Trey Riley
P Mississippi Braves| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 24 | MIX2 levels | 40 | 0 | 43 | 5.27 | 5.42 | 22.0% | 15.9% | — | K 18.3% · BB 16.2% · FIP 6.12 | |
| 2023 | 25 | AAMississippi B… | 42 | 0 | 49 | 4.07 | 3.74 | 26.1% | 18.1% | — | K 21.1% · BB 20.0% · FIP 4.58 | |
| 2024 | 26 | AAMississippi B… | 40 | 0 | 45 | 4.80 | 3.57 | 24.6% | 13.5% | — | K 20.0% · BB 14.9% · FIP 4.35 | |
| 2025 | 27 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2026 | 28 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2027PROJ | 29 | MLBATL | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4.70 | 4.70 | 22.1% | 11.6% | -0.0 | ||
| 2028PROJ31% MLB | 30 | MLBATL | 7 | 0 | 7 | 4.77 | 4.84 | 21.9% | 11.7% | -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) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2018 | 20 | ROK MLE | Danville Braves | 6 | 2 | 9 | 48 | 13 | 10 | 1 | 33% | 1.5 | 27.1% | 20.8% | 6.2% | 2.1% | 8.00 | 4.60 | — |
| 2018 | 20 | ROK RAW | Danville Braves | 6 | 2 | 9 | 48 | 13 | 10 | 1 | 33% | 1.5 | 27.1% | 20.8% | 6.2% | 2.1% | 8.00 | 4.99 | — |
| 2019 | 21 | A MLE | Rome Braves | 17 | 12 | 59 | 286 | 41 | 46 | 4 | 71% | 3.5 | 10.6% | 19.0% | -8.4% | 2.1% | 7.67 | 5.78 | — |
| 2019 | 21 | A RAW | Rome Braves | 17 | 12 | 59 | 286 | 41 | 46 | 4 | 71% | 3.5 | 14.3% | 16.1% | -1.7% | 1.4% | 7.67 | 4.94 | — |
| 2021 | 23 | A+ MLE | Rome Braves | 26 | 0 | 38 | 148 | 32 | 11 | 5 | 0% | 1.5 | 16.6% | 8.5% | 8.1% | 4.9% | 3.29 | 5.46 | — |
| 2021 | 23 | A+ RAW | Rome Braves | 26 | 0 | 38 | 148 | 32 | 11 | 5 | 0% | 1.5 | 21.6% | 7.4% | 14.2% | 3.4% | 3.29 | 3.99 | — |
| 2022 | 24 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 40 | 0 | 43 | 214 | 47 | 34 | 7 | 0% | 1.1 | 18.3% | 16.2% | 2.0% | 4.6% | 5.27 | 6.12 | — |
| 2022 | 24 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 40 | 0 | 43 | 214 | 47 | 34 | 7 | 0% | 1.1 | 22.0% | 15.9% | 6.1% | 3.3% | 5.27 | 5.42 | — |
| 2023 | 25 | AA MLE | Mississippi Braves | 42 | 0 | 49 | 226 | 59 | 41 | 2 | 0% | 1.2 | 21.1% | 20.0% | 1.2% | 1.3% | 4.07 | 4.58 | — |
| 2023 | 25 | AA RAW | Mississippi Braves | 42 | 0 | 49 | 226 | 59 | 41 | 2 | 0% | 1.2 | 26.1% | 18.1% | 8.0% | 0.9% | 4.07 | 3.74 | — |
| 2024 | 26 | AA MLE | Mississippi Braves | 40 | 0 | 45 | 207 | 51 | 28 | 3 | 0% | 1.1 | 20.0% | 14.9% | 5.1% | 1.9% | 4.80 | 4.35 | — |
| 2024 | 26 | AA MLE | Mississippi Braves | 40 | 0 | 45 | 207 | 51 | 28 | 3 | 0% | 1.1 | 20.0% | 14.9% | 5.1% | 1.9% | 4.80 | 4.35 | — |
| 2024 | 26 | AA RAW | Mississippi Braves | 40 | 0 | 45 | 207 | 51 | 28 | 3 | 0% | 1.1 | 24.6% | 13.5% | 11.1% | 1.4% | 4.80 | 3.57 | — |
| ▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 29 | MLB | ATL | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0% | 1.0 | 22.1% | 11.6% | 10.5% | 3.0% | 4.70 | 4.70 | -0.0 |
| ▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2028 | 30 | MLB MLE | ATL | 20 | 0 | 21 | 88 | 19 | 10 | 3 | 0% | 1.0 | 21.9% | 11.7% | 10.2% | 3.2% | 4.77 | 4.84 | -0.1 |
| 2028 | 30 | MLB CTX | ATL | 7 | 0 | 7 | 30 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 21.9% | 11.7% | 10.2% | 3.2% | 4.77 | 4.84 | -0.0 |
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 6 | 0 | 7 | 27 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 21.9% | 11.7% | 10.2% | 3.2% | 4.77 | 4.46 | +0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 190 | 0 | 200 | 844 | 184 | 92 | 31 | 0% | 1.1 | 21.9% | 11.7% | 10.2% | 3.2% | 4.77 | 4.46 | +0.2 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 171 | 14 | 242 | 1129 | 196 | 188 | 31 | 8% | 1.4 | 17.4% | 16.6% | 0.8% | 2.8% | 5.31 | 5.25 | -0.1 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 141 | 12 | 200 | 932 | 162 | 155 | 26 | 8% | 1.4 | 17.4% | 16.6% | 0.8% | 2.8% | 5.31 | 5.25 | -0.7 | |
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 AAMississippi Braves · 45 IPFIP 3.53 → 4.35 (+0.83)K% 24.6% → 20.0%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 24.64% | — | ×0.810 | 19.96% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 13.53% | — | ×1.100 | 14.88% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.45% | ÷0.906 | ×1.200 | 1.92% |
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 81).
Result: FIP 3.53 → 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).
2023 AAMississippi Braves · 49 IPFIP 3.68 → 4.58 (+0.90)K% 26.1% → 21.1%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 26.11% | — | ×0.810 | 21.15% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 18.14% | — | ×1.100 | 19.96% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.88% | ÷0.793 | ×1.200 | 1.34% |
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 3.68 → 4.58, 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+Rome Braves · 36 IPFIP 4.75 → 6.12 (+1.37)K% 23.7% → 18.3%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 23.73% | — | ×0.770 | 18.27% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 14.12% | — | ×1.150 | 16.24% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.39% | ÷0.928 | ×1.250 | 4.57% |
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 86).
Result: FIP 4.75 → 6.12, 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 AAMississippi Braves · 7 IPFIP 6.52 → 7.49 (+0.96)K% 13.5% → 10.9%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 13.51% | — | ×0.810 | 10.95% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 24.32% | — | ×1.100 | 26.76% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.70% | ÷0.927 | ×1.200 | 3.50% |
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 85).
Result: FIP 6.52 → 7.49, 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+Rome Braves · 38 IPFIP 4.07 → 5.46 (+1.39)K% 21.6% → 16.6%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 21.62% | — | ×0.770 | 16.65% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 7.43% | — | ×1.150 | 8.55% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.38% | ÷0.864 | ×1.250 | 4.89% |
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 73).
Result: FIP 4.07 → 5.46, 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 ARome Braves · 59 IPFIP 4.69 → 5.78 (+1.09)K% 14.3% → 10.6%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 14.34% | — | ×0.740 | 10.61% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 16.08% | — | ×1.180 | 18.98% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.40% | ÷0.851 | ×1.300 | 2.14% |
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 70).
Result: FIP 4.69 → 5.78, 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 · 9 IPFIP 4.60 → 6.44 (+1.85)K% 27.1% → 18.4%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 27.08% | — | ×0.680 | 18.42% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 20.83% | — | ×1.250 | 26.04% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.08% | ÷1.000 | ×1.400 | 2.92% |
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 4.60 → 6.44, 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).