×0.983.
Result: wOBA .212 → .150; ISO .075 → .054; BABIP .233 → .195. Both wOBAs use the same linear weights, so the change is the translation alone. The MLE line is not regressed to the mean — regression happens later, when seasons are blended into a projection (how).
2015 ARome Braves · 195 PAwOBA .221 → .163 (−57)K% 24.1% → 34.6%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | GB/FB × | Age × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /PA | 24.10% | ÷0.932 | ×1.340 | — | — | 34.64% |
| BB% (unintentional) /PA | 6.15% | ÷1.077 | ×0.660 | — | ×0.980 | 3.70% |
| HBP% /PA | 1.54% | — | ×0.770 | — | ×0.980 | 1.16% |
| Singles /BIP | 17.97% | ÷1.026 | ×0.920 | ×0.975 | ×0.980 | 15.40% |
| Doubles /BIP | 4.69% | ÷0.915 | ×0.820 | ×0.975 | ×0.980 | 4.01% |
| Triples /BIP | 0.00% | ÷1.150 | ×0.940 | ×0.975 | ×0.980 | 0.00% |
| Home runs /BIP | 1.56% | ÷1.097 | ×0.820 | — | ×0.980 | 1.14% |
Factors used: league row SAL. Park (home-season share, regressed): HR 119, 1B 105, 2B 83, 3B 130, K 86, BB 115 — applied at half strength. Age: age 24 vs a level average of 22.0 → −2.0% on BB/HBP/hit rates (2.0 yr older than average). Ground-ball/fly-ball mix moves 1B/2B/3B by ×0.975.
Result: wOBA .221 → .163; ISO .069 → .050; BABIP .223 → .190. Both wOBAs use the same linear weights, so the change is the translation alone. The MLE line is not regressed to the mean — regression happens later, when seasons are blended into a projection (how).
2014 ROKDanville Braves · 104 PAwOBA .298 → .211 (−87)K% 18.3% → 25.9%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | GB/FB × | Age × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /PA | 18.27% | ÷1.000 | ×1.420 | — | — | 25.94% |
| BB% (unintentional) /PA | 6.73% | ÷1.000 | ×0.640 | — | ×0.965 | 4.16% |
| HBP% /PA | 2.88% | — | ×0.740 | — | ×0.965 | 2.06% |
| Singles /BIP | 22.97% | ÷1.000 | ×0.840 | ×0.965 | ×0.965 | 17.97% |
| Doubles /BIP | 5.41% | ÷1.000 | ×0.740 | ×0.965 | ×0.965 | 3.72% |
| Triples /BIP | 0.00% | ÷1.000 | ×0.740 | ×0.965 | ×0.965 | 0.00% |
| Home runs /BIP | 2.70% | ÷1.000 | ×0.800 | — | ×0.965 | 2.09% |
Factors used: level-wide ROK factors (no league-specific row for this league/era). Park (home-season share, regressed): no park row on file (treated as neutral) — applied at half strength. Age: age 23 vs a level average of 19.5 → −3.5% on BB/HBP/hit rates (3.5 yr older than average). Ground-ball/fly-ball mix moves 1B/2B/3B by ×0.965.
Result: wOBA .298 → .211; ISO .108 → .076; BABIP .292 → .222. Both wOBAs use the same linear weights, so the change is the translation alone. The MLE line is not regressed to the mean — regression happens later, when seasons are blended into a projection (how).
Not traceable per stint: some stints lack the counting stats the component translation needs. Level-wide factors that apply instead — .