Sean Harney
P Springfield Cardinals| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 25 | MIX3 levels | 29 | 13 | 75 | 3.60 | 2.98 | 24.8% | 8.5% | — | K 18.2% · BB 9.8% · FIP 3.55 | |
| 2024 | 26 | MIX3 levels | 27 | 4 | 41 | 3.54 | 4.26 | 21.6% | 8.0% | — | K 15.9% · BB 6.8% · FIP 5.27 | |
| 2025 | 27 | AASTL | 22 | 1 | 34 | 4.24 | 3.81 | 20.8% | 13.4% | — | K 16.9% · BB 14.8% · FIP 4.35 | |
| 2026 | 28 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2027PROJ | 29 | MLBSTL | — | — | 0 | 4.94 | 4.94 | 19.3% | 11.9% | — | ||
| 2028PROJ31% MLB | 30 | MLBSTL | 5 | 0 | 5 | 4.98 | 5.05 | 19.4% | 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) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2022 | 24 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 7 | 0 | 9 | 47 | 13 | 5 | 0 | 0% | 1.3 | 27.7% | 10.6% | 17.0% | 0.0% | 8.00 | 2.11 | — |
| 2022 | 24 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 7 | 0 | 9 | 47 | 13 | 5 | 0 | 0% | 1.3 | 27.7% | 10.6% | 17.0% | 0.0% | 8.00 | 1.88 | — |
| 2023 | 25 | MIX MLE | 3 levels | 29 | 13 | 75 | 307 | 76 | 26 | 5 | 45% | 2.6 | 18.2% | 9.8% | 8.4% | 1.4% | 3.60 | 3.55 | — |
| 2023 | 25 | MIX RAW | 3 levels | 29 | 13 | 75 | 307 | 76 | 26 | 5 | 45% | 2.6 | 24.8% | 8.5% | 16.3% | 1.6% | 3.60 | 2.98 | — |
| 2024 | 26 | MIX MLE | 3 levels | 27 | 4 | 41 | 162 | 35 | 13 | 6 | 15% | 1.5 | 15.9% | 6.8% | 9.1% | 4.8% | 3.54 | 5.27 | — |
| 2024 | 26 | MIX MLE | 3 levels | 27 | 4 | 41 | 162 | 35 | 13 | 6 | 15% | 1.5 | 15.9% | 6.8% | 9.1% | 4.8% | 3.54 | 5.27 | — |
| 2024 | 26 | MIX RAW | 3 levels | 27 | 4 | 41 | 162 | 35 | 13 | 6 | 15% | 1.5 | 21.6% | 8.0% | 13.6% | 3.7% | 3.54 | 4.26 | — |
| 2025 | 27 | AA MLE | Springfield Cardinals | 22 | 1 | 34 | 149 | 31 | 20 | 2 | 5% | 1.5 | 16.9% | 14.8% | 2.1% | 1.5% | 4.24 | 4.35 | — |
| 2025 | 27 | AA MLE | Springfield Cardinals | 22 | 1 | 34 | 149 | 31 | 20 | 2 | 5% | 1.5 | 16.9% | 14.8% | 2.1% | 1.5% | 4.24 | 4.35 | — |
| 2025 | 27 | AA RAW | Springfield Cardinals | 22 | 1 | 34 | 149 | 31 | 20 | 2 | 5% | 1.5 | 20.8% | 13.4% | 7.4% | 1.3% | 4.24 | 3.81 | — |
| ▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 29 | MLB | STL | — | — | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 19.3% | 11.9% | 7.5% | 2.9% | 4.94 | 4.94 | — |
| ▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2028 | 30 | MLB MLE | STL | 15 | 0 | 16 | 68 | 13 | 8 | 2 | 0% | 1.1 | 19.4% | 11.9% | 7.5% | 3.1% | 4.98 | 5.05 | -0.1 |
| 2028 | 30 | MLB CTX | STL | 5 | 0 | 5 | 21 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 19.4% | 11.9% | 7.5% | 3.1% | 4.98 | 5.05 | -0.0 |
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 5 | 0 | 5 | 21 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 19.4% | 11.9% | 7.5% | 3.1% | 4.98 | 4.67 | -0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 190 | 0 | 200 | 844 | 159 | 119 | 40 | 0% | 1.1 | 19.4% | 11.9% | 7.5% | 3.1% | 4.98 | 4.67 | -0.3 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 85 | 18 | 159 | 665 | 120 | 68 | 14 | 21% | 1.9 | 18.0% | 10.2% | 7.8% | 2.1% | 3.97 | 4.05 | -0.1 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 107 | 23 | 200 | 838 | 151 | 86 | 18 | 21% | 1.9 | 18.0% | 10.2% | 7.8% | 2.1% | 3.97 | 4.05 | -1.2 | |
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 AASpringfield Cardinals · 34 IPFIP 3.78 → 4.35 (+0.57)K% 20.8% → 16.9%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 20.81% | — | ×0.810 | 16.85% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 13.42% | — | ×1.100 | 14.77% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.34% | ÷1.105 | ×1.200 | 1.46% |
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 121).
Result: FIP 3.78 → 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).
2024 A+Bowling Green Hot Rods · 25 IPFIP 4.26 → 5.27 (+1.01)K% 20.6% → 15.9%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 20.59% | — | ×0.770 | 15.85% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 5.88% | — | ×1.150 | 6.76% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.92% | ÷1.015 | ×1.250 | 4.83% |
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 103).
Result: FIP 4.26 → 5.27, 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 AAMontgomery Biscuits · 9 IPFIP 5.91 → 7.24 (+1.33)K% 20.0% → 16.2%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 20.00% | — | ×0.810 | 16.20% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 6.67% | — | ×1.100 | 7.33% |
| HR / BF /BF | 6.67% | ÷0.958 | ×1.200 | 8.35% |
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 92).
Result: FIP 5.91 → 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).
2024 ROKFCL Rays · 6 IPFIP 2.96 → 4.21 (+1.25)K% 26.7% → 18.1%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 26.67% | — | ×0.680 | 18.13% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 16.67% | — | ×1.250 | 20.83% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷1.002 | ×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 2.96 → 4.21, 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).
2023 A+Bowling Green Hot Rods · 64 IPFIP 2.82 → 3.55 (+0.73)K% 23.6% → 18.2%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 23.64% | — | ×0.770 | 18.21% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 8.53% | — | ×1.150 | 9.81% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.16% | ÷1.066 | ×1.250 | 1.36% |
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 113).
Result: FIP 2.82 → 3.55, 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 ACharleston RiverDogs · 6 IPFIP 3.27 → 4.70 (+1.43)K% 36.0% → 26.6%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 36.00% | — | ×0.740 | 26.64% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 8.00% | — | ×1.180 | 9.44% |
| HR / BF /BF | 4.00% | ÷1.075 | ×1.300 | 4.84% |
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 115).
Result: FIP 3.27 → 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 AAMontgomery Biscuits · 5 IPFIP 4.33 → 5.08 (+0.74)K% 25.0% → 20.2%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 25.00% | — | ×0.810 | 20.25% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 8.33% | — | ×1.100 | 9.17% |
| HR / BF /BF | 4.17% | ÷1.087 | ×1.200 | 4.60% |
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 117).
Result: FIP 4.33 → 5.08, 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 ACharleston RiverDogs · 8 IPFIP 2.43 → 3.24 (+0.81)K% 25.0% → 18.5%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 25.00% | — | ×0.740 | 18.50% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 11.36% | — | ×1.180 | 13.41% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷0.943 | ×1.300 | 0.00% |
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 89).
Result: FIP 2.43 → 3.24, 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).