Chase Cohen

P Midland RockHounds

Age 30 RHP 6'1" / 183 lbs AA

Overview

AAPROSPECT

MLB%2%

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2022	25	AAOAK	44	1	58	3.41	3.41	26.7%	11.6%	—	K 21.6% · BB 12.7% · FIP 4.54
2023	26	MIX2 levels	46	0	55	5.93	4.05	24.7%	14.7%	—	K 19.9% · BB 14.3% · FIP 4.70
2024	27	AAOAK	17	0	21	2.61	3.83	25.0%	12.5%	—	K 20.2% · BB 13.8% · FIP 4.72
2025	28	No MLB games played
2026	29	No MLB games played
2027PROJ	30	MLBOAK	—	—	0	4.51	4.51	22.7%	10.3%	—
2028PROJ31% MLB	31	MLBOAK	6	0	6	4.61	4.69	22.4%	10.5%	-0.0

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

Contract

No contract data on file.

CompsJim Miller (age 30) · Joe Nelson (age 31) · Dustin Molleken (age 30)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 119111vR 103

ERA4.51

FIP4.51

K%22.7%

BB%10.3%

K-BB%12.5%

Proj IP12

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 12 IP

Grades · Contract

Scouting Grades

K†5555

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	21	ROK MLE	AZL Athletics	1	0	1	3	0	0	0	0%	1.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.00	3.10	—
2018	21	ROK RAW	AZL Athletics	1	0	1	3	0	0	0	0%	1.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.00	3.10	—
2019	22	A MLE	Beloit Snappers	27	18	114	498	106	55	9	67%	4.2	15.8%	13.0%	2.7%	2.3%	4.64	4.69	—
2019	22	A RAW	Beloit Snappers	27	18	114	498	106	55	9	67%	4.2	21.3%	11.0%	10.2%	1.8%	4.64	3.71	—
2021	24	AA MLE	Midland RockHounds	10	6	27	115	33	14	1	60%	2.7	23.2%	13.4%	9.9%	1.2%	3.00	3.52	—
2021	24	AA RAW	Midland RockHounds	10	6	27	115	33	14	1	60%	2.7	28.7%	12.2%	16.5%	0.9%	3.00	2.69	—
2022	25	AA MLE	Midland RockHounds	44	1	58	251	67	29	5	2%	1.3	21.6%	12.7%	8.9%	3.0%	3.41	4.54	—
2022	25	AA RAW	Midland RockHounds	44	1	58	251	67	29	5	2%	1.3	26.7%	11.6%	15.1%	2.0%	3.41	3.41	—
2023	26	MIX MLE	2 levels	46	0	55	251	62	37	5	0%	1.2	19.9%	14.3%	5.6%	2.7%	5.93	4.70	—
2023	26	MIX RAW	2 levels	46	0	55	251	62	37	5	0%	1.2	24.7%	14.7%	10.0%	2.0%	5.93	4.05	—
2024	27	AA MLE	Midland RockHounds	17	0	21	88	22	11	2	0%	1.2	20.2%	13.8%	6.5%	2.9%	2.61	4.72	—
2024	27	AA MLE	Midland RockHounds	17	0	21	88	22	11	2	0%	1.2	20.2%	13.8%	6.5%	2.9%	2.61	4.72	—
2024	27	AA RAW	Midland RockHounds	17	0	21	88	22	11	2	0%	1.2	25.0%	12.5%	12.5%	2.3%	2.61	3.83	—
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	30	MLB	OAK	—	—	0	—	—	—	—	—	—	22.7%	10.3%	12.5%	3.0%	4.51	4.51	—
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	31	MLB MLE	OAK	17	0	18	76	17	8	2	0%	1.1	22.4%	10.5%	11.9%	3.2%	4.61	4.69	-0.0
2028	31	MLB CTX	OAK	6	0	6	25	6	3	1	0%	1.0	22.4%	10.5%	11.9%	3.2%	4.61	4.69	-0.0
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		5	0	6	24	5	2	1	0%	1.1	22.4%	10.5%	11.9%	3.2%	4.61	4.31	+0.0
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		190	0	200	844	179	71	36	0%	1.1	22.4%	10.5%	11.9%	3.2%	4.61	4.31	+0.6
Career	—	MLE		145	25	276	1206	227	160	30	17%	1.9	18.8%	13.3%	5.6%	2.5%	4.31	4.55	-0.0
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		105	18	200	875	165	116	22	17%	1.9	18.8%	13.3%	5.6%	2.5%	4.31	4.55	-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 AAMidland RockHounds · 21 IPFIP 3.82 → 4.72 (+0.90)K% 25.0% → 20.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	25.00%	—	×0.810	20.25%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	12.50%	—	×1.100	13.75%
HR / BF /BF	2.27%	÷0.940	×1.200	2.90%

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 88).

Result: FIP 3.82 → 4.72, 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 AAALas Vegas Aviators · 43 IPFIP 4.49 → 4.70 (+0.21)K% 23.2% → 19.9%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	23.19%	—	×0.860	19.94%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	15.94%	—	×0.900	14.35%
HR / BF /BF	2.42%	÷0.996	×1.100	2.67%

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 99).

Result: FIP 4.49 → 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).

2023 AAMidland RockHounds · 12 IPFIP 1.56 → 2.19 (+0.63)K% 31.8% → 25.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	31.82%	—	×0.810	25.77%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.09%	—	×1.100	10.00%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷0.957	×1.200	0.00%

Result: FIP 1.56 → 2.19, 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).

2022 AAMidland RockHounds · 58 IPFIP 3.40 → 4.54 (+1.14)K% 26.7% → 21.6%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	26.69%	—	×0.810	21.62%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	11.55%	—	×1.100	12.71%
HR / BF /BF	1.99%	÷0.793	×1.200	3.02%

Result: FIP 3.40 → 4.54, 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).

2021 AAMidland RockHounds · 27 IPFIP 2.70 → 3.52 (+0.82)K% 28.7% → 23.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	28.70%	—	×0.810	23.24%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	12.17%	—	×1.100	13.39%
HR / BF /BF	0.87%	÷0.838	×1.200	1.24%

Result: FIP 2.70 → 3.52, 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 ABeloit Snappers · 114 IPFIP 3.69 → 4.69 (+1.00)K% 21.3% → 15.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	21.29%	—	×0.740	15.75%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	11.04%	—	×1.180	13.03%
HR / BF /BF	1.81%	÷1.014	×1.300	2.32%

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 103).

Result: FIP 3.69 → 4.69, 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
Chase Cohen (OGILVIE)	—	—	4.51	22.7%	10.3%	3.0%	—	4.69	22.4%	11.9%	18	+0.18	—	—	—
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	79
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	79
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	78
Neil Wagner R 2013 · 4.02 FIP	29	SU	4.02	20.5%	7.5%	3.1%	.306	4.05	19.8%	7.5%	43	+0.03	3.11	135	77
Wirfin Obispo R 2015 · 4.80 FIP	30	SU	4.80	18.6%	12.2%	3.1%	.292	1.31	28.6%	24.5%	126	-3.49	1.30	218	77
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
Erik Davis R 2017 · 4.25 FIP	30	SU	4.25	22.2%	11.1%	3.0%	.349	3.52	17.4%	8.5%	65	-0.73	3.05	227	73
Angel Castro R 2015 · 4.50 FIP	32	SU	4.50	15.9%	8.0%	3.1%	.268	4.28	13.6%	5.5%	231	-0.22	3.51	292	72
Mike Broadway R 2017 · 4.73 FIP	30	SU	4.73	18.3%	10.2%	3.4%	.245	4.65	23.0%	12.4%	49	-0.08	1.74	195	72
Esteban Haro R 2016 · 4.55 FIP	30	SU	4.55	17.1%	10.2%	2.9%	.338	3.83	11.6%	6.3%	75	-0.72	3.76	164	71
Andrew Robinson R 2017 · 4.32 FIP	29	SU	4.32	23.4%	8.8%	3.8%	.245	—	—	—	—	—	3.19	160	71
Marc Magliaro R 2018 · 3.94 FIP	28	SU	3.94	19.6%	7.3%	2.9%	.307	—	—	—	—	—	3.94	125	71
Jeremy Fikac R 2004 · 4.91 FIP	29	SU	4.91	19.6%	8.0%	4.5%	.276	—	—	—	—	—	3.10	136	70
Cody Satterwhite R 2017 · 4.22 FIP	30	SU	4.22	17.0%	7.1%	3.0%	.310	—	—	—	—	—	3.69	147	70
Blake Smith R 2016 · 3.59 FIP	28	SU	3.59	22.4%	8.6%	2.4%	.307	—	—	—	—	—	3.17	124	70
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	69
Jason Urquidez R 2015 · 3.59 FIP	32	SU	3.59	15.6%	9.3%	1.1%	.386	1.81	25.5%	20.7%	90	-1.78	1.25	123	69
Francisco Mendoza R 2016 · 3.81 FIP	28	SU	3.81	17.9%	7.7%	2.3%	.344	—	—	—	—	—	3.13	120	69
Leonel Campos R 2017 · 3.70 FIP	30	SU	3.70	25.7%	11.8%	2.3%	.241	—	—	—	—	—	2.62	168	69
Grant Sides R 2019 · 3.31 FIP	30	SU	3.31	21.7%	9.8%	1.5%	.267	—	—	—	—	—	3.31	159	69