Miguel Alfonseca
P St. Lucie Mets| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 22 | MIX2 levels | 26 | 1 | 44 | 4.67 | 3.37 | 24.9% | 12.2% | — | K 20.1% · BB 16.4% · FIP 4.78 | |
| 2023 | 23 | MIX2 levels | 23 | 0 | 33 | 7.56 | 4.63 | 16.0% | 10.4% | — | K 13.4% · BB 12.8% · FIP 4.40 | |
| 2024 | 24 | ANYM | 22 | 0 | 28 | 5.79 | 5.92 | 13.0% | 15.2% | — | K 9.7% · BB 18.0% · FIP 7.06 | |
| 2025 | 25 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2026 | 26 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2027PROJ | 27 | MLBNYM | — | — | 0 | 4.87 | 4.87 | 21.3% | 12.0% | — | ||
| 2028PROJ36% MLB | 28 | MLBNYM | 6 | 0 | 6 | 4.86 | 4.90 | 21.3% | 11.9% | -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) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2019 | 19 | ROK MLE | DSL Mets 2 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 46 | 5 | 14 | 0 | 100% | 2.3 | 10.9% | 30.4% | -19.6% | 0.0% | 11.57 | 6.04 | — |
| 2019 | 19 | ROK RAW | DSL Mets 2 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 46 | 5 | 14 | 0 | 100% | 2.3 | 10.9% | 30.4% | -19.6% | 0.0% | 11.57 | 6.53 | — |
| 2021 | 21 | ROK MLE | FCL Mets | 14 | 7 | 31 | 145 | 39 | 14 | 2 | 50% | 2.2 | 18.3% | 12.1% | 6.2% | 2.0% | 5.52 | 4.19 | — |
| 2021 | 21 | ROK RAW | FCL Mets | 14 | 7 | 31 | 145 | 39 | 14 | 2 | 50% | 2.2 | 26.9% | 9.7% | 17.2% | 1.4% | 5.52 | 2.78 | — |
| 2022 | 22 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 26 | 1 | 44 | 205 | 51 | 25 | 3 | 4% | 1.7 | 20.1% | 16.4% | 3.7% | 2.4% | 4.67 | 4.78 | — |
| 2022 | 22 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 26 | 1 | 44 | 205 | 51 | 25 | 3 | 4% | 1.7 | 24.9% | 12.2% | 12.7% | 1.5% | 4.67 | 3.37 | — |
| 2023 | 23 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 23 | 0 | 33 | 163 | 26 | 17 | 4 | 0% | 1.4 | 13.4% | 12.8% | 0.6% | 1.5% | 7.56 | 4.40 | — |
| 2023 | 23 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 23 | 0 | 33 | 163 | 26 | 17 | 4 | 0% | 1.4 | 16.0% | 10.4% | 5.5% | 2.5% | 7.56 | 4.63 | — |
| 2024 | 24 | A MLE | St. Lucie Mets | 22 | 0 | 28 | 138 | 18 | 21 | 4 | 0% | 1.3 | 9.7% | 18.0% | -8.3% | 4.6% | 5.79 | 7.06 | — |
| 2024 | 24 | A MLE | St. Lucie Mets | 22 | 0 | 28 | 138 | 18 | 21 | 4 | 0% | 1.3 | 9.7% | 18.0% | -8.3% | 4.6% | 5.79 | 7.06 | — |
| 2024 | 24 | A RAW | St. Lucie Mets | 22 | 0 | 28 | 138 | 18 | 21 | 4 | 0% | 1.3 | 13.0% | 15.2% | -2.2% | 2.9% | 5.79 | 5.92 | — |
| ▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 27 | MLB | NYM | — | — | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 21.3% | 12.0% | 9.2% | 3.0% | 4.87 | 4.87 | — |
| ▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2028 | 28 | MLB MLE | NYM | 16 | 0 | 16 | 70 | 15 | 8 | 2 | 0% | 1.0 | 21.3% | 11.9% | 9.4% | 3.1% | 4.86 | 4.90 | -0.1 |
| 2028 | 28 | MLB CTX | NYM | 6 | 0 | 6 | 25 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 21.3% | 11.9% | 9.4% | 3.1% | 4.86 | 4.90 | -0.0 |
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 6 | 0 | 6 | 25 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 21.3% | 11.9% | 9.4% | 3.1% | 4.86 | 4.52 | +0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 190 | 0 | 200 | 844 | 167 | 100 | 33 | 0% | 1.1 | 21.3% | 11.9% | 9.4% | 3.1% | 4.86 | 4.52 | +0.1 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 89 | 12 | 146 | 697 | 108 | 111 | 16 | 13% | 1.6 | 15.5% | 15.9% | -0.4% | 2.4% | 6.16 | 5.10 | -0.1 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 122 | 16 | 200 | 955 | 148 | 152 | 23 | 13% | 1.6 | 15.5% | 15.9% | -0.4% | 2.4% | 6.16 | 5.10 | -0.8 | |
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 ASt. Lucie Mets · 28 IPFIP 5.52 → 7.06 (+1.55)K% 13.0% → 9.7%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 13.04% | — | ×0.740 | 9.65% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 15.22% | — | ×1.180 | 17.96% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.90% | ÷0.826 | ×1.300 | 4.56% |
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 65).
Result: FIP 5.52 → 7.06, 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).
2023 ASt. Lucie Mets · 28 IPFIP 3.74 → 4.40 (+0.66)K% 18.1% → 13.4%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 18.12% | — | ×0.740 | 13.41% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 10.87% | — | ×1.180 | 12.83% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.45% | ÷1.274 | ×1.300 | 1.48% |
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 155).
Result: FIP 3.74 → 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).
2023 A+Brooklyn Cyclones · 5 IPFIP 8.17 → 9.21 (+1.05)K% 4.0% → 3.1%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 4.00% | — | ×0.770 | 3.08% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 8.00% | — | ×1.150 | 9.20% |
| HR / BF /BF | 8.00% | ÷1.054 | ×1.250 | 9.49% |
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 111).
Result: FIP 8.17 → 9.21, 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).
2022 ASt. Lucie Mets · 36 IPFIP 3.51 → 4.78 (+1.26)K% 27.2% → 20.1%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 27.17% | — | ×0.740 | 20.10% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 13.87% | — | ×1.180 | 16.37% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.73% | ÷0.949 | ×1.300 | 2.37% |
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 90).
Result: FIP 3.51 → 4.78, 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).
2022 ROKFCL Mets · 8 IPFIP 2.44 → 2.88 (+0.44)K% 12.5% → 8.5%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 12.50% | — | ×0.680 | 8.50% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 3.12% | — | ×1.250 | 3.91% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷1.078 | ×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 116).
Result: FIP 2.44 → 2.88, 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 ROKFCL Mets · 31 IPFIP 2.81 → 4.19 (+1.38)K% 26.9% → 18.3%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 26.90% | — | ×0.680 | 18.29% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 9.66% | — | ×1.250 | 12.07% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.38% | ÷0.958 | ×1.400 | 2.02% |
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 92).
Result: FIP 2.81 → 4.19, 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).
2019 ROKDSL Mets 2 · 9 IPFIP 6.04 → 7.29 (+1.26)K% 10.9% → 7.4%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 10.87% | — | ×0.680 | 7.39% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 30.43% | — | ×1.250 | 38.04% |
| 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 6.04 → 7.29, 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).