Jimmy Endersby

P Amarillo Sod Poodles

Age 29 RHP 6'1" / 194 lbs AA peak 0.1 · 2027

Overview

AAPROSPECT

MLB%2%

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2023	25	AAAHOU	37	3	67	5.61	5.71	19.9%	14.1%	—	K 17.1% · BB 12.6% · FIP 6.12
2024	26	AATennessee Smo…	12	8	41	4.43	3.54	21.3%	7.3%	—	K 17.3% · BB 8.0% · FIP 4.54
2025	27	MIX2 levels	8	6	43	2.32	2.61	20.6%	5.0%	—	K 17.2% · BB 4.4% · FIP 2.86
2026	28	No MLB games played
2027PROJ	29	MLBARI	—	—	0	4.24	4.24	19.4%	6.6%	—
2028PROJ31% MLB	30	MLBARI	6	0	6	4.36	4.43	19.4%	7.1%	0.0

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

Contract

No contract data on file.

CompsRamon Delgado (age 29) · Jorge Martinez (age 31) · Tiago Da Silva (age 30)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 114106vR 98

ERA4.24

FIP4.24

K%19.4%

BB%6.6%

K-BB%12.8%

Proj IP22

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 22 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)
2021	23	MIX MLE	2 levels	24	17	97	419	110	53	8	71%	4.0	20.9%	14.1%	6.8%	2.1%	3.90	4.29	—
2021	23	MIX RAW	2 levels	24	17	97	419	110	53	8	71%	4.0	26.3%	12.6%	13.6%	1.9%	3.90	3.54	—
2022	24	MIX MLE	2 levels	28	20	117	533	99	65	20	71%	4.2	15.5%	13.2%	2.3%	4.4%	5.32	5.89	—
2022	24	MIX RAW	2 levels	28	20	117	533	99	65	20	71%	4.2	18.6%	12.2%	6.4%	3.8%	5.32	5.30	—
2023	25	AAA MLE	Sugar Land Space Cowboys	37	3	67	306	61	43	13	8%	1.8	17.1%	12.6%	4.5%	5.2%	5.61	6.12	—
2023	25	AAA RAW	Sugar Land Space Cowboys	37	3	67	306	61	43	13	8%	1.8	19.9%	14.1%	5.9%	4.2%	5.61	5.71	—
2024	26	AA MLE	Tennessee Smokies	12	8	41	164	35	12	4	67%	3.4	17.3%	8.0%	9.2%	3.4%	4.43	4.54	—
2024	26	AA MLE	Tennessee Smokies	12	8	41	164	35	12	4	67%	3.4	17.3%	8.0%	9.2%	3.4%	4.43	4.54	—
2024	26	AA RAW	Tennessee Smokies	12	8	41	164	35	12	4	67%	3.4	21.3%	7.3%	14.0%	2.4%	4.43	3.54	—
2025	27	MIX MLE	2 levels	8	6	43	180	37	9	2	75%	5.3	17.2%	4.4%	12.8%	1.2%	2.32	2.86	—
2025	27	MIX MLE	2 levels	8	6	43	180	37	9	2	75%	5.3	17.2%	4.4%	12.8%	1.2%	2.32	2.86	—
2025	27	MIX RAW	2 levels	8	6	43	180	37	9	2	75%	5.3	20.6%	5.0%	15.6%	1.1%	2.32	2.61	—
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	29	MLB	ARI	—	—	0	—	—	—	—	—	—	19.4%	6.6%	12.8%	2.9%	4.24	4.24	—
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	30	MLB MLE	ARI	17	0	18	77	15	5	2	0%	1.1	19.4%	7.1%	12.3%	3.1%	4.36	4.43	+0.0
2028	30	MLB CTX	ARI	6	0	6	25	5	2	1	0%	1.0	19.4%	7.1%	12.3%	3.1%	4.36	4.43	+0.0
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		5	0	6	24	5	2	1	0%	1.1	19.4%	7.1%	12.3%	3.1%	4.36	4.05	+0.0
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		190	0	200	844	176	70	35	0%	1.1	19.4%	7.1%	12.3%	3.1%	4.36	4.05	+1.2
Career	—	MLE		109	54	364	1602	282	189	56	50%	3.3	17.6%	11.8%	5.8%	3.5%	4.55	5.04	+0.0
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		60	30	200	879	155	104	31	50%	3.3	17.6%	11.8%	5.8%	3.5%	4.55	5.04	+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.

2025 AAAmarillo Sod Poodles · 36 IPFIP 2.54 → 2.86 (+0.32)K% 21.2% → 17.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	21.19%	—	×0.810	17.17%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	3.97%	—	×1.100	4.37%
HR / BF /BF	1.32%	÷1.333	×1.200	1.19%

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 167).

Result: FIP 2.54 → 2.86, 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 AAAReno Aces · 7 IPFIP 2.95 → 3.03 (+0.07)K% 17.2% → 14.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	17.24%	—	×0.860	14.83%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	10.34%	—	×0.900	9.31%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷0.904	×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 81).

Result: FIP 2.95 → 3.03, 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 AATennessee Smokies · 41 IPFIP 3.56 → 4.54 (+0.98)K% 21.3% → 17.3%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	21.34%	—	×0.810	17.29%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	7.32%	—	×1.100	8.05%
HR / BF /BF	2.44%	÷0.854	×1.200	3.43%

Result: FIP 3.56 → 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).

2023 AAASugar Land Space Cowboys · 67 IPFIP 5.53 → 6.12 (+0.59)K% 19.9% → 17.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	19.93%	—	×0.860	17.14%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	14.05%	—	×0.900	12.65%
HR / BF /BF	4.25%	÷0.896	×1.100	5.21%

Result: FIP 5.53 → 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 AACorpus Christi Hooks · 72 IPFIP 4.28 → 4.98 (+0.70)K% 20.8% → 16.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	20.75%	—	×0.810	16.81%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	12.26%	—	×1.100	13.49%
HR / BF /BF	2.52%	÷1.040	×1.200	2.90%

Result: FIP 4.28 → 4.98, 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 AAASugar Land Space Cowboys · 45 IPFIP 6.40 → 7.24 (+0.84)K% 15.3% → 13.5%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	15.35%	—	×0.880	13.51%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	12.09%	—	×1.050	12.70%
HR / BF /BF	5.58%	÷0.917	×1.100	6.69%

Factors used: pitcher AAA level factors — K ×0.88, BB ×1.05, 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 83).

Result: FIP 6.40 → 7.24, 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 AACorpus Christi Hooks · 67 IPFIP 3.84 → 4.49 (+0.65)K% 23.0% → 18.6%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	23.02%	—	×0.810	18.65%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	13.75%	—	×1.100	15.12%
HR / BF /BF	1.72%	÷1.074	×1.200	1.92%

Result: FIP 3.84 → 4.49, 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+Asheville Tourists · 30 IPFIP 2.84 → 3.82 (+0.98)K% 33.6% → 25.9%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	33.59%	—	×0.770	25.87%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	10.16%	—	×1.150	11.68%
HR / BF /BF	2.34%	÷1.131	×1.250	2.59%

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 126).

Result: FIP 2.84 → 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).

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
Jimmy Endersby (OGILVIE)	—	—	4.24	19.4%	6.6%	2.9%	—	4.43	19.4%	12.3%	18	+0.19	—	—	—
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	73
Jorge Martinez R 2016 · 3.53 FIP	31	SP-	3.53	12.9%	5.3%	1.6%	.266	3.71	16.5%	11.5%	154	+0.18	3.53	214	72
Tiago Da Silva R 2015 · 3.10 FIP	30	SW	3.10	19.6%	4.5%	2.0%	.278	2.38	21.4%	18.5%	98	-0.72	2.21	287	71
Fabio Castillo R 2017 · 3.98 FIP	28	SP-	3.98	20.9%	8.8%	2.8%	.291	—	—	—	—	—	3.13	195	69
Zach Stewart R 2015 · 4.43 FIP	28	SP-	4.43	14.4%	8.3%	2.7%	.322	5.17	11.7%	2.1%	51	+0.74	4.27	194	69
Ryan Jensen R 2005 · 4.35 FIP	29	SW	4.35	15.7%	5.2%	3.5%	.310	—	—	—	—	—	4.35	253	68
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	67
Edgar Alberto Garcia R 2017 · 4.01 FIP	29	SP-	4.01	17.3%	10.9%	1.8%	.305	—	—	—	—	—	4.01	272	67
Carlos Frías R 2019 · 4.42 FIP	29	SP-	4.42	16.9%	11.1%	2.4%	.369	—	—	—	—	—	3.40	236	66
Rodolfo Aguirre R 2015 · 4.29 FIP	30	SW	4.29	12.4%	6.9%	2.5%	.288	4.81	11.4%	1.3%	125	+0.52	3.39	212	65
Bradin Hagens R 2018 · 4.92 FIP	29	SP-	4.92	14.9%	9.9%	3.3%	.341	5.46	13.2%	0.6%	66	+0.54	3.79	254	64
Gabriel Arias R 2019 · 4.11 FIP	29	SP-	4.11	13.9%	6.8%	2.4%	.300	—	—	—	—	—	4.11	195	64
Juan Omar Espinoza R 2015 · 4.81 FIP	31	SP-	4.81	8.9%	6.6%	3.0%	.346	4.84	8.4%	-0.8%	52	+0.03	4.81	104	64
Orlando Rodriguez R 2023 · 4.67 FIP	27	SW	4.67	13.7%	10.6%	2.5%	.252	—	—	—	—	—	4.40	119	64
Jon Leicester R 2007 · 4.44 FIP	28	SP-	4.44	11.0%	9.0%	2.1%	.292	—	—	—	—	—	3.76	113	63
Ryan Glynn R 2004 · 5.23 FIP	29	SW	5.23	15.7%	7.9%	4.5%	.234	5.98	18.3%	9.8%	17	+0.75	5.23	226	63
Bryan Brickhouse R 2021 · 4.31 FIP	29	SP-	4.31	16.9%	7.2%	3.1%	.262	4.78	18.8%	7.1%	79	+0.47	4.31	214	63
Markus Solbach R 2021 · 3.63 FIP	29	SP-	3.63	15.4%	8.3%	1.4%	.383	5.37	18.3%	10.7%	63	+1.74	3.34	391	63
Alfonso Sanchez R 2017 · 4.51 FIP	29	SW	4.51	12.5%	9.8%	2.2%	.346	7.58	8.6%	1.4%	39	+3.07	4.51	224	63
Jake Brigham R 2015 · 3.09 FIP	27	SW	3.09	15.0%	6.5%	0.8%	.318	—	—	—	—	—	3.09	108	62