Jacob Heatherly
P Birmingham Barons| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 25 | MIX3 levels | 36 | 0 | 53 | 2.72 | 2.91 | 38.2% | 22.3% | — | K 28.5% · BB 27.2% · FIP 4.47 |
| 2024 | 26 | AACIN | 37 | 0 | 41 | 8.06 | 4.43 | 27.7% | 25.2% | — | K 22.4% · BB 27.8% · FIP 5.02 |
| 2026 | 28 | AACWS | 21 | 0 | 23 | 6.26 | 4.27 | 32.8% | 25.9% | — | K 26.5% · BB 28.4% · FIP 5.03 |
| 2027PROJ | 29 | MLBCWS | — | — | 0 | 5.36 | 5.36 | 25.0% | 20.0% | — | |
| 2028PROJ31% MLB | 30 | MLBCWS | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5.37 | 5.44 | 24.5% | 19.2% | -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) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2017 | 19 | ROK MLE | Billings Mustangs | 12 | 9 | 40 | 181 | 31 | 20 | 3 | 75% | 3.3 | 11.6% | 13.8% | -2.2% | 2.3% | 4.99 | 5.14 | — |
| 2017 | 19 | ROK RAW | Billings Mustangs | 12 | 9 | 40 | 181 | 31 | 20 | 3 | 75% | 3.3 | 17.1% | 11.0% | 6.1% | 1.7% | 4.99 | 4.03 | — |
| 2018 | 20 | ROK MLE | Greeneville Reds | 11 | 11 | 39 | 184 | 49 | 40 | 3 | 100% | 3.5 | 18.1% | 27.2% | -9.1% | 2.3% | 5.82 | 6.27 | — |
| 2018 | 20 | ROK RAW | Greeneville Reds | 11 | 11 | 39 | 184 | 49 | 40 | 3 | 100% | 3.5 | 26.6% | 21.7% | 4.9% | 1.6% | 5.82 | 4.68 | — |
| 2019 | 21 | A MLE | Dayton Dragons | 4 | 4 | 9 | 47 | 10 | 6 | 0 | 100% | 2.2 | 21.3% | 12.8% | 8.5% | 0.0% | 8.31 | 2.92 | — |
| 2019 | 21 | A RAW | Dayton Dragons | 4 | 4 | 9 | 47 | 10 | 6 | 0 | 100% | 2.2 | 21.3% | 12.8% | 8.5% | 0.0% | 8.31 | 2.87 | — |
| 2021 | 23 | ROK MLE | ACL Reds | 5 | 3 | 9 | 37 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 60% | 1.7 | 24.3% | 8.1% | 16.2% | 0.0% | 5.19 | 2.07 | — |
| 2021 | 23 | ROK RAW | ACL Reds | 5 | 3 | 9 | 37 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 60% | 1.7 | 24.3% | 8.1% | 16.2% | 0.0% | 5.19 | 2.06 | — |
| 2023 | 25 | MIX MLE | 3 levels | 36 | 0 | 53 | 238 | 91 | 53 | 1 | 0% | 1.5 | 28.5% | 27.2% | 1.3% | 0.6% | 2.72 | 4.47 | — |
| 2023 | 25 | MIX RAW | 3 levels | 36 | 0 | 53 | 238 | 91 | 53 | 1 | 0% | 1.5 | 38.2% | 22.3% | 16.0% | 0.4% | 2.72 | 2.91 | — |
| 2024 | 26 | AA MLE | Chattanooga Lookouts | 37 | 0 | 41 | 206 | 57 | 52 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 22.4% | 27.8% | -5.4% | 0.5% | 8.06 | 5.02 | — |
| 2024 | 26 | AA MLE | Chattanooga Lookouts | 37 | 0 | 41 | 206 | 57 | 52 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 22.4% | 27.8% | -5.4% | 0.5% | 8.06 | 5.02 | — |
| 2024 | 26 | AA RAW | Chattanooga Lookouts | 37 | 0 | 41 | 206 | 57 | 52 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 27.7% | 25.2% | 2.4% | 0.5% | 8.06 | 4.43 | — |
| 2026 | 28 | AA MLE | Birmingham Barons | 21 | 0 | 23 | 116 | 38 | 30 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 26.5% | 28.4% | -1.9% | 1.0% | 6.26 | 5.03 | — |
| 2026 | 28 | AA MLE | Birmingham Barons | 21 | 0 | 23 | 116 | 38 | 30 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 26.5% | 28.4% | -1.9% | 1.0% | 6.26 | 5.03 | — |
| 2026 | 28 | AA RAW | Birmingham Barons | 21 | 0 | 23 | 116 | 38 | 30 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 32.8% | 25.9% | 6.9% | 0.9% | 6.26 | 4.27 | — |
| ▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 29 | MLB | CWS | — | — | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 25.0% | 20.0% | 5.0% | 2.7% | 5.36 | 5.36 | — |
| ▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2028 | 30 | MLB MLE | CWS | 15 | 0 | 15 | 65 | 16 | 12 | 2 | 0% | 1.0 | 24.5% | 19.2% | 5.3% | 2.9% | 5.37 | 5.44 | -0.1 |
| 2028 | 30 | MLB CTX | CWS | 5 | 0 | 5 | 21 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 24.5% | 19.2% | 5.3% | 2.9% | 5.37 | 5.44 | -0.0 |
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 5 | 0 | 5 | 20 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 24.5% | 19.2% | 5.3% | 2.9% | 5.37 | 5.06 | -0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 190 | 0 | 200 | 844 | 207 | 166 | 41 | 0% | 1.1 | 24.5% | 19.2% | 5.3% | 2.9% | 5.37 | 5.06 | -1.2 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 126 | 27 | 213 | 1009 | 218 | 239 | 12 | 21% | 1.7 | 21.6% | 23.7% | -2.1% | 1.2% | 5.45 | 4.93 | -0.2 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 118 | 25 | 200 | 947 | 205 | 224 | 11 | 21% | 1.7 | 21.6% | 23.7% | -2.1% | 1.2% | 5.45 | 4.93 | -2.1 | |
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 AABirmingham Barons · 23 IPFIP 4.08 → 5.03 (+0.95)K% 32.8% → 26.5%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 32.76% | — | ×0.810 | 26.53% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 25.86% | — | ×1.100 | 28.45% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.86% | ÷1.000 | ×1.200 | 1.03% |
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 100).
Result: FIP 4.08 → 5.03, 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 AAChattanooga Lookouts · 41 IPFIP 4.23 → 5.02 (+0.79)K% 27.7% → 22.4%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 27.67% | — | ×0.810 | 22.41% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 25.24% | — | ×1.100 | 27.77% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.49% | ÷1.089 | ×1.200 | 0.54% |
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 118).
Result: FIP 4.23 → 5.02, 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 ADaytona Tortugas · 36 IPFIP 2.87 → 4.34 (+1.47)K% 40.7% → 30.1%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 40.74% | — | ×0.740 | 30.15% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 25.31% | — | ×1.180 | 29.86% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷1.060 | ×1.300 | 0.00% |
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 112).
Result: FIP 2.87 → 4.34, 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 A+Dayton Dragons · 13 IPFIP 3.61 → 4.84 (+1.23)K% 31.0% → 23.9%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 31.03% | — | ×0.770 | 23.90% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 17.24% | — | ×1.150 | 19.83% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.72% | ÷0.951 | ×1.250 | 2.27% |
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 90).
Result: FIP 3.61 → 4.84, 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 ROKACL Reds · 9 IPFIP 2.07 → 2.99 (+0.91)K% 24.3% → 16.5%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 24.32% | — | ×0.680 | 16.54% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 8.11% | — | ×1.250 | 10.14% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷1.026 | ×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 105).
Result: FIP 2.07 → 2.99, 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).
2019 ADayton Dragons · 9 IPFIP 2.92 → 3.68 (+0.76)K% 21.3% → 15.7%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 21.28% | — | ×0.740 | 15.74% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 12.77% | — | ×1.180 | 15.06% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷0.950 | ×1.300 | 0.00% |
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 90).
Result: FIP 2.92 → 3.68, 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 ROKGreeneville Reds · 39 IPFIP 4.50 → 6.27 (+1.77)K% 26.6% → 18.1%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 26.63% | — | ×0.680 | 18.11% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 21.74% | — | ×1.250 | 27.17% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.63% | ÷1.000 | ×1.400 | 2.28% |
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 4.50 → 6.27, 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 ROKBillings Mustangs · 40 IPFIP 3.96 → 5.14 (+1.18)K% 17.1% → 11.6%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 17.13% | — | ×0.680 | 11.65% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 11.05% | — | ×1.250 | 13.81% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.66% | ÷1.000 | ×1.400 | 2.32% |
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 3.96 → 5.14, 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).