Ian Gibaut

P Cincinnati Reds

Age 33 RHP 6'3" / 250 lbs MLB

Overview

MLBRP

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2023	29	MLBCIN	74	0	76	3.33	3.60	21.7%	7.5%	0.9
2024	30	MIX3 levels	13	1	12	8.49	6.61	18.0%	13.1%	-0.3	K 18.0% · BB 13.1% · FIP 5.94
2025	31	MIX2 levels	31	0	31	4.94	4.13	15.2%	8.3%	0.2	K 13.8% · BB 7.3% · FIP 4.27
2026	32	No MLB games played
2027PROJ	33	MLBCIN	48	0	50	4.51	4.70	17.1%	8.3%	-0.1
2028PROJ95% MLB	34	MLBCIN	31	0	33	4.80	5.00	16.2%	8.8%	-0.2
2029PROJ91% MLB	35	MLBCIN	23	0	24	5.12	5.34	15.2%	9.3%	-0.2

Last 3 seasons WAR 0.7 · Next 3 projected WAR -0.5Projected rows: MLB playing time only, park and league context applied.

Contract

No contract data on file.

Skills · percentileStatcast 2025

xwOBA vs50

FB Velo43

K%10

CompsKeiichi Yabu (age 36) · Juan Sandoval (age 34) · Hector Navarro (age 35)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 122114vR 106

ERA4.51

FIP4.70

K%17.1%

BB%8.3%

K-BB%8.8%

Proj IP50

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 50 IP

Grades · Statcast · Contract

Scouting Grades

STUF5050

CTRL4545

CMD5050

K†4040

Statcast Percentiles

FB Velo

p4394.0

Whiff%

p1017.5%

p1013.8%

xwOBA vs

p500.312

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	21	ROK MLE	Princeton Rays	12	0	30	120	38	8	2	0%	2.5	21.5%	8.3%	13.2%	2.3%	2.12	3.62	—
2015	21	ROK RAW	Princeton Rays	12	0	30	120	38	8	2	0%	2.5	31.7%	6.7%	25.0%	1.7%	2.12	2.22	—
2016	22	MIX MLE	2 levels	34	0	57	238	63	20	2	0%	1.7	17.3%	10.9%	6.4%	1.1%	2.53	3.62	—
2016	22	MIX RAW	2 levels	34	0	57	238	63	20	2	0%	1.7	26.5%	8.4%	18.1%	0.8%	2.53	2.40	—
2017	23	MIX MLE	2 levels	48	0	61	252	77	26	6	0%	1.3	23.0%	12.4%	10.6%	3.2%	2.21	4.49	—
2017	23	MIX RAW	2 levels	48	0	61	252	77	26	6	0%	1.3	30.6%	10.3%	20.2%	2.4%	2.21	3.13	—
2018	24	AAA MLE	Durham Bulls	48	0	56	222	75	20	3	0%	1.2	29.7%	9.5%	20.3%	1.5%	2.09	2.63	—
2018	24	AAA RAW	Durham Bulls	48	0	56	222	75	20	3	0%	1.2	33.8%	9.0%	24.8%	1.4%	2.09	2.19	—
2019	25	MIX MLE	3 levels	29	1	32	155	39	24	2	3%	1.1	25.1%	16.8%	8.3%	0.7%	5.01	3.49	+0.4
2019	25	MIX RAW	3 levels	29	1	32	155	39	24	2	3%	1.1	25.2%	15.5%	9.7%	1.3%	5.01	3.72	+0.3
2020	26	MLB MLE	Texas Rangers	14	0	12	59	14	9	2	0%	0.9	23.7%	15.3%	8.5%	3.2%	6.57	4.76	-0.0
2020	26	MLB RAW	Texas Rangers	14	0	12	59	14	9	2	0%	0.9	23.7%	15.3%	8.5%	3.4%	6.57	5.13	-0.1
2021	27	MIX MLE	2 levels	35	1	52	236	58	23	7	3%	1.5	22.8%	10.6%	12.2%	2.4%	6.27	3.81	+0.5
2021	27	MIX RAW	2 levels	35	1	52	236	58	23	7	3%	1.5	24.6%	9.7%	14.8%	3.0%	6.27	3.95	+0.4
2022	28	MIX MLE	2 levels	51	0	56	239	67	26	3	0%	1.1	27.1%	11.0%	16.0%	1.2%	4.04	2.85	+1.1
2022	28	MIX RAW	2 levels	51	0	56	239	67	26	3	0%	1.1	28.0%	10.9%	17.2%	1.3%	4.04	2.79	+1.2
2023	29	MLB MLE	Cincinnati Reds	74	0	76	318	69	24	8	0%	1.0	21.7%	7.5%	14.2%	2.3%	3.33	3.50	+0.9
2023	29	MLB RAW	Cincinnati Reds	74	0	76	318	69	24	8	0%	1.0	21.7%	7.5%	14.2%	2.5%	3.33	3.60	+0.9
2024	30	MIX MLE	3 levels	13	1	12	61	11	8	3	8%	0.9	18.0%	13.1%	4.9%	4.9%	8.49	5.94	-0.2
2024	30	MIX MLE	3 levels	13	1	12	61	11	8	3	8%	0.9	18.0%	13.1%	4.9%	4.9%	8.49	5.94	-0.2
2024	30	MIX RAW	3 levels	13	1	12	61	11	8	3	8%	0.9	18.0%	13.1%	4.9%	4.9%	8.49	6.61	-0.3
2025	31	MIX MLE	2 levels	31	0	31	132	20	11	3	0%	1.0	13.8%	7.3%	6.4%	2.5%	4.94	4.27	+0.1
2025	31	MIX MLE	2 levels	31	0	31	132	20	11	3	0%	1.0	13.8%	7.3%	6.4%	2.5%	4.94	4.27	+0.1
2025	31	MIX RAW	2 levels	31	0	31	132	20	11	3	0%	1.0	15.2%	8.3%	6.8%	2.3%	4.94	4.13	+0.2
▸ Career totals (raw MLB only — as recorded)
MLB Career	—			162	0	172	748	167	71	19	0%	1.1	22.3%	9.5%	12.8%	2.5%	4.18	3.83	+1.5
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	33	MLB	CIN	48	0	50	211	36	17	6	0%	1.0	17.1%	8.3%	8.8%	2.9%	4.51	4.70	-0.1
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	34	MLB MLE	CIN	33	0	35	147	24	13	5	0%	1.1	16.2%	8.8%	7.4%	3.2%	4.80	5.00	-0.2
2029	35	MLB MLE	CIN	25	0	26	110	17	10	4	0%	1.0	15.2%	9.3%	5.9%	3.6%	5.12	5.34	-0.2
2028	34	MLB CTX	CIN	31	0	33	139	23	12	5	0%	1.1	16.2%	8.8%	7.4%	3.2%	4.80	5.00	-0.2
2029	35	MLB CTX	CIN	23	0	24	101	15	9	4	0%	1.0	15.2%	9.3%	5.9%	3.6%	5.12	5.34	-0.2
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		216	0	229	988	205	93	27	0%	1.1	20.7%	9.4%	11.4%	2.7%	4.37	4.04	+1.4
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		189	0	200	862	179	81	24	0%	1.1	20.7%	9.4%	11.4%	2.7%	4.37	4.04	+1.2
Career	—	MLE		389	3	474	2032	461	216	42	1%	1.2	22.7%	10.6%	12.0%	2.1%	3.70	3.67	+1.0
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		164	1	200	857	194	91	18	1%	1.2	22.7%	10.6%	12.0%	2.1%	3.70	3.67	+0.9

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 AAALouisville Bats · 6 IPFIP 2.92 → 3.01 (+0.09)K% 21.7% → 18.7%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	21.74%	—	×0.860	18.70%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	13.04%	—	×0.900	11.74%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷0.901	×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 80).

Result: FIP 2.92 → 3.01, 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).

2024 AAALouisville Bats · 8 IPFIP 7.52 → 7.47 (−0.05)K% 14.0% → 12.0%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	13.95%	—	×0.860	12.00%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	13.95%	—	×0.900	12.56%
HR / BF /BF	6.98%	÷1.111	×1.100	6.91%

Result: FIP 7.52 → 7.47, 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 AAAColumbus Clippers · 20 IPFIP 2.35 → 2.66 (+0.31)K% 24.1% → 21.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	24.05%	—	×0.880	21.16%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	10.13%	—	×1.050	10.63%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷1.001	×1.100	0.00%

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 100).

Result: FIP 2.35 → 2.66, 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 AAASt. Paul Saints · 45 IPFIP 3.51 → 3.81 (+0.30)K% 26.0% → 22.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	25.96%	—	×0.880	22.85%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	10.10%	—	×1.050	10.60%
HR / BF /BF	2.40%	÷1.121	×1.100	2.36%

Result: FIP 3.51 → 3.81, 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 · 16 IPFIP 2.99 → 3.40 (+0.40)K% 28.6% → 25.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	28.57%	—	×0.880	25.14%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	18.18%	—	×1.050	19.09%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷0.998	×1.100	0.00%

Result: FIP 2.99 → 3.40, 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 AAADurham Bulls · 56 IPFIP 2.13 → 2.63 (+0.50)K% 33.8% → 29.7%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	33.78%	—	×0.880	29.73%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.01%	—	×1.050	9.46%
HR / BF /BF	1.35%	÷0.970	×1.100	1.53%

Result: FIP 2.13 → 2.63, 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).

2017 AAMontgomery Biscuits · 53 IPFIP 3.61 → 4.49 (+0.88)K% 28.4% → 23.0%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	28.38%	—	×0.810	22.99%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	11.26%	—	×1.100	12.39%
HR / BF /BF	2.70%	÷1.008	×1.200	3.22%

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 102).

Result: FIP 3.61 → 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).

2017 A+Charlotte Stone Crabs · 8 IPFIP -0.42 → 0.55 (+0.97)K% 46.7% → 35.9%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	46.67%	—	×0.770	35.93%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	3.33%	—	×1.150	3.83%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷0.917	×1.250	0.00%

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 83).

Result: FIP -0.42 → 0.55, 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
Ian Gibaut (OGILVIE)	—	—	4.70	17.1%	8.3%	2.9%	—	5.15	15.7%	6.8%	61	+0.45	—	—	—
Keiichi Yabu R 2005 · 4.05 FIP	36	SU	4.05	16.8%	8.8%	2.3%	.307	3.48	15.9%	6.6%	68	-0.57	3.48	126	79
Juan Sandoval R 2015 · 3.82 FIP	34	SU	3.82	15.4%	6.0%	2.3%	.294	3.33	17.4%	8.8%	116	-0.49	3.24	225	78
Hector Navarro R 2015 · 4.35 FIP	35	SU	4.35	15.0%	5.4%	3.3%	.281	3.00	15.2%	9.0%	81	-1.35	2.30	126	77
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	77
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	76
Felipe Arredondo R 2019 · 4.65 FIP	32	SU	4.65	16.2%	7.1%	3.7%	.272	—	—	—	—	—	3.92	337	76
Mike Buddie R 2002 · 4.26 FIP	31	SU	4.26	15.1%	7.6%	2.7%	.297	—	—	—	—	—	3.76	123	76
Tyler Sturdevant R 2017 · 4.48 FIP	31	SU	4.48	13.5%	6.7%	3.0%	.300	—	—	—	—	—	3.44	149	74
Mike James R 2001 · 4.52 FIP	33	SU	4.52	15.0%	8.7%	2.9%	.299	4.84	19.6%	9.8%	11	+0.32	2.87	314	74
Miguel Mejia R 2019 · 4.41 FIP	31	SU	4.41	15.7%	10.7%	2.3%	.341	—	—	—	—	—	3.37	108	74
Arcenio Leon R 2019 · 3.61 FIP	32	SU	3.61	21.4%	8.1%	2.4%	.314	—	—	—	—	—	3.00	115	73
Fernando Villalobos R 2017 · 4.70 FIP	32	SU	4.70	10.6%	8.0%	2.7%	.313	—	—	—	—	—	4.00	152	72
Ryan Brasier R 2021 · 4.85 FIP	33	SU	4.85	18.0%	8.0%	4.1%	.286	3.16	23.7%	17.9%	150	-1.69	2.31	426	72
Mark Serrano R 2019 · 5.25 FIP	33	SU	5.25	20.2%	7.9%	5.2%	.289	—	—	—	—	—	3.16	120	72
Willie Eyre R 2011 · 4.18 FIP	33	SU	4.18	13.9%	6.9%	2.5%	.182	—	—	—	—	—	2.87	164	72
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	72
Leo Rosales R 2015 · 3.99 FIP	34	SU	3.99	18.1%	10.8%	1.9%	.261	4.24	7.8%	-0.4%	22	+0.25	3.85	130	72
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	71
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	71
Pedro Rodriguez R 2019 · 4.14 FIP	31	SU	4.14	14.7%	4.9%	3.0%	.368	—	—	—	—	—	3.21	145	71

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	1.4	47	20.0%	9.6%	1.08	4.40
Chris Ray ('11)	1.4	47	19.1%	10.2%	1.12	4.10
Yency Almonte ('24)	1.1	45	22.5%	9.9%	1.13	4.44
Kevin Hickey ('81-'91, 0 WAR*)	1.2	47	17.7%*	10.2%*	1.10*	4.27*
Tyler Walker ('10)	1.5	50	18.9%	8.5%	1.11	4.23
Bob Macdonald ('90-'96, 1 WAR*)	1.2	59	18.3%*	9.8%*	1.20*	4.32*
Gary Wayne ('89-'94, 2 WAR*)	1.2	62	19.9%*	9.4%*	1.05*	3.88*