Cristian Javier

P Houston Astros

Age 30 RHP 6'1" / 210 lbs MLB peak 0.4 · 2027

Overview

MLBSP40-MAN

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2024	27	MIX2 levels	8	8	38	4.26	4.55	18.1%	12.7%	0.4	K 18.0% · BB 12.7% · FIP 4.69
2025	28	MIX4 levels	13	13	51	4.76	3.71	22.2%	13.6%	1.0	K 21.7% · BB 9.6% · FIP 3.56
2026	29	MIX3 levels	22	17	81	4.91	4.41	22.7%	10.3%	0.9	K 21.8% · BB 9.8% · FIP 4.50
2027PROJ	30	MLBHOU	8	8	45	4.57	4.71	21.1%	10.0%	0.4
2028PROJ	31	MLBHOU	8	8	45	4.79	4.94	20.4%	10.3%	0.2
2029PROJ	32	MLBHOU	6	6	36	5.03	5.20	19.6%	10.7%	0.1

Last 3 seasons WAR 2.3 · Next 3 projected WAR 0.7Projected rows: MLB playing time only, park and league context applied.

Contract

No contract data on file.

Skills · percentileStatcast 2026

K%45

FB Velo32

xwOBA vs32

Form2.78 ERA (proj 4.57) · K 23.1% (proj 21.1%) · BB 9.9% (proj 10.0%) · last 60d · 23 IP through Oct 27

CompsElian Leyva (age 30) · Fabio Castillo (age 28) · David Hale (age 30)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 122113vR 105

ERA4.57

FIP4.71

K%21.1%

BB%10.0%

K-BB%11.2%

Proj IP45

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 45 IP

Statcast · Contract

Statcast Percentiles

FB Velo

p3293.2

Whiff%

p7429.0%

p4521.4%

xwOBA vs

p320.333

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	18	ROK MLE	DSL Astros Blue	14	4	42	166	50	9	1	29%	3.0	20.5%	6.8%	13.7%	0.8%	2.13	2.69	—
2015	18	ROK RAW	DSL Astros Blue	14	4	42	166	50	9	1	29%	3.0	30.1%	5.4%	24.7%	0.6%	2.13	1.68	—
2016	19	ROK MLE	Greeneville Astros	13	6	51	201	66	18	2	46%	3.9	22.3%	11.2%	11.1%	1.4%	2.29	3.40	—
2016	19	ROK RAW	Greeneville Astros	13	6	51	201	66	18	2	46%	3.9	32.8%	9.0%	23.9%	1.0%	2.29	2.08	—
2017	20	MIX MLE	2 levels	10	7	43	172	56	18	3	70%	4.3	23.2%	11.8%	11.4%	2.3%	2.08	3.87	—
2017	20	MIX RAW	2 levels	10	7	43	172	56	18	3	70%	4.3	32.6%	10.5%	22.1%	1.7%	2.08	2.66	—
2018	21	MIX MLE	2 levels	25	18	110	448	146	48	9	72%	4.4	24.6%	12.5%	12.1%	2.6%	2.70	4.05	—
2018	21	MIX RAW	2 levels	25	18	110	448	146	48	9	72%	4.4	32.6%	10.7%	21.9%	2.0%	2.70	2.82	—
2019	22	MIX MLE	3 levels	26	18	114	456	170	59	7	69%	4.4	29.9%	14.9%	15.0%	1.7%	1.74	3.38	—
2019	22	MIX RAW	3 levels	26	18	114	456	170	59	7	69%	4.4	37.3%	12.9%	24.3%	1.5%	1.74	2.47	—
2020	23	MLB MLE	Houston Astros	12	10	54	214	54	18	11	83%	4.5	25.2%	8.4%	16.8%	5.3%	3.48	4.94	+0.3
2020	23	MLB RAW	Houston Astros	12	10	54	214	54	18	11	83%	4.5	25.2%	8.4%	16.8%	5.1%	3.48	4.74	+0.4
2021	24	MLB MLE	Houston Astros	36	9	101	424	130	52	16	25%	2.8	30.7%	12.3%	18.4%	3.9%	3.55	4.19	+0.4
2021	24	MLB RAW	Houston Astros	36	9	101	424	130	52	16	25%	2.8	30.7%	12.3%	18.4%	3.8%	3.55	4.13	+0.5
2022	25	MLB MLE	Houston Astros	30	25	149	585	194	52	17	83%	5.0	33.2%	8.9%	24.3%	3.0%	2.54	3.07	+4.3
2022	25	MLB RAW	Houston Astros	30	25	149	585	194	52	17	83%	5.0	33.2%	8.9%	24.3%	2.9%	2.54	3.03	+4.4
2023	26	MLB MLE	Houston Astros	31	31	162	687	159	62	25	100%	5.2	23.1%	9.0%	14.1%	3.7%	4.56	4.34	+2.0
2023	26	MLB RAW	Houston Astros	31	31	162	687	159	62	25	100%	5.2	23.1%	9.0%	14.1%	3.6%	4.56	4.29	+2.1
2024	27	MIX MLE	2 levels	8	8	38	166	30	21	4	100%	4.8	18.0%	12.7%	5.3%	2.7%	4.26	4.69	+0.3
2024	27	MIX MLE	2 levels	8	8	38	166	30	21	4	100%	4.8	18.0%	12.7%	5.3%	2.7%	4.26	4.69	+0.3
2024	27	MIX RAW	2 levels	8	8	38	166	30	21	4	100%	4.8	18.1%	12.7%	5.4%	2.4%	4.26	4.55	+0.4
2025	28	MIX MLE	4 levels	13	13	51	221	49	30	3	100%	3.9	21.7%	9.6%	12.1%	2.0%	4.76	3.56	+1.1
2025	28	MIX MLE	4 levels	13	13	51	221	49	30	3	100%	3.9	21.7%	9.6%	12.1%	2.0%	4.76	3.56	+1.1
2025	28	MIX RAW	4 levels	13	13	51	221	49	30	3	100%	3.9	22.2%	13.6%	8.6%	1.4%	4.76	3.71	+1.0
2026	29	MIX MLE	3 levels	22	17	81	348	79	36	12	77%	3.7	21.8%	9.8%	12.0%	3.6%	4.91	4.50	+0.8
2026	29	MIX MLE	3 levels	22	17	81	348	79	36	12	77%	3.7	21.8%	9.8%	12.0%	3.6%	4.91	4.50	+0.8
2026	29	MIX RAW	3 levels	22	17	81	348	79	36	12	77%	3.7	22.7%	10.3%	12.4%	3.4%	4.91	4.41	+0.9
▸ Career totals (raw MLB only — as recorded)
MLB Career	—			141	102	601	2493	657	246	86	72%	4.3	26.4%	9.9%	16.5%	3.4%	3.82	4.00	+10.0
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	30	MLB	HOU	8	8	45	190	40	19	6	100%	5.6	21.1%	10.0%	11.2%	3.2%	4.57	4.71	+0.4
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	31	MLB MLE	HOU	8	8	45	192	39	20	7	100%	5.7	20.4%	10.3%	10.1%	3.4%	4.79	4.94	+0.2
2029	32	MLB MLE	HOU	6	6	36	152	30	16	6	100%	6.0	19.6%	10.7%	8.9%	3.7%	5.03	5.20	+0.1
2028	31	MLB CTX	HOU	8	8	45	190	39	20	6	100%	5.6	20.4%	10.3%	10.1%	3.4%	4.79	4.94	+0.2
2029	32	MLB CTX	HOU	6	6	36	152	30	16	6	100%	6.0	19.6%	10.7%	8.9%	3.7%	5.03	5.20	+0.1
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		155	116	682	2836	726	282	98	75%	4.4	25.6%	9.9%	15.6%	3.5%	3.95	4.10	+10.5
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		45	34	200	831	213	83	29	75%	4.4	25.6%	9.9%	15.6%	3.5%	3.95	4.10	+3.1
Career	—	MLE		240	166	996	4088	1056	438	120	69%	4.2	25.8%	10.7%	15.1%	2.9%	3.27	3.89	+10.3
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		48	33	200	821	212	88	24	69%	4.2	25.8%	10.7%	15.1%	2.9%	3.27	3.89	+3.0

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.

2026 AAASugar Land Space Cowboys · 17 IPFIP 3.61 → 3.99 (+0.37)K% 27.3% → 23.5%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	27.27%	—	×0.860	23.45%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.09%	—	×0.900	8.18%
HR / BF /BF	3.03%	÷1.000	×1.100	3.33%

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 100).

Result: FIP 3.61 → 3.99, 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 AAASugar Land Space Cowboys · 10 IPFIP 4.08 → 4.06 (−0.02)K% 23.3% → 20.0%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	23.26%	—	×0.860	20.00%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	23.26%	—	×0.900	20.93%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷0.961	×1.100	0.00%

Result: FIP 4.08 → 4.06, 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).

2019 AACorpus Christi Hooks · 74 IPFIP 2.43 → 3.35 (+0.91)K% 39.0% → 31.6%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	39.04%	—	×0.810	31.62%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	13.36%	—	×1.100	14.69%
HR / BF /BF	1.71%	÷1.067	×1.200	1.93%

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 113).

Result: FIP 2.43 → 3.35, 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+Fayetteville Woodpeckers · 29 IPFIP 2.43 → 3.46 (+1.03)K% 33.3% → 25.7%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	33.33%	—	×0.770	25.67%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	13.33%	—	×1.150	15.33%
HR / BF /BF	0.83%	÷0.969	×1.250	1.07%

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 94).

Result: FIP 2.43 → 3.46, 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).

2019 AAARound Rock Express · 11 IPFIP 2.43 → 3.05 (+0.63)K% 36.4% → 32.0%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	36.36%	—	×0.880	32.00%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.09%	—	×1.050	9.55%
HR / BF /BF	2.27%	÷0.948	×1.100	2.64%

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 90).

Result: FIP 2.43 → 3.05, 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 A+Buies Creek Astros · 61 IPFIP 3.50 → 4.60 (+1.10)K% 26.3% → 20.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	26.29%	—	×0.770	20.25%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	10.36%	—	×1.150	11.91%
HR / BF /BF	2.39%	÷0.962	×1.250	3.11%

Result: FIP 3.50 → 4.60, 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 AQuad Cities River Bandits · 49 IPFIP 1.92 → 3.35 (+1.43)K% 40.6% → 30.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	40.61%	—	×0.740	30.05%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	11.17%	—	×1.180	13.18%
HR / BF /BF	1.52%	÷0.973	×1.300	2.03%

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 95).

Result: FIP 1.92 → 3.35, 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 AQuad Cities River Bandits · 38 IPFIP 2.82 → 3.87 (+1.05)K% 31.3% → 23.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	31.33%	—	×0.740	23.19%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	10.00%	—	×1.180	11.80%
HR / BF /BF	2.00%	÷1.154	×1.300	2.25%

Result: FIP 2.82 → 3.87, 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
Cristian Javier (OGILVIE)	—	—	—	—	—	3.2%	—	5.05	20.0%	9.5%	81	+0.34	—	—	—
Elian Leyva R 2019 · 4.30 FIP	30	SP-	4.30	17.0%	8.5%	2.9%	.323	—	—	—	—	—	3.10	158	76
Fabio Castillo R 2017 · 3.98 FIP	28	SP-	3.98	20.9%	8.8%	2.8%	.291	—	—	—	—	—	3.13	195	75
David Hale R 2018 · 4.22 FIP	30	SP-	4.22	15.4%	7.5%	2.7%	.299	3.65	17.1%	11.3%	114	-0.57	3.30	581	72
Zack Segovia R 2015 · 4.78 FIP	32	SP	4.78	15.0%	8.3%	3.4%	.314	3.33	20.2%	14.3%	39	-1.45	3.33	144	71
Tim Adleman R 2017 · 5.35 FIP	29	SP-	5.35	20.3%	9.4%	5.1%	.276	4.30	22.8%	15.0%	117	-1.05	3.63	605	70
Austin Bibens-Dirkx R 2015 · 3.97 FIP	30	SP	3.97	17.4%	7.1%	2.6%	.315	4.94	15.9%	8.7%	305	+0.97	3.97	567	69
Aaron Wilkerson R 2019 · 4.67 FIP	30	SP-	4.67	20.9%	9.8%	3.8%	.291	3.33	24.6%	19.0%	112	-1.34	2.75	902	69
Travis Smith R 2002 · 5.28 FIP	29	SP	5.28	13.1%	8.2%	4.1%	.324	5.71	15.0%	9.0%	51	+0.43	3.67	105	68
Michael Mariot R 2019 · 5.01 FIP	30	SP	5.01	19.8%	11.1%	4.0%	.333	5.03	15.8%	7.4%	182	+0.02	2.40	701	67
Luke Hudson R 2006 · 3.81 FIP	29	SP-	3.81	14.5%	8.4%	1.6%	.307	—	—	—	—	—	3.81	235	67
Kohei Arihara R 2022 · 4.58 FIP	29	SP-	4.58	16.4%	7.2%	3.5%	.333	—	—	—	—	—	4.58	135	67
Hisashi Iwakuma R 2012 · 4.28 FIP	31	SP-	4.28	19.5%	7.7%	3.4%	.277	3.45	21.5%	17.8%	528	-0.83	3.19	884	67
Jared Fernandez R 2002 · 4.23 FIP	30	SP-	4.23	15.6%	10.0%	2.2%	.323	3.57	11.8%	5.6%	38	-0.66	3.57	101	66
Chi Chi González R 2022 · 4.30 FIP	30	SP-	4.30	17.6%	8.0%	3.0%	.315	5.33	11.2%	5.6%	122	+1.03	4.01	800	66
Reinier Roibal R 2019 · 4.91 FIP	30	SP	4.91	17.5%	11.8%	3.3%	.426	—	—	—	—	—	3.11	133	65
Raynel Espinal R 2022 · 4.41 FIP	30	SP-	4.41	23.9%	10.5%	3.6%	.326	—	—	—	—	—	2.48	507	64
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	64
Mike Burns R 2009 · 4.90 FIP	31	SP-	4.90	17.2%	6.6%	4.4%	.307	—	—	—	—	—	3.10	104	64
Ross Ohlendorf R 2013 · 4.01 FIP	30	SW	4.01	18.2%	5.3%	3.2%	.265	4.18	23.5%	14.4%	122	+0.17	3.30	617	64
Yariel Rodríguez R 2024 · 3.76 FIP	27	SP	3.76	24.9%	11.4%	2.4%	.275	3.72	24.1%	12.7%	89	-0.04	2.32	196	64

Career Comps

Completed MLB careers (no pro action in 2+ yrs) whose totals — actual + projected — most resemble this player's. Pool: 2,161 pitcher careers (1,251 from 1990-2025 + 910 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	3.6	73	25.3%	10.0%	1.33	3.99
John Henry Johnson ('78-'87, 6 WAR*)	3.0	75	24.6%*	9.6%*	1.15*	4.15*
Danny Frisella ('67-'76, 4 WAR*)	3.0	68	24.8%*	11.0%*	1.25*	3.99*
Joe Price ('80-'90, 7 WAR*)	4.5	82	23.3%*	8.8%*	1.49*	4.15*
Brad Peacock ('21)	2.8	93	24.7%	10.1%	1.27	4.11
David Hernandez ('19)	3.2	65	23.9%	9.1%	1.22	4.12
Brandon Morrow ('18)	4.3	78	24.0%	10.1%	0.92	3.96