Matt Merrill
P Erie SeaWolves| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 25 | MIX2 levels | 25 | 0 | 37 | 3.86 | 2.24 | 35.3% | 12.0% | — | K 26.5% · BB 14.0% · FIP 3.57 | |
| 2024 | 26 | A+DET | 36 | 0 | 50 | 1.79 | 2.84 | 33.5% | 18.2% | — | K 25.8% · BB 20.9% · FIP 3.94 | |
| 2025 | 27 | AADET | 15 | 1 | 21 | 3.48 | 3.73 | 27.9% | 18.6% | — | K 22.6% · BB 20.5% · FIP 4.51 | |
| 2026 | 28 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2027PROJ | 29 | MLBDET | — | — | 0 | 5.12 | 5.12 | 23.6% | 16.3% | — | ||
| 2028PROJ31% MLB | 30 | MLBDET | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5.15 | 5.22 | 23.2% | 15.9% | -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 | GCL Astros | 6 | 2 | 9 | 51 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 33% | 1.6 | 8.0% | 17.2% | -9.2% | 2.7% | 11.57 | 6.10 | — |
| 2017 | 19 | ROK RAW | GCL Astros | 6 | 2 | 9 | 51 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 33% | 1.6 | 11.8% | 13.7% | -2.0% | 2.0% | 11.57 | 5.46 | — |
| 2021 | 23 | A MLE | Fredericksburg Nationals | 18 | 7 | 46 | 207 | 71 | 22 | 2 | 39% | 2.6 | 25.4% | 12.5% | 12.8% | 1.1% | 4.66 | 3.14 | — |
| 2021 | 23 | A RAW | Fredericksburg Nationals | 18 | 7 | 46 | 207 | 71 | 22 | 2 | 39% | 2.6 | 34.3% | 10.6% | 23.7% | 1.0% | 4.66 | 2.02 | — |
| 2022 | 24 | A+ MLE | Wilmington Blue Rocks | 20 | 7 | 41 | 200 | 53 | 39 | 6 | 35% | 2.0 | 20.4% | 22.4% | -2.0% | 3.4% | 6.86 | 6.06 | — |
| 2022 | 24 | A+ RAW | Wilmington Blue Rocks | 20 | 7 | 41 | 200 | 53 | 39 | 6 | 35% | 2.0 | 26.5% | 19.5% | 7.0% | 3.0% | 6.86 | 5.29 | — |
| 2023 | 25 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 25 | 0 | 37 | 167 | 59 | 20 | 2 | 0% | 1.5 | 26.5% | 14.0% | 12.5% | 1.7% | 3.86 | 3.57 | — |
| 2023 | 25 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 25 | 0 | 37 | 167 | 59 | 20 | 2 | 0% | 1.5 | 35.3% | 12.0% | 23.4% | 1.2% | 3.86 | 2.24 | — |
| 2024 | 26 | A+ MLE | West Michigan Whitecaps | 36 | 0 | 50 | 209 | 70 | 38 | 1 | 0% | 1.4 | 25.8% | 20.9% | 4.9% | 0.7% | 1.79 | 3.94 | — |
| 2024 | 26 | A+ MLE | West Michigan Whitecaps | 36 | 0 | 50 | 209 | 70 | 38 | 1 | 0% | 1.4 | 25.8% | 20.9% | 4.9% | 0.7% | 1.79 | 3.94 | — |
| 2024 | 26 | A+ RAW | West Michigan Whitecaps | 36 | 0 | 50 | 209 | 70 | 38 | 1 | 0% | 1.4 | 33.5% | 18.2% | 15.3% | 0.5% | 1.79 | 2.84 | — |
| 2025 | 27 | AA MLE | Erie SeaWolves | 15 | 1 | 21 | 86 | 24 | 16 | 1 | 7% | 1.4 | 22.6% | 20.5% | 2.1% | 1.3% | 3.48 | 4.51 | — |
| 2025 | 27 | AA MLE | Erie SeaWolves | 15 | 1 | 21 | 86 | 24 | 16 | 1 | 7% | 1.4 | 22.6% | 20.5% | 2.1% | 1.3% | 3.48 | 4.51 | — |
| 2025 | 27 | AA RAW | Erie SeaWolves | 15 | 1 | 21 | 86 | 24 | 16 | 1 | 7% | 1.4 | 27.9% | 18.6% | 9.3% | 1.2% | 3.48 | 3.73 | — |
| ▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 29 | MLB | DET | — | — | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 23.6% | 16.3% | 7.3% | 2.9% | 5.12 | 5.12 | — |
| ▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2028 | 30 | MLB MLE | DET | 15 | 0 | 16 | 68 | 16 | 11 | 2 | 0% | 1.1 | 23.2% | 15.9% | 7.3% | 3.1% | 5.15 | 5.22 | -0.1 |
| 2028 | 30 | MLB CTX | DET | 5 | 0 | 5 | 21 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 23.2% | 15.9% | 7.3% | 3.1% | 5.15 | 5.22 | -0.0 |
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 5 | 0 | 5 | 21 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 23.2% | 15.9% | 7.3% | 3.1% | 5.15 | 4.84 | -0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 190 | 0 | 200 | 844 | 198 | 119 | 40 | 0% | 1.1 | 23.2% | 15.9% | 7.3% | 3.1% | 5.15 | 4.84 | -0.7 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 120 | 17 | 205 | 920 | 215 | 164 | 16 | 14% | 1.7 | 23.4% | 17.9% | 5.5% | 1.7% | 4.44 | 4.33 | -0.1 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 117 | 17 | 200 | 899 | 210 | 161 | 15 | 14% | 1.7 | 23.4% | 17.9% | 5.5% | 1.7% | 4.44 | 4.33 | -1.6 | |
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 AAErie SeaWolves · 21 IPFIP 3.74 → 4.51 (+0.77)K% 27.9% → 22.6%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 27.91% | — | ×0.810 | 22.60% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 18.60% | — | ×1.100 | 20.47% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.16% | ÷1.056 | ×1.200 | 1.32% |
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 111).
Result: FIP 3.74 → 4.51, 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+West Michigan Whitecaps · 50 IPFIP 2.84 → 3.94 (+1.10)K% 33.5% → 25.8%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 33.49% | — | ×0.770 | 25.79% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 18.18% | — | ×1.150 | 20.91% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.48% | ÷0.889 | ×1.250 | 0.67% |
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 78).
Result: FIP 2.84 → 3.94, 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 AFredericksburg Nationals · 24 IPFIP 2.71 → 4.21 (+1.50)K% 35.8% → 26.5%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 35.78% | — | ×0.740 | 26.48% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 12.84% | — | ×1.180 | 15.16% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.83% | ÷0.917 | ×1.300 | 2.60% |
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 83).
Result: FIP 2.71 → 4.21, 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).
2023 A+Wilmington Blue Rocks · 14 IPFIP 1.50 → 2.36 (+0.87)K% 34.5% → 26.6%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 34.48% | — | ×0.770 | 26.55% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 10.34% | — | ×1.150 | 11.90% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷0.913 | ×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 83).
Result: FIP 1.50 → 2.36, 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).
2022 A+Wilmington Blue Rocks · 41 IPFIP 4.98 → 6.06 (+1.09)K% 26.5% → 20.4%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 26.50% | — | ×0.770 | 20.41% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 19.50% | — | ×1.150 | 22.42% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.00% | ÷1.114 | ×1.250 | 3.37% |
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 123).
Result: FIP 4.98 → 6.06, 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 AFredericksburg Nationals · 46 IPFIP 2.08 → 3.14 (+1.06)K% 34.3% → 25.4%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 34.30% | — | ×0.740 | 25.38% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 10.63% | — | ×1.180 | 12.54% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.97% | ÷1.159 | ×1.300 | 1.08% |
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 132).
Result: FIP 2.08 → 3.14, 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).
2017 ROKGCL Astros · 9 IPFIP 4.92 → 6.10 (+1.18)K% 11.8% → 8.0%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 11.76% | — | ×0.680 | 8.00% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 13.73% | — | ×1.250 | 17.16% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.96% | ÷1.000 | ×1.400 | 2.75% |
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 4.92 → 6.10, 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).