Austin Briggs

P Midland RockHounds

Age 31 LHP 6'1" / 205 lbs AA

Overview

AAPROSPECT

MLB%2%

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2022	26	AAOAK	28	0	32	4.26	4.43	21.1%	11.8%	—	K 17.1% · BB 13.0% · FIP 5.50
2023	27	AAOAK	40	0	42	4.71	3.72	24.5%	16.3%	—	K 19.8% · BB 18.0% · FIP 4.40
2024	28	MIX2 levels	26	2	32	8.35	5.39	14.7%	19.6%	—	K 12.1% · BB 19.1% · FIP 5.30
2025	29	No MLB games played
2026	30	No MLB games played
2027PROJ	31	MLBOAK	—	—	0	5.14	5.14	18.7%	12.8%	—
2028PROJ31% MLB	32	MLBOAK	5	0	5	5.19	5.28	18.7%	12.8%	-0.0

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

Contract

No contract data on file.

CompsJuan Pablo Perez (age 28) · Brian Shouse (age 33) · Raul Valdes (age 32)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 115123vR 131

ERA5.14

FIP5.14

K%18.7%

BB%12.8%

K-BB%5.9%

Proj IP18

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 18 IP

Grades · Contract

Scouting Grades

K†4545

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	ROK MLE	AZL Athletics	16	1	26	117	28	14	0	6%	1.6	16.3%	15.0%	1.3%	0.0%	3.12	3.62	—
2018	22	ROK RAW	AZL Athletics	16	1	26	117	28	14	0	6%	1.6	23.9%	12.0%	12.0%	0.0%	3.12	2.56	—
2021	25	AA MLE	Midland RockHounds	41	0	55	236	41	28	7	0%	1.3	14.1%	13.1%	1.0%	4.2%	6.38	5.90	—
2021	25	AA RAW	Midland RockHounds	41	0	55	236	41	28	7	0%	1.3	17.4%	11.9%	5.5%	3.0%	6.38	4.79	—
2022	26	AA MLE	Midland RockHounds	28	0	32	152	32	18	4	0%	1.1	17.1%	13.0%	4.0%	4.0%	4.26	5.50	—
2022	26	AA RAW	Midland RockHounds	28	0	32	152	32	18	4	0%	1.1	21.1%	11.8%	9.2%	2.6%	4.26	4.43	—
2023	27	AA MLE	Midland RockHounds	40	0	42	196	48	32	2	0%	1.1	19.8%	18.0%	1.9%	1.3%	4.71	4.40	—
2023	27	AA RAW	Midland RockHounds	40	0	42	196	48	32	2	0%	1.1	24.5%	16.3%	8.2%	1.0%	4.71	3.72	—
2024	28	MIX MLE	2 levels	26	2	32	163	24	32	2	8%	1.2	12.1%	19.1%	-7.1%	1.5%	8.35	5.30	—
2024	28	MIX MLE	2 levels	26	2	32	163	24	32	2	8%	1.2	12.1%	19.1%	-7.1%	1.5%	8.35	5.30	—
2024	28	MIX RAW	2 levels	26	2	32	163	24	32	2	8%	1.2	14.7%	19.6%	-4.9%	1.2%	8.35	5.39	—
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	31	MLB	OAK	—	—	0	—	—	—	—	—	—	18.7%	12.8%	5.9%	2.9%	5.14	5.14	—
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	32	MLB MLE	OAK	15	0	16	66	12	8	2	0%	1.0	18.7%	12.8%	5.9%	3.2%	5.19	5.28	-0.1
2028	32	MLB CTX	OAK	5	0	5	21	4	3	1	0%	1.0	18.7%	12.8%	5.9%	3.2%	5.19	5.28	-0.0
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		5	0	5	21	4	3	1	0%	1.0	18.7%	12.8%	5.9%	3.2%	5.19	4.90	-0.0
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		190	0	200	844	164	123	41	0%	1.1	18.7%	12.8%	5.9%	3.2%	5.19	4.90	-0.8
Career	—	MLE		151	3	187	864	137	134	21	2%	1.2	15.8%	15.6%	0.3%	2.4%	5.53	5.07	-0.1
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		161	3	200	924	146	144	22	2%	1.2	15.8%	15.6%	0.3%	2.4%	5.53	5.07	-1.7

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 AAMidland RockHounds · 20 IPFIP 3.60 → 4.25 (+0.65)K% 20.4% → 16.5%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	20.43%	—	×0.810	16.55%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	12.90%	—	×1.100	14.19%
HR / BF /BF	1.08%	÷0.940	×1.200	1.37%

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 3.60 → 4.25, 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 AAALas Vegas Aviators · 12 IPFIP 6.90 → 6.70 (−0.20)K% 7.1% → 6.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	7.14%	—	×0.860	6.14%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	28.57%	—	×0.900	25.71%
HR / BF /BF	1.43%	÷1.001	×1.100	1.57%

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 100).

Result: FIP 6.90 → 6.70, 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 · 42 IPFIP 3.66 → 4.40 (+0.74)K% 24.5% → 19.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	24.49%	—	×0.810	19.84%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	16.33%	—	×1.100	17.96%
HR / BF /BF	1.02%	÷0.957	×1.200	1.28%

Result: FIP 3.66 → 4.40, 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 · 32 IPFIP 4.27 → 5.50 (+1.23)K% 21.1% → 17.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	21.05%	—	×0.810	17.05%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	11.84%	—	×1.100	13.03%
HR / BF /BF	2.63%	÷0.793	×1.200	3.98%

Result: FIP 4.27 → 5.50, 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 · 55 IPFIP 4.76 → 5.90 (+1.13)K% 17.4% → 14.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	17.37%	—	×0.810	14.07%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	11.86%	—	×1.100	13.05%
HR / BF /BF	2.97%	÷0.838	×1.200	4.25%

Result: FIP 4.76 → 5.90, 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 ROKAZL Athletics · 26 IPFIP 2.59 → 3.62 (+1.03)K% 23.9% → 16.3%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	23.93%	—	×0.680	16.27%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	11.97%	—	×1.250	14.96%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷1.000	×1.400	0.00%

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 2.59 → 3.62, 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).

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
Austin Briggs (OGILVIE)	—	—	5.14	18.7%	12.8%	2.9%	—	5.28	18.7%	5.9%	16	+0.14	—	—	—
Juan Pablo Perez L 2007 · 5.32 FIP	28	SU	5.32	17.5%	14.0%	3.5%	.324	—	—	—	—	—	1.75	104	85
Brian Shouse L 2002 · 5.54 FIP	33	SU	5.54	15.5%	11.3%	4.2%	.245	3.31	16.3%	10.7%	159	-2.23	2.32	339	83
Raul Valdes L 2010 · 4.02 FIP	32	SU	4.02	21.4%	9.9%	2.7%	.301	3.14	27.4%	22.5%	78	-0.88	2.29	160	80
Randy Flores L 2006 · 4.00 FIP	31	SU	4.00	20.4%	9.7%	2.5%	.333	3.30	18.1%	10.5%	93	-0.70	2.51	250	77
Adam Liberatore L 2018 · 4.28 FIP	31	SU	4.28	18.6%	9.1%	2.9%	.354	—	—	—	—	—	2.38	124	77
Ryan O'Rourke L 2019 · 4.08 FIP	31	SU	4.08	22.1%	14.3%	1.9%	.290	—	—	—	—	—	3.05	145	74
Buddy Baumann L 2018 · 4.87 FIP	30	SU	4.87	20.5%	11.9%	3.6%	.258	—	—	—	—	—	2.92	155	73
Pedro Borbón L 2000 · 5.20 FIP	32	SU	5.20	13.6%	15.5%	2.4%	.274	4.23	21.1%	15.5%	104	-0.97	2.26	264	73
Andrew Barbosa L 2017 · 4.67 FIP	29	SU	4.67	20.2%	9.6%	3.8%	.301	—	—	—	—	—	2.70	175	73
Tom Martin L 2001 · 5.68 FIP	31	SU	5.68	14.1%	9.4%	4.7%	.311	4.25	19.8%	11.1%	96	-1.43	3.40	303	72
Tommy Phelps L 2005 · 3.98 FIP	31	SU	3.98	13.2%	7.5%	1.9%	.280	—	—	—	—	—	3.39	120	72
James Jones L 2019 · 4.28 FIP	30	SU	4.28	21.9%	13.0%	2.5%	.230	4.65	23.9%	8.8%	35	+0.37	3.58	127	71
Vic Darensbourg L 2002 · 5.46 FIP	31	SU	5.46	14.2%	9.4%	4.3%	.304	4.11	9.4%	4.2%	22	-1.35	2.94	287	71
Jack Taschner L 2009 · 4.72 FIP	31	SU	4.72	13.3%	12.6%	2.1%	.340	4.74	18.1%	6.4%	20	+0.02	3.14	189	71
Mike Zagurski L 2012 · 4.48 FIP	29	SU	4.48	20.9%	11.7%	3.0%	.305	—	—	—	—	—	2.94	120	70
Scott Sauerbeck L 2003 · 4.59 FIP	31	SU	4.59	19.2%	14.6%	2.3%	.247	4.29	18.9%	7.8%	61	-0.30	2.79	386	70
Scott Alexander L 2020 · 5.61 FIP	31	SU	5.61	17.3%	15.4%	3.7%	.212	3.15	14.5%	11.1%	81	-2.46	2.90	427	69
Fabian Williamson L 2019 · 4.78 FIP	30	SU	4.78	20.5%	21.1%	1.3%	.352	—	—	—	—	—	3.39	154	69
Phil Dumatrait L 2011 · 5.09 FIP	30	SU	5.09	14.8%	10.2%	3.5%	.271	—	—	—	—	—	4.39	151	67
Joey Eischen L 2001 · 5.00 FIP	31	SU	5.00	14.5%	11.5%	3.0%	.269	3.14	20.9%	14.9%	125	-1.86	2.13	294	67