Brooks Wilson

P Gwinnett Stripers

Age 31 RHP 6'2" / 205 lbs AAA

Overview

AAAPROSPECT

MLB%10%

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2021	25	MIX2 levels	39	0	50	2.34	1.66	41.4%	9.4%	—	K 32.9% · BB 10.4% · FIP 2.92
2023	27	MIX4 levels	11	0	13	2.70	2.95	34.6%	13.5%	—	K 34.6% · BB 13.5% · FIP 2.94
2024	28	MIX2 levels	30	0	47	4.98	4.46	29.9%	15.6%	—	K 25.5% · BB 13.6% · FIP 4.62
2025	29	No MLB games played
2026	30	No MLB games played
2027PROJ	31	MLBATL	2	0	2	4.47	4.47	24.4%	11.0%	0.0
2028PROJ37% MLB	32	MLBATL	7	0	7	4.59	4.68	23.9%	11.2%	-0.0

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

Contract

No contract data on file.

CompsJoe Nelson (age 31) · Jim Miller (age 30) · Mike Broadway (age 31)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 118110vR 102

ERA4.47

FIP4.47

K%24.4%

BB%11.0%

K-BB%13.4%

Proj IP24

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 24 IP

Grades · Contract

Scouting Grades

K†6060

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)
2018	22	MIX MLE	2 levels	17	0	28	108	25	9	3	0%	1.6	15.8%	10.3%	5.6%	3.8%	1.30	5.17	—
2018	22	MIX RAW	2 levels	17	0	28	108	25	9	3	0%	1.6	23.1%	8.3%	14.8%	2.8%	1.30	3.68	—
2019	23	A+ MLE	Florida Fire Frogs	24	11	87	364	73	25	2	46%	3.6	15.4%	7.9%	7.5%	0.7%	2.47	3.21	—
2019	23	A+ RAW	Florida Fire Frogs	24	11	87	364	73	25	2	46%	3.6	20.1%	6.9%	13.2%	0.5%	2.47	2.58	—
2021	25	MIX MLE	2 levels	39	0	50	203	84	19	3	0%	1.3	32.9%	10.4%	22.5%	2.3%	2.34	2.92	—
2021	25	MIX RAW	2 levels	39	0	50	203	84	19	3	0%	1.3	41.4%	9.4%	32.0%	1.5%	2.34	1.66	—
2023	27	MIX MLE	4 levels	11	0	13	52	18	7	1	0%	1.2	34.6%	13.5%	21.2%	1.9%	2.70	2.94	—
2023	27	MIX RAW	4 levels	11	0	13	52	18	7	1	0%	1.2	34.6%	13.5%	21.2%	1.9%	2.70	2.95	—
2024	28	MIX MLE	2 levels	30	0	47	211	63	33	7	0%	1.6	25.5%	13.6%	11.9%	3.6%	4.98	4.62	—
2024	28	MIX MLE	2 levels	30	0	47	211	63	33	7	0%	1.6	25.5%	13.6%	11.9%	3.6%	4.98	4.62	—
2024	28	MIX RAW	2 levels	30	0	47	211	63	33	7	0%	1.6	29.9%	15.6%	14.2%	3.3%	4.98	4.46	—
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	31	MLB	ATL	2	0	2	8	2	1	0	0%	1.0	24.4%	11.0%	13.4%	3.0%	4.47	4.47	+0.0
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	32	MLB MLE	ATL	19	0	20	85	20	10	3	0%	1.1	23.9%	11.2%	12.7%	3.3%	4.59	4.68	-0.0
2028	32	MLB CTX	ATL	7	0	7	30	7	3	1	0%	1.0	23.9%	11.2%	12.7%	3.3%	4.59	4.68	-0.0
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		7	0	7	31	7	4	1	0%	1.1	23.9%	11.2%	12.7%	3.3%	4.59	4.30	+0.0
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		190	0	200	844	188	108	27	0%	1.1	23.9%	11.2%	12.7%	3.3%	4.59	4.30	+0.6
Career	—	MLE		121	11	225	938	212	97	20	9%	1.9	22.6%	10.3%	12.3%	2.1%	2.84	3.67	-0.0
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		107	10	200	833	188	86	18	9%	1.9	22.6%	10.3%	12.3%	2.1%	2.84	3.67	-0.3

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 AAAGwinnett Stripers · 44 IPFIP 4.22 → 4.62 (+0.39)K% 29.7% → 25.5%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	29.69%	—	×0.860	25.53%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	15.10%	—	×0.900	13.59%
HR / BF /BF	3.12%	÷0.968	×1.100	3.55%

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 94).

Result: FIP 4.22 → 4.62, 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 AAMississippi Braves · 8 IPFIP 2.35 → 4.13 (+1.78)K% 42.9% → 34.7%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	42.86%	—	×0.810	34.71%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	7.14%	—	×1.100	7.86%
HR / BF /BF	3.57%	÷0.793	×1.200	5.40%

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 59).

Result: FIP 2.35 → 4.13, 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 AAMississippi Braves · 44 IPFIP 1.79 → 2.92 (+1.13)K% 40.6% → 32.9%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	40.56%	—	×0.810	32.85%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.44%	—	×1.100	10.39%
HR / BF /BF	1.67%	÷0.861	×1.200	2.32%

Result: FIP 1.79 → 2.92, 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 AAAGwinnett Stripers · 6 IPFIP 0.16 → 0.70 (+0.54)K% 47.8% → 42.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	47.83%	—	×0.880	42.09%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	8.70%	—	×1.050	9.13%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷1.001	×1.100	0.00%

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 100).

Result: FIP 0.16 → 0.70, 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).

2019 A+Florida Fire Frogs · 87 IPFIP 2.58 → 3.21 (+0.63)K% 20.1% → 15.4%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	20.05%	—	×0.770	15.44%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	6.87%	—	×1.150	7.90%
HR / BF /BF	0.55%	÷0.920	×1.250	0.75%

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 84).

Result: FIP 2.58 → 3.21, 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 ROKDanville Braves · 19 IPFIP 3.68 → 5.17 (+1.49)K% 23.3% → 15.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	23.29%	—	×0.680	15.84%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	8.22%	—	×1.250	10.27%
HR / BF /BF	2.74%	÷1.000	×1.400	3.84%

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 3.68 → 5.17, 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 ARome Braves · 9 IPFIP 3.82 → 5.27 (+1.45)K% 22.9% → 16.9%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	22.86%	—	×0.740	16.91%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	8.57%	—	×1.180	10.11%
HR / BF /BF	2.86%	÷0.880	×1.300	4.22%

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 76).

Result: FIP 3.82 → 5.27, 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).

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
Brooks Wilson (OGILVIE)	—	—	4.47	24.4%	11.0%	3.0%	—	4.68	23.9%	12.7%	20	+0.21	—	—	—
Joe Nelson R 2006 · 3.91 FIP	31	SU	3.91	22.8%	10.4%	2.6%	.258	4.05	23.4%	12.8%	94	+0.14	3.08	139	84
Jim Miller R 2012 · 4.56 FIP	30	SU	4.56	20.9%	11.8%	3.1%	.243	3.95	18.8%	14.7%	74	-0.61	3.95	140	82
Mike Broadway R 2018 · 4.65 FIP	31	SU	4.65	23.0%	10.6%	3.9%	.282	—	—	—	—	—	1.74	195	81
Dustin Molleken R 2016 · 4.04 FIP	31	SU	4.04	19.6%	12.1%	1.9%	.276	3.38	24.3%	11.9%	16	-0.66	3.38	129	77
Jon Edwards R 2019 · 4.43 FIP	31	SU	4.43	25.1%	11.6%	3.6%	.290	—	—	—	—	—	2.40	132	77
Chris Hatcher R 2016 · 4.61 FIP	31	SU	4.61	23.8%	9.4%	4.2%	.283	4.69	22.0%	13.8%	96	+0.08	2.51	246	77
Neil Wagner R 2016 · 4.05 FIP	32	SU	4.05	19.8%	12.3%	1.9%	.360	3.11	20.7%	12.1%	54	-0.94	3.11	135	75
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	75
Brian Schlitter R 2016 · 3.28 FIP	30	SU	3.28	20.6%	10.8%	1.0%	.333	3.81	14.4%	6.6%	110	+0.53	3.27	300	74
Scott Atchison R 2007 · 4.55 FIP	31	SU	4.55	19.1%	7.6%	3.8%	.297	4.59	16.2%	9.5%	60	+0.04	2.52	340	74
Ryan Cook R 2018 · 3.96 FIP	31	SU	3.96	25.1%	10.8%	2.9%	.280	—	—	—	—	—	2.60	292	74
Andrew Robinson R 2017 · 4.32 FIP	29	SU	4.32	23.4%	8.8%	3.8%	.245	—	—	—	—	—	3.19	160	73
Leonel Campos R 2017 · 3.70 FIP	30	SU	3.70	25.7%	11.8%	2.3%	.241	—	—	—	—	—	2.62	168	73
Manny Acosta R 2012 · 4.49 FIP	31	SU	4.49	21.3%	11.1%	3.2%	.295	—	—	—	—	—	3.08	350	73
Jeff Fulchino R 2011 · 4.44 FIP	31	SU	4.44	20.4%	11.1%	3.0%	.302	—	—	—	—	—	3.36	178	73
Ryan Brasier R 2019 · 4.12 FIP	31	SU	4.12	25.3%	8.3%	3.8%	.278	3.56	24.3%	18.2%	99	-0.56	2.31	426	72
Fernando Rodriguez Jr. R 2015 · 3.34 FIP	31	SU	3.34	26.5%	9.6%	2.3%	.241	3.89	23.3%	13.2%	105	+0.55	3.34	335	72
Brian Sanches R 2010 · 4.24 FIP	31	SU	4.24	21.3%	10.6%	2.9%	.217	4.35	19.6%	8.5%	62	+0.11	3.39	229	72
Kazuhiro Sasaki R 2000 · 3.93 FIP	32	SU	3.93	29.4%	9.8%	3.8%	.212	2.88	24.9%	19.3%	161	-1.05	2.76	223	72
Mark Serrano R 2017 · 3.56 FIP	31	SU	3.56	21.9%	6.4%	2.7%	.240	5.25	20.2%	12.3%	42	+1.69	3.16	120	72