Blair Calvo
P Erie SeaWolves| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 27 | MIX2 levels | 54 | 0 | 58 | 7.02 | 4.61 | 24.3% | 15.7% | -0.0 | K 21.1% · BB 14.3% · FIP 4.82 | |
| 2024 | 28 | AADET | 3 | 0 | 2 | 9.00 | 3.10 | 21.4% | 14.3% | — | K 21.4% · BB 14.3% · FIP 3.10 | |
| 2025 | 29 | MIX5 levels | 30 | 2 | 40 | 5.40 | 4.00 | 27.1% | 10.2% | — | K 20.7% · BB 10.7% · FIP 5.75 | |
| 2026 | 30 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2027PROJ | 31 | MLBDET | — | — | 0 | 4.57 | 4.57 | 22.3% | 9.9% | — | ||
| 2028PROJ31% MLB | 32 | MLBDET | 6 | 0 | 6 | 4.68 | 4.77 | 21.9% | 10.2% | -0.0 | ||
Grades · 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) | |||||||||||||||||||
| ▸ Model inputs — neutral MLE (past 3 seasons + 2027 so far) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2021 | 25 | A MLE | Fresno Grizzlies | 33 | 0 | 71 | 298 | 75 | 23 | 6 | 0% | 2.2 | 18.6% | 9.1% | 9.5% | 2.1% | 4.54 | 3.86 | — |
| 2021 | 25 | A RAW | Fresno Grizzlies | 33 | 0 | 71 | 298 | 75 | 23 | 6 | 0% | 2.2 | 25.2% | 7.7% | 17.4% | 2.0% | 4.54 | 3.06 | — |
| 2022 | 26 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 31 | 0 | 37 | 155 | 49 | 11 | 2 | 0% | 1.2 | 26.1% | 8.3% | 17.8% | 1.7% | 2.92 | 2.86 | — |
| 2022 | 26 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 31 | 0 | 37 | 155 | 49 | 11 | 2 | 0% | 1.2 | 31.6% | 7.1% | 24.5% | 1.3% | 2.92 | 2.05 | — |
| 2023 | 27 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 54 | 0 | 58 | 280 | 68 | 44 | 7 | 0% | 1.1 | 21.1% | 14.3% | 6.8% | 3.1% | 7.02 | 4.82 | -0.2 |
| 2023 | 27 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 54 | 0 | 58 | 280 | 68 | 44 | 7 | 0% | 1.1 | 24.3% | 15.7% | 8.6% | 2.5% | 7.02 | 4.61 | -0.0 |
| 2024 | 28 | AA MLE | Erie SeaWolves | 3 | 0 | 2 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0% | 0.7 | 21.4% | 14.3% | 7.1% | 0.0% | 9.00 | 3.10 | — |
| 2024 | 28 | AA MLE | Erie SeaWolves | 3 | 0 | 2 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0% | 0.7 | 21.4% | 14.3% | 7.1% | 0.0% | 9.00 | 3.10 | — |
| 2024 | 28 | AA RAW | Erie SeaWolves | 3 | 0 | 2 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0% | 0.7 | 21.4% | 14.3% | 7.1% | 0.0% | 9.00 | 3.10 | — |
| 2025 | 29 | MIX MLE | 5 levels | 30 | 2 | 40 | 177 | 48 | 18 | 6 | 7% | 1.3 | 20.7% | 10.7% | 10.0% | 5.5% | 5.40 | 5.75 | — |
| 2025 | 29 | MIX MLE | 5 levels | 30 | 2 | 40 | 177 | 48 | 18 | 6 | 7% | 1.3 | 20.7% | 10.7% | 10.0% | 5.5% | 5.40 | 5.75 | — |
| 2025 | 29 | MIX RAW | 5 levels | 30 | 2 | 40 | 177 | 48 | 18 | 6 | 7% | 1.3 | 27.1% | 10.2% | 16.9% | 3.4% | 5.40 | 4.00 | — |
| ▸ Career totals (raw MLB only — as recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| MLB Career | — | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | 1.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.00 | 3.10 | +0.0 | ||
| ▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 31 | MLB | DET | — | — | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 22.3% | 9.9% | 12.4% | 3.1% | 4.57 | 4.57 | — |
| ▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2028 | 32 | MLB MLE | DET | 17 | 0 | 18 | 75 | 16 | 8 | 3 | 0% | 1.0 | 21.9% | 10.2% | 11.7% | 3.4% | 4.68 | 4.77 | -0.0 |
| 2028 | 32 | MLB CTX | DET | 6 | 0 | 6 | 25 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 21.9% | 10.2% | 11.7% | 3.4% | 4.68 | 4.77 | -0.0 |
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 6 | 0 | 7 | 27 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 19.4% | 9.1% | 10.4% | 3.0% | 3.97 | 4.25 | +0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 192 | 0 | 200 | 807 | 152 | 61 | 30 | 0% | 1.0 | 19.4% | 9.1% | 10.4% | 3.0% | 3.97 | 4.25 | +0.7 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 151 | 2 | 208 | 924 | 195 | 101 | 27 | 1% | 1.4 | 21.1% | 10.9% | 10.1% | 3.0% | 5.15 | 4.33 | -0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 145 | 2 | 200 | 888 | 187 | 97 | 26 | 1% | 1.4 | 21.1% | 10.9% | 10.1% | 3.0% | 5.15 | 4.33 | -0.3 | |
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.
2025 AAErie SeaWolves · 18 IPFIP 4.85 → 5.75 (+0.90)K% 25.6% → 20.7%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 25.61% | — | ×0.810 | 20.74% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 9.76% | — | ×1.100 | 10.73% |
| HR / BF /BF | 4.88% | ÷1.056 | ×1.200 | 5.54% |
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 111).
Result: FIP 4.85 → 5.75, 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).
2025 ALakeland Flying Tigers · 12 IPFIP 3.28 → 4.69 (+1.41)K% 27.1% → 20.0%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 27.08% | — | ×0.740 | 20.04% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 10.42% | — | ×1.180 | 12.29% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.08% | ÷0.864 | ×1.300 | 3.14% |
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 73).
Result: FIP 3.28 → 4.69, 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).
2025 A+West Michigan Whitecaps · 5 IPFIP 3.83 → 5.32 (+1.49)K% 24.1% → 18.6%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 24.14% | — | ×0.770 | 18.59% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 6.90% | — | ×1.150 | 7.93% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.45% | ÷0.850 | ×1.250 | 5.07% |
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 70).
Result: FIP 3.83 → 5.32, 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 AAAToledo Mud Hens · 57 IPFIP 4.43 → 4.82 (+0.40)K% 24.5% → 21.1%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 24.55% | — | ×0.860 | 21.11% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 15.88% | — | ×0.900 | 14.30% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.53% | ÷0.901 | ×1.100 | 3.08% |
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 80).
Result: FIP 4.43 → 4.82, 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).
2022 AAHartford Yard Goats · 35 IPFIP 2.09 → 2.86 (+0.77)K% 32.2% → 26.1%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 32.19% | — | ×0.810 | 26.08% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 7.53% | — | ×1.100 | 8.29% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.37% | ÷0.992 | ×1.200 | 1.66% |
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 98).
Result: FIP 2.09 → 2.86, 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 AFresno Grizzlies · 71 IPFIP 3.06 → 3.86 (+0.80)K% 25.2% → 18.6%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 25.17% | — | ×0.740 | 18.62% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 7.72% | — | ×1.180 | 9.11% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.01% | ÷1.218 | ×1.300 | 2.15% |
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 144).
Result: FIP 3.06 → 3.86, 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).