Reggie Lawson

P San Antonio Missions

Age 29 RHP 6'4" / 205 lbs AA peak 0.1 · 2027

Overview

AAPROSPECT

MLB%2%

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2022	24	AASD	17	17	62	5.63	6.04	19.2%	17.4%	—	K 15.5% · BB 19.2% · FIP 7.12
2024	26	AASD	13	0	13	8.10	4.83	19.4%	23.6%	—	K 15.8% · BB 26.0% · FIP 5.06
2027PROJ	29	MLBSD	—	—	0	4.83	4.83	22.0%	12.6%	—
2028PROJ31% MLB	30	MLBSD	1	1	6	4.89	4.96	21.8%	12.5%	0.0

Next 2 projected WAR 0.0Projected rows: MLB playing time only, park and league context applied.

Contract

No contract data on file.

CompsReinier Roibal (age 30) · Zack Segovia (age 32) · Ariel Peña (age 28)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 125117vR 109

ERA4.83

FIP4.83

K%22.0%

BB%12.6%

K-BB%9.5%

Proj IP8

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 8 IP

Grades · Contract

Scouting Grades

K†5555

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	18	ROK MLE	AZL Padres	5	3	9	41	7	3	0	60%	1.7	17.1%	7.3%	9.8%	0.0%	8.31	2.59	—
2016	18	ROK RAW	AZL Padres	5	3	9	41	7	3	0	60%	1.7	17.1%	7.3%	9.8%	0.0%	8.31	2.52	—
2017	19	A MLE	Fort Wayne TinCaps	17	17	73	314	89	35	8	100%	4.3	21.0%	13.2%	7.8%	3.2%	5.30	4.73	—
2017	19	A RAW	Fort Wayne TinCaps	17	17	73	314	89	35	8	100%	4.3	28.3%	11.1%	17.2%	2.5%	5.30	3.52	—
2018	20	A+ MLE	Lake Elsinore Storm	24	22	117	523	117	51	11	92%	4.9	17.2%	11.2%	6.0%	3.1%	4.69	4.79	—
2018	20	A+ RAW	Lake Elsinore Storm	24	22	117	523	117	51	11	92%	4.9	22.4%	9.8%	12.6%	2.1%	4.69	3.63	—
2019	21	AA MLE	Amarillo Sod Poodles	6	6	28	121	36	13	4	100%	4.6	24.1%	11.8%	12.3%	3.0%	5.20	4.19	—
2019	21	AA RAW	Amarillo Sod Poodles	6	6	28	121	36	13	4	100%	4.6	29.8%	10.7%	19.0%	3.3%	5.20	3.79	—
2021	23	AA MLE	San Antonio Missions	4	4	7	35	9	6	2	100%	1.7	25.7%	17.1%	8.6%	5.7%	9.45	6.24	—
2021	23	AA RAW	San Antonio Missions	4	4	7	35	9	6	2	100%	1.7	25.7%	17.1%	8.6%	5.7%	9.45	7.00	—
2022	24	AA MLE	San Antonio Missions	17	17	62	287	55	50	11	100%	3.7	15.5%	19.2%	-3.6%	5.3%	5.63	7.12	—
2022	24	AA RAW	San Antonio Missions	17	17	62	287	55	50	11	100%	3.7	19.2%	17.4%	1.7%	3.8%	5.63	6.04	—
2024	26	AA MLE	San Antonio Missions	13	0	13	72	14	17	0	0%	1.0	15.8%	26.0%	-10.2%	0.0%	8.10	5.06	—
2024	26	AA MLE	San Antonio Missions	13	0	13	72	14	17	0	0%	1.0	15.8%	26.0%	-10.2%	0.0%	8.10	5.06	—
2024	26	AA RAW	San Antonio Missions	13	0	13	72	14	17	0	0%	1.0	19.4%	23.6%	-4.2%	0.0%	8.10	4.83	—
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	29	MLB	SD	—	—	0	—	—	—	—	—	—	22.0%	12.6%	9.5%	3.0%	4.83	4.83	—
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	30	MLB MLE	SD	3	3	20	84	18	11	3	100%	6.7	21.8%	12.5%	9.3%	3.2%	4.89	4.96	+0.1
2028	30	MLB CTX	SD	1	1	6	25	6	3	1	100%	6.0	21.8%	12.5%	9.3%	3.2%	4.89	4.96	+0.0
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		1	1	6	26	6	3	1	100%	6.3	21.8%	12.5%	9.3%	3.2%	4.89	4.58	+0.1
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		33	33	200	844	192	96	32	100%	6.0	21.8%	12.5%	9.3%	3.2%	4.89	4.58	+1.9
Career	—	MLE		86	69	309	1393	257	197	47	80%	3.6	18.4%	14.1%	4.3%	3.4%	5.42	5.19	+0.1
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		56	45	200	903	167	128	31	80%	3.6	18.4%	14.1%	4.3%	3.4%	5.42	5.19	+1.0

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.

2024 AASan Antonio Missions · 13 IPFIP 4.45 → 5.06 (+0.61)K% 19.4% → 15.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	19.44%	—	×0.810	15.75%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	23.61%	—	×1.100	25.97%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷0.953	×1.200	0.00%

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 91).

Result: FIP 4.45 → 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).

2022 AASan Antonio Missions · 62 IPFIP 5.79 → 7.12 (+1.33)K% 19.2% → 15.5%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	19.16%	—	×0.810	15.52%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	17.42%	—	×1.100	19.16%
HR / BF /BF	3.83%	÷0.870	×1.200	5.29%

Result: FIP 5.79 → 7.12, 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 AASan Antonio Missions · 7 IPFIP 6.24 → 8.07 (+1.83)K% 25.7% → 20.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	25.71%	—	×0.810	20.83%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	17.14%	—	×1.100	18.86%
HR / BF /BF	5.71%	÷0.868	×1.200	7.90%

Result: FIP 6.24 → 8.07, 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 AAAmarillo Sod Poodles · 28 IPFIP 3.76 → 4.19 (+0.43)K% 29.8% → 24.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	29.75%	—	×0.810	24.10%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	10.74%	—	×1.100	11.82%
HR / BF /BF	3.31%	÷1.337	×1.200	2.97%

Result: FIP 3.76 → 4.19, 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+Lake Elsinore Storm · 117 IPFIP 3.60 → 4.79 (+1.19)K% 22.4% → 17.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	22.37%	—	×0.770	17.23%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.75%	—	×1.150	11.21%
HR / BF /BF	2.10%	÷0.839	×1.250	3.13%

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 68).

Result: FIP 3.60 → 4.79, 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 AFort Wayne TinCaps · 73 IPFIP 3.52 → 4.73 (+1.21)K% 28.3% → 21.0%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	28.34%	—	×0.740	20.97%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	11.15%	—	×1.180	13.15%
HR / BF /BF	2.55%	÷1.048	×1.300	3.16%

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 110).

Result: FIP 3.52 → 4.73, 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).

2016 ROKAZL Padres · 9 IPFIP 2.59 → 3.28 (+0.69)K% 17.1% → 11.6%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	17.07%	—	×0.680	11.61%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	7.32%	—	×1.250	9.15%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷1.000	×1.400	0.00%

Factors used: pitcher ROK level factors — K ×0.68, BB ×1.25, HR ×1.40. 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 2.59 → 3.28, 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
Reggie Lawson (OGILVIE)	—	—	4.83	22.0%	12.6%	3.0%	—	4.96	21.8%	9.3%	20	+0.13	—	—	—
Reinier Roibal R 2019 · 4.91 FIP	30	SP	4.91	17.5%	11.8%	3.3%	.426	—	—	—	—	—	3.11	133	73
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	69
Ariel Peña R 2017 · 3.99 FIP	28	SP	3.99	22.5%	12.0%	2.3%	.304	6.07	19.9%	-5.7%	21	+2.08	3.74	223	69
Fabio Castillo R 2017 · 3.98 FIP	28	SP-	3.98	20.9%	8.8%	2.8%	.291	—	—	—	—	—	3.13	195	68
Derek Eitel R 2017 · 4.72 FIP	29	SP-	4.72	17.2%	16.0%	1.9%	.273	—	—	—	—	—	3.96	138	65
Zach Stewart R 2015 · 4.43 FIP	28	SP-	4.43	14.4%	8.3%	2.7%	.322	5.17	11.7%	2.1%	51	+0.74	4.27	194	64
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	64
Edgar Alberto Garcia R 2017 · 4.01 FIP	29	SP-	4.01	17.3%	10.9%	1.8%	.305	—	—	—	—	—	4.01	272	62
Dustin McGowan R 2011 · 5.34 FIP	29	SP-	5.34	20.8%	13.5%	4.2%	.271	4.46	18.5%	9.4%	108	-0.88	3.36	690	62
Carlos Frías R 2019 · 4.42 FIP	29	SP-	4.42	16.9%	11.1%	2.4%	.369	—	—	—	—	—	3.40	236	61
Cody Anderson R 2019 · 4.33 FIP	28	SP	4.33	18.9%	7.5%	3.4%	.328	—	—	—	—	—	3.69	279	60
Hiram Burgos R 2017 · 4.94 FIP	29	SP	4.94	19.3%	7.5%	4.6%	.351	—	—	—	—	—	3.40	384	60
Andrew Triggs R 2018 · 4.68 FIP	29	SP	4.68	23.6%	9.9%	4.2%	.263	—	—	—	—	—	1.66	242	59
Mickey Callaway R 2004 · 5.21 FIP	29	SP-	5.21	15.5%	12.1%	3.5%	.400	—	—	—	—	—	4.22	126	59
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	59
Blair Henley R 2024 · 5.41 FIP	27	SP	5.41	17.2%	12.4%	4.0%	.318	—	—	—	—	—	3.97	187	59
David Griffin R 2023 · 5.83 FIP	27	SP-	5.83	14.2%	9.2%	5.0%	.306	—	—	—	—	—	4.43	239	58
Bradin Hagens R 2018 · 4.92 FIP	29	SP-	4.92	14.9%	9.9%	3.3%	.341	5.46	13.2%	0.6%	66	+0.54	3.79	254	57
Mark Appel R 2021 · 5.90 FIP	30	SP-	5.90	15.6%	15.6%	3.9%	.260	4.22	18.5%	8.1%	40	-1.68	4.22	363	57
Johnny Barbato R 2021 · 3.84 FIP	29	SP-	3.84	17.5%	8.9%	2.0%	.315	—	—	—	—	—	2.59	304	57