Cole Percival

P Wichita Wind Surge

Age 28 RHP 6'5" / 220 lbs AA

Overview

AAPROSPECT

MLB%2%

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2023	24	MIX2 levels	24	15	83	5.62	3.65	21.6%	12.8%	—	K 17.0% · BB 14.3% · FIP 4.33
2024	25	MIX2 levels	17	12	63	4.74	4.19	21.9%	8.5%	—	K 17.5% · BB 9.4% · FIP 4.60
2025	26	MIX3 levels	31	0	39	5.72	3.13	23.8%	11.4%	—	K 20.5% · BB 11.0% · FIP 3.58
2026	27	No MLB games played
2027PROJ	28	MLBMIN	—	—	0	4.61	4.61	20.8%	10.1%	—
2028PROJ31% MLB	29	MLBMIN	6	0	6	4.66	4.71	20.8%	10.2%	-0.0

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

Contract

No contract data on file.

CompsColeman Huntley III (age 28) · Nelson Gonzalez (age 28) · Luis Mateo (age 27)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 121113vR 105

ERA4.61

FIP4.61

K%20.8%

BB%10.1%

K-BB%10.7%

Proj IP25

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 25 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)
2021	22	A+ MLE	Great Lakes Loons	26	2	73	317	68	41	6	8%	2.8	16.5%	14.9%	1.6%	2.5%	3.34	4.99	—
2021	22	A+ RAW	Great Lakes Loons	26	2	73	317	68	41	6	8%	2.8	21.5%	12.9%	8.5%	1.9%	3.34	3.99	—
2022	23	MIX MLE	2 levels	38	6	72	342	68	44	8	16%	1.9	15.4%	14.5%	0.9%	2.9%	5.47	5.21	—
2022	23	MIX RAW	2 levels	38	6	72	342	68	44	8	16%	1.9	19.9%	12.9%	7.0%	2.3%	5.47	4.48	—
2023	24	MIX MLE	2 levels	24	15	83	399	86	51	5	62%	3.5	17.0%	14.3%	2.7%	1.6%	5.62	4.33	—
2023	24	MIX RAW	2 levels	24	15	83	399	86	51	5	62%	3.5	21.6%	12.8%	8.8%	1.3%	5.62	3.65	—
2024	25	MIX MLE	2 levels	17	12	63	270	59	23	9	71%	3.7	17.5%	9.4%	8.1%	3.3%	4.74	4.60	—
2024	25	MIX MLE	2 levels	17	12	63	270	59	23	9	71%	3.7	17.5%	9.4%	8.1%	3.3%	4.74	4.60	—
2024	25	MIX RAW	2 levels	17	12	63	270	59	23	9	71%	3.7	21.9%	8.5%	13.3%	3.3%	4.74	4.19	—
2025	26	MIX MLE	3 levels	31	0	39	185	44	21	2	0%	1.3	20.5%	11.0%	9.5%	1.5%	5.72	3.58	—
2025	26	MIX MLE	3 levels	31	0	39	185	44	21	2	0%	1.3	20.5%	11.0%	9.5%	1.5%	5.72	3.58	—
2025	26	MIX RAW	3 levels	31	0	39	185	44	21	2	0%	1.3	23.8%	11.4%	12.4%	1.1%	5.72	3.13	—
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	28	MLB	MIN	—	—	0	—	—	—	—	—	—	20.8%	10.1%	10.7%	2.9%	4.61	4.61	—
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	29	MLB MLE	MIN	20	0	20	87	18	9	3	0%	1.0	20.8%	10.2%	10.6%	3.1%	4.66	4.71	-0.0
2028	29	MLB CTX	MIN	6	0	6	25	5	3	1	0%	1.0	20.8%	10.2%	10.6%	3.1%	4.66	4.71	-0.0
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		6	0	6	27	6	3	1	0%	1.1	20.8%	10.2%	10.6%	3.1%	4.66	4.33	+0.0
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		190	0	200	844	187	94	31	0%	1.1	20.8%	10.2%	10.6%	3.1%	4.66	4.33	+0.5
Career	—	MLE		136	35	330	1513	258	200	36	26%	2.4	17.1%	13.2%	3.9%	2.4%	4.93	4.62	-0.0
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		82	21	200	916	156	121	22	26%	2.4	17.1%	13.2%	3.9%	2.4%	4.93	4.62	-0.4

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 AAWichita Wind Surge · 23 IPFIP 3.26 → 4.02 (+0.76)K% 25.2% → 20.4%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	25.24%	—	×0.810	20.45%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.71%	—	×1.100	10.68%
HR / BF /BF	1.94%	÷0.986	×1.200	2.36%

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 97).

Result: FIP 3.26 → 4.02, 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).

2025 A+Cedar Rapids Kernels · 13 IPFIP 2.11 → 2.82 (+0.71)K% 26.7% → 20.5%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	26.67%	—	×0.770	20.53%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	10.00%	—	×1.150	11.50%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷0.962	×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 92).

Result: FIP 2.11 → 2.82, 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).

2025 AAASt. Paul Saints · 3 IPFIP 5.21 → 5.03 (−0.18)K% 9.1% → 7.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	9.09%	—	×0.860	7.82%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	22.73%	—	×0.900	20.45%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷1.253	×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 151).

Result: FIP 5.21 → 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 AAAmarillo Sod Poodles · 49 IPFIP 4.78 → 5.20 (+0.43)K% 22.5% → 18.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	22.49%	—	×0.810	18.22%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.57%	—	×1.100	10.53%
HR / BF /BF	4.31%	÷1.229	×1.200	4.21%

Result: FIP 4.78 → 5.20, 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).

2024 A+Hillsboro Hops · 14 IPFIP 2.06 → 2.54 (+0.48)K% 19.7% → 15.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	19.67%	—	×0.770	15.15%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	4.92%	—	×1.150	5.66%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷0.875	×1.250	0.00%

Result: FIP 2.06 → 2.54, 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 AARocket City Trash Pandas · 49 IPFIP 4.00 → 4.67 (+0.67)K% 18.5% → 15.0%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	18.49%	—	×0.810	14.97%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	12.18%	—	×1.100	13.40%
HR / BF /BF	1.68%	÷0.970	×1.200	2.08%

Result: FIP 4.00 → 4.67, 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+Tri-City Dust Devils · 34 IPFIP 2.97 → 3.82 (+0.86)K% 26.1% → 20.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	26.09%	—	×0.770	20.09%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	13.66%	—	×1.150	15.71%
HR / BF /BF	0.62%	÷0.990	×1.250	0.78%

Result: FIP 2.97 → 3.82, 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+Great Lakes Loons · 57 IPFIP 3.47 → 4.36 (+0.89)K% 23.1% → 17.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	23.08%	—	×0.770	17.77%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	10.00%	—	×1.150	11.50%
HR / BF /BF	1.92%	÷1.013	×1.250	2.37%

Result: FIP 3.47 → 4.36, 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
Cole Percival (OGILVIE)	—	—	4.61	20.8%	10.1%	2.9%	—	4.71	20.8%	10.6%	20	+0.10	—	—	—
Coleman Huntley III R 2021 · 3.85 FIP	28	SW	3.85	20.2%	7.4%	2.8%	.348	3.56	23.4%	13.2%	86	-0.29	2.38	160	79
Nelson Gonzalez R 2018 · 5.03 FIP	28	SW	5.03	19.2%	8.2%	4.6%	.311	6.22	16.9%	4.6%	74	+1.19	3.42	258	77
Luis Mateo R 2017 · 4.60 FIP	27	SU	4.60	17.6%	11.2%	2.9%	.309	5.55	8.6%	-4.8%	43	+0.95	3.48	160	75
Emmanuel Chapman R 2024 · 4.08 FIP	25	SW	4.08	19.7%	10.6%	2.4%	.256	4.52	17.8%	1.3%	117	+0.44	3.81	198	75
Carlos Torres R 2010 · 4.50 FIP	27	SW	4.50	18.3%	11.3%	2.8%	.438	3.89	20.1%	13.2%	139	-0.61	2.89	604	75
Yoanner Negrin R 2015 · 3.79 FIP	31	SW	3.79	15.1%	7.5%	1.9%	.256	3.29	15.0%	8.5%	270	-0.50	3.15	485	74
Luis Santos R 2019 · 4.31 FIP	28	SU	4.31	22.9%	10.0%	3.4%	.312	—	—	—	—	—	3.53	472	74
Calvin Drummond R 2016 · 3.55 FIP	26	SW	3.55	16.9%	11.1%	0.9%	.316	—	—	—	—	—	3.48	112	74
Alfonso Sanchez R 2016 · 5.26 FIP	28	SW	5.26	15.9%	7.4%	4.7%	.244	5.55	11.2%	2.3%	115	+0.29	4.51	224	73
Spencer Bivens R 2022 · 4.86 FIP	28	SU	4.86	19.8%	13.5%	3.1%	.265	3.85	18.1%	10.3%	272	-1.01	3.52	391	73
Ramon Delgado R 2016 · 4.60 FIP	29	SW	4.60	13.8%	5.9%	3.5%	.332	4.31	11.2%	7.2%	74	-0.29	4.31	135	72
Casey Sadler R 2018 · 3.95 FIP	28	SW	3.95	16.0%	7.8%	2.2%	.298	3.35	23.2%	16.5%	145	-0.60	2.21	385	72
Dustin Molleken R 2015 · 3.74 FIP	30	SU	3.74	20.4%	11.7%	1.6%	.287	3.90	20.6%	8.4%	77	+0.16	3.38	129	72
Jorge Campillo R 2007 · 4.84 FIP	28	SU	4.84	14.3%	9.5%	3.2%	.348	3.93	16.3%	10.8%	159	-0.91	3.93	172	72
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	72
Conor Steinbaugh R 2024 · 4.74 FIP	25	SU	4.74	16.0%	9.9%	3.2%	.281	6.29	15.0%	2.1%	44	+1.55	4.74	111	72
Brandon Cunniff R 2017 · 4.79 FIP	28	SU	4.79	20.1%	11.6%	3.5%	.275	6.80	13.9%	-1.9%	30	+2.01	3.89	180	72
Mike Adams R 2022 · 5.36 FIP	27	SU	5.36	17.1%	11.2%	4.2%	.326	—	—	—	—	—	3.65	109	72
Daniel Robert R 2023 · 3.45 FIP	28	SU	3.45	22.7%	10.7%	1.7%	.310	3.02	25.4%	17.1%	87	-0.43	2.32	186	72
Reinier Roibal R 2016 · 4.37 FIP	27	SW	4.37	16.9%	7.1%	3.3%	.371	4.91	17.5%	5.7%	37	+0.54	3.11	133	72