Jacob Bosiokovic

P St. Paul Saints

Age 33 RHP 6'5" / 240 lbs AAA

Overview

AAAPROSPECT

MLB%10%

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2024	30	AAASTL	47	55	5.56	4.54	26.0%	14.0%	—	K 22.4% · BB 12.6% · FIP 4.70
2025	31	AAAMIN	19	22	7.66	6.23	23.9%	17.4%	—	K 20.5% · BB 15.7% · FIP 5.57
2027PROJ	33	MLBMIN	2	2	4.95	4.95	21.9%	12.6%	-0.0
2028PROJ6% MLB	34	MLBMIN	1	1	5.06	5.17	21.5%	12.8%	-0.0

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

Contract

No contract data on file.

CompsLeo Rosales (age 34) · Miguel Mejia (age 31) · Keiichi Yabu (age 36)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 127119vR 111

ERA4.95

FIP4.95

K%21.9%

BB%12.6%

K-BB%9.2%

Proj IP16

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 16 IP

Grades · Contract

Scouting Grades

K†5050

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)
2019	25	A MLE	Asheville Tourists	33	0	42	181	42	15	3	0%	1.3	17.2%	9.8%	7.4%	1.7%	4.54	3.84	—
2019	25	A RAW	Asheville Tourists	33	0	42	181	42	15	3	0%	1.3	23.2%	8.3%	14.9%	1.7%	4.54	3.10	—
2021	27	MIX MLE	2 levels	38	0	57	249	82	29	4	0%	1.5	26.4%	14.3%	12.0%	2.3%	3.97	3.93	—
2021	27	MIX RAW	2 levels	38	0	57	249	82	29	4	0%	1.5	32.9%	11.6%	21.3%	1.6%	3.97	2.66	—
2022	28	AAA MLE	Memphis Redbirds	15	0	14	61	13	4	3	0%	0.9	18.8%	6.9%	11.9%	5.2%	5.27	5.22	—
2022	28	AAA RAW	Memphis Redbirds	15	0	14	61	13	4	3	0%	0.9	21.3%	6.6%	14.8%	4.9%	5.27	4.93	—
2024	30	AAA MLE	Memphis Redbirds	47	0	55	250	65	35	8	0%	1.2	22.4%	12.6%	9.8%	3.4%	5.56	4.70	—
2024	30	AAA MLE	Memphis Redbirds	47	0	55	250	65	35	8	0%	1.2	22.4%	12.6%	9.8%	3.4%	5.56	4.70	—
2024	30	AAA RAW	Memphis Redbirds	47	0	55	250	65	35	8	0%	1.2	26.0%	14.0%	12.0%	3.2%	5.56	4.54	—
2025	31	AAA MLE	St. Paul Saints	19	0	22	109	26	19	5	0%	1.2	20.5%	15.7%	4.8%	4.0%	7.66	5.57	—
2025	31	AAA MLE	St. Paul Saints	19	0	22	109	26	19	5	0%	1.2	20.5%	15.7%	4.8%	4.0%	7.66	5.57	—
2025	31	AAA RAW	St. Paul Saints	19	0	22	109	26	19	5	0%	1.2	23.9%	17.4%	6.4%	4.6%	7.66	6.23	—
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	33	MLB	MIN	2	0	2	8	2	1	0	0%	1.0	21.9%	12.6%	9.2%	3.1%	4.95	4.95	-0.0
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	34	MLB MLE	MIN	15	0	16	68	15	9	2	0%	1.1	21.5%	12.8%	8.7%	3.4%	5.05	5.16	-0.1
2028	34	MLB CTX	MIN	1	0	1	4	1	1	0	0%	1.0	21.5%	12.8%	8.7%	3.4%	5.06	5.17	-0.0
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		1	0	1	4	1	0	0	0%	0.9	21.5%	12.8%	8.7%	3.4%	5.06	4.79	-0.0
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		190	0	200	844	224	0	0	0%	1.1	21.5%	12.8%	8.7%	3.4%	5.06	4.79	-0.6
Career	—	MLE		152	0	189	850	186	106	25	0%	1.2	21.9%	12.5%	9.4%	2.9%	5.09	4.44	-0.1
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		161	0	200	898	197	112	26	0%	1.2	21.9%	12.5%	9.4%	2.9%	5.09	4.44	-1.4

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 AAASt. Paul Saints · 22 IPFIP 5.81 → 5.57 (−0.25)K% 23.9% → 20.5%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	23.85%	—	×0.860	20.51%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	17.43%	—	×0.900	15.69%
HR / BF /BF	4.59%	÷1.253	×1.100	4.03%

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 151).

Result: FIP 5.81 → 5.57, 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 AAAMemphis Redbirds · 55 IPFIP 4.43 → 4.70 (+0.27)K% 26.0% → 22.4%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	26.00%	—	×0.860	22.36%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	14.00%	—	×0.900	12.60%
HR / BF /BF	3.20%	÷1.020	×1.100	3.45%

Result: FIP 4.43 → 4.70, 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 AAAMemphis Redbirds · 14 IPFIP 4.83 → 5.22 (+0.39)K% 21.3% → 18.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	21.31%	—	×0.880	18.75%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	6.56%	—	×1.050	6.89%
HR / BF /BF	4.92%	÷1.048	×1.100	5.16%

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 110).

Result: FIP 4.83 → 5.22, 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 AASpringfield Cardinals · 48 IPFIP 3.02 → 3.93 (+0.90)K% 32.6% → 26.4%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	32.56%	—	×0.810	26.37%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	13.02%	—	×1.100	14.33%
HR / BF /BF	1.86%	÷0.990	×1.200	2.26%

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 3.02 → 3.93, 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 AAAMemphis Redbirds · 8 IPFIP 0.49 → 0.87 (+0.38)K% 35.3% → 31.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	35.29%	—	×0.880	31.06%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	2.94%	—	×1.050	3.09%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷0.949	×1.100	0.00%

Result: FIP 0.49 → 0.87, 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).

2019 AAsheville Tourists · 42 IPFIP 3.10 → 3.84 (+0.74)K% 23.2% → 17.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	23.20%	—	×0.740	17.17%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	8.29%	—	×1.180	9.78%
HR / BF /BF	1.66%	÷1.249	×1.300	1.73%

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 150).

Result: FIP 3.10 → 3.84, 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).

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
Jacob Bosiokovic (OGILVIE)	—	—	4.95	21.9%	12.6%	3.1%	—	5.16	21.5%	8.7%	16	+0.21	—	—	—
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	80
Miguel Mejia R 2019 · 4.41 FIP	31	SU	4.41	15.7%	10.7%	2.3%	.341	—	—	—	—	—	3.37	108	77
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	76
Jon Edwards R 2019 · 4.43 FIP	31	SU	4.43	25.1%	11.6%	3.6%	.290	—	—	—	—	—	2.40	132	75
Jason Bulger R 2010 · 4.36 FIP	31	SU	4.36	22.5%	13.5%	2.6%	.324	—	—	—	—	—	3.78	106	75
Mark Serrano R 2019 · 5.25 FIP	33	SU	5.25	20.2%	7.9%	5.2%	.289	—	—	—	—	—	3.16	120	74
Hirokazu Sawamura R 2021 · 4.48 FIP	33	SU	4.48	26.2%	11.2%	4.0%	.263	4.02	18.1%	6.8%	51	-0.46	4.02	104	74
Jim Henderson R 2016 · 4.55 FIP	33	SU	4.55	25.8%	9.0%	4.5%	.287	—	—	—	—	—	1.86	167	73
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	73
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	72
Steve Delabar R 2016 · 4.62 FIP	33	SU	4.62	20.4%	15.6%	2.3%	.308	—	—	—	—	—	2.43	229	71
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	71
Jake Sanchez R 2023 · 4.70 FIP	33	SU	4.70	20.3%	10.6%	3.6%	.317	—	—	—	—	—	1.86	361	71
Mike Buddie R 2002 · 4.26 FIP	31	SU	4.26	15.1%	7.6%	2.7%	.297	—	—	—	—	—	3.76	123	71
Fernando Nieve R 2015 · 4.27 FIP	33	SU	4.27	22.0%	10.5%	3.1%	.290	2.43	26.9%	22.6%	89	-1.84	1.96	287	71
Austin Adams R 2019 · 5.80 FIP	32	SU	5.80	20.8%	10.6%	5.7%	.280	—	—	—	—	—	3.40	162	70
Jhan Mariñez R 2022 · 5.36 FIP	33	SU	5.36	17.4%	11.4%	4.2%	.324	—	—	—	—	—	3.16	253	70
Jumbo Diaz R 2017 · 4.17 FIP	33	SU	4.17	20.0%	9.7%	2.8%	.302	2.90	24.2%	15.4%	98	-1.27	2.80	319	69
Matt Bush R 2018 · 4.72 FIP	32	SU	4.72	17.6%	13.0%	2.7%	.278	—	—	—	—	—	2.87	249	69
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	69