Nelson L. Alvarez
P Reading Fightin Phils| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 25 | MIX2 levels | 44 | 0 | 53 | 3.59 | 1.79 | 35.7% | 9.5% | — | K 28.6% · BB 10.6% · FIP 2.58 | |
| 2024 | 26 | MIX2 levels | 39 | 0 | 52 | 3.48 | 3.64 | 28.2% | 13.2% | — | K 23.2% · BB 13.1% · FIP 4.12 | |
| 2025 | 27 | AAPHI | 28 | 0 | 35 | 5.19 | 4.02 | 22.8% | 8.2% | — | K 18.5% · BB 9.1% · FIP 4.70 | |
| 2026 | 28 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2027PROJ | 29 | MLBPHI | — | — | 0 | 4.62 | 4.62 | 21.1% | 10.0% | — | ||
| 2028PROJ31% MLB | 30 | MLBPHI | 6 | 0 | 6 | 4.70 | 4.77 | 21.0% | 10.2% | -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) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2019 | 21 | ROK MLE | GCL Yankees East | 3 | 0 | 3 | 13 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0% | 0.9 | 15.4% | 23.1% | -7.7% | 0.0% | 6.75 | 4.72 | — |
| 2019 | 21 | ROK RAW | GCL Yankees East | 3 | 0 | 3 | 13 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0% | 0.9 | 15.4% | 23.1% | -7.7% | 0.0% | 6.75 | 4.97 | — |
| 2021 | 23 | A+ MLE | Hudson Valley Renegades | 30 | 0 | 40 | 200 | 41 | 32 | 9 | 0% | 1.3 | 15.8% | 18.4% | -2.6% | 5.6% | 8.55 | 7.19 | — |
| 2021 | 23 | A+ RAW | Hudson Valley Renegades | 30 | 0 | 40 | 200 | 41 | 32 | 9 | 0% | 1.3 | 20.5% | 16.0% | 4.5% | 4.5% | 8.55 | 6.38 | — |
| 2022 | 24 | A+ MLE | Hudson Valley Renegades | 35 | 0 | 54 | 225 | 65 | 32 | 3 | 0% | 1.5 | 22.2% | 16.4% | 5.9% | 1.6% | 2.85 | 4.20 | — |
| 2022 | 24 | A+ RAW | Hudson Valley Renegades | 35 | 0 | 54 | 225 | 65 | 32 | 3 | 0% | 1.5 | 28.9% | 14.2% | 14.7% | 1.3% | 2.85 | 3.19 | — |
| 2023 | 25 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 44 | 0 | 53 | 221 | 79 | 21 | 2 | 0% | 1.2 | 28.6% | 10.6% | 18.0% | 1.0% | 3.59 | 2.58 | — |
| 2023 | 25 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 44 | 0 | 53 | 221 | 79 | 21 | 2 | 0% | 1.2 | 35.7% | 9.5% | 26.2% | 0.9% | 3.59 | 1.79 | — |
| 2024 | 26 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 39 | 0 | 52 | 220 | 62 | 29 | 5 | 0% | 1.3 | 23.2% | 13.1% | 10.1% | 2.4% | 3.48 | 4.12 | — |
| 2024 | 26 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 39 | 0 | 52 | 220 | 62 | 29 | 5 | 0% | 1.3 | 23.2% | 13.1% | 10.1% | 2.4% | 3.48 | 4.12 | — |
| 2024 | 26 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 39 | 0 | 52 | 220 | 62 | 29 | 5 | 0% | 1.3 | 28.2% | 13.2% | 15.0% | 2.3% | 3.48 | 3.64 | — |
| 2025 | 27 | AA MLE | Reading Fightin Phils | 28 | 0 | 35 | 158 | 36 | 13 | 5 | 0% | 1.2 | 18.5% | 9.1% | 9.4% | 3.7% | 5.19 | 4.70 | — |
| 2025 | 27 | AA MLE | Reading Fightin Phils | 28 | 0 | 35 | 158 | 36 | 13 | 5 | 0% | 1.2 | 18.5% | 9.1% | 9.4% | 3.7% | 5.19 | 4.70 | — |
| 2025 | 27 | AA RAW | Reading Fightin Phils | 28 | 0 | 35 | 158 | 36 | 13 | 5 | 0% | 1.2 | 22.8% | 8.2% | 14.6% | 3.2% | 5.19 | 4.02 | — |
| ▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 29 | MLB | PHI | — | — | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 21.1% | 10.0% | 11.1% | 3.0% | 4.62 | 4.62 | — |
| ▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2028 | 30 | MLB MLE | PHI | 18 | 0 | 18 | 78 | 16 | 8 | 3 | 0% | 1.0 | 21.0% | 10.2% | 10.7% | 3.2% | 4.70 | 4.77 | -0.0 |
| 2028 | 30 | MLB CTX | PHI | 6 | 0 | 6 | 25 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 21.0% | 10.2% | 10.7% | 3.2% | 4.70 | 4.77 | -0.0 |
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 6 | 0 | 6 | 24 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 21.0% | 10.2% | 10.7% | 3.2% | 4.70 | 4.39 | +0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 190 | 0 | 200 | 844 | 173 | 104 | 35 | 0% | 1.1 | 21.0% | 10.2% | 10.7% | 3.2% | 4.70 | 4.39 | +0.4 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 179 | 0 | 235 | 1037 | 227 | 143 | 28 | 0% | 1.3 | 21.9% | 13.8% | 8.1% | 2.7% | 4.51 | 4.49 | -0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 152 | 0 | 200 | 881 | 193 | 122 | 24 | 0% | 1.3 | 21.9% | 13.8% | 8.1% | 2.7% | 4.51 | 4.49 | -0.5 | |
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 AAReading Fightin Phils · 35 IPFIP 3.96 → 4.70 (+0.74)K% 22.8% → 18.5%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 22.78% | — | ×0.810 | 18.46% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 8.23% | — | ×1.100 | 9.05% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.16% | ÷1.036 | ×1.200 | 3.66% |
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 107).
Result: FIP 3.96 → 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).
2024 AAReading Fightin Phils · 35 IPFIP 3.65 → 4.35 (+0.70)K% 29.9% → 24.2%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 29.93% | — | ×0.810 | 24.24% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 9.52% | — | ×1.100 | 10.48% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.40% | ÷1.137 | ×1.200 | 3.59% |
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 127).
Result: FIP 3.65 → 4.35, 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).
2024 AAALehigh Valley IronPigs · 17 IPFIP 3.62 → 3.65 (+0.03)K% 24.7% → 21.2%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 24.66% | — | ×0.860 | 21.21% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 20.55% | — | ×0.900 | 18.49% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷0.989 | ×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 98).
Result: FIP 3.62 → 3.65, 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 AAMontgomery Biscuits · 37 IPFIP 2.00 → 2.80 (+0.80)K% 37.0% → 30.0%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 37.01% | — | ×0.810 | 29.98% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 10.39% | — | ×1.100 | 11.43% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.30% | ÷1.087 | ×1.200 | 1.43% |
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 117).
Result: FIP 2.00 → 2.80, 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+Bowling Green Hot Rods · 16 IPFIP 1.27 → 2.05 (+0.78)K% 32.8% → 25.3%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 32.84% | — | ×0.770 | 25.28% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 7.46% | — | ×1.150 | 8.58% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷1.066 | ×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 113).
Result: FIP 1.27 → 2.05, 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).
2022 A+Hudson Valley Renegades · 54 IPFIP 3.19 → 4.20 (+1.00)K% 28.9% → 22.2%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 28.89% | — | ×0.770 | 22.24% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 14.22% | — | ×1.150 | 16.36% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.33% | ÷1.014 | ×1.250 | 1.64% |
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 103).
Result: FIP 3.19 → 4.20, 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 A+Hudson Valley Renegades · 40 IPFIP 5.87 → 7.19 (+1.32)K% 20.5% → 15.8%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 20.50% | — | ×0.770 | 15.78% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 16.00% | — | ×1.150 | 18.40% |
| HR / BF /BF | 4.50% | ÷1.000 | ×1.250 | 5.62% |
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 100).
Result: FIP 5.87 → 7.19, 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).