Christian Ruebeck
P Tulsa Drillers| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 23 | MIX2 levels | 34 | 0 | 41 | 6.31 | 4.55 | 27.2% | 19.5% | — | K 20.6% · BB 24.4% · FIP 6.03 |
| 2025 | 24 | A+LAD | 36 | 0 | 36 | 6.81 | 3.69 | 30.9% | 17.1% | — | K 23.8% · BB 19.7% · FIP 4.78 |
| 2026 | 25 | AALAD | 28 | 1 | 34 | 4.72 | 3.77 | 23.8% | 17.9% | — | K 19.3% · BB 19.6% · FIP 4.35 |
| 2027PROJ | 26 | MLBLAD | — | — | 0 | 5.47 | 5.47 | 21.0% | 18.6% | — | |
| 2028PROJ38% MLB | 27 | MLBLAD | 9 | 0 | 9 | 5.38 | 5.39 | 21.2% | 17.7% | -0.1 |
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) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2023 | 22 | A MLE | Rancho Cucamonga Quakes | 10 | 0 | 9 | 45 | 15 | 10 | 0 | 0% | 0.9 | 33.3% | 22.2% | 11.1% | 0.0% | 5.19 | 3.10 | — |
| 2023 | 22 | A RAW | Rancho Cucamonga Quakes | 10 | 0 | 9 | 45 | 15 | 10 | 0 | 0% | 0.9 | 33.3% | 22.2% | 11.1% | 0.0% | 5.19 | 3.10 | — |
| 2024 | 23 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 34 | 0 | 41 | 195 | 53 | 38 | 4 | 0% | 1.2 | 20.6% | 24.4% | -3.9% | 2.9% | 6.31 | 6.03 | — |
| 2024 | 23 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 34 | 0 | 41 | 195 | 53 | 38 | 4 | 0% | 1.2 | 20.6% | 24.4% | -3.9% | 2.9% | 6.31 | 6.03 | — |
| 2024 | 23 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 34 | 0 | 41 | 195 | 53 | 38 | 4 | 0% | 1.2 | 27.2% | 19.5% | 7.7% | 2.1% | 6.31 | 4.55 | — |
| 2025 | 24 | A+ MLE | Great Lakes Loons | 36 | 0 | 36 | 175 | 54 | 30 | 3 | 0% | 1.0 | 23.8% | 19.7% | 4.0% | 2.2% | 6.81 | 4.78 | — |
| 2025 | 24 | A+ MLE | Great Lakes Loons | 36 | 0 | 36 | 175 | 54 | 30 | 3 | 0% | 1.0 | 23.8% | 19.7% | 4.0% | 2.2% | 6.81 | 4.78 | — |
| 2025 | 24 | A+ RAW | Great Lakes Loons | 36 | 0 | 36 | 175 | 54 | 30 | 3 | 0% | 1.0 | 30.9% | 17.1% | 13.7% | 1.7% | 6.81 | 3.69 | — |
| 2026 | 25 | AA MLE | Tulsa Drillers | 28 | 1 | 34 | 168 | 40 | 30 | 1 | 4% | 1.2 | 19.3% | 19.6% | -0.4% | 0.7% | 4.72 | 4.35 | — |
| 2026 | 25 | AA MLE | Tulsa Drillers | 28 | 1 | 34 | 168 | 40 | 30 | 1 | 4% | 1.2 | 19.3% | 19.6% | -0.4% | 0.7% | 4.72 | 4.35 | — |
| 2026 | 25 | AA RAW | Tulsa Drillers | 28 | 1 | 34 | 168 | 40 | 30 | 1 | 4% | 1.2 | 23.8% | 17.9% | 6.0% | 0.6% | 4.72 | 3.77 | — |
| ▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 26 | MLB | LAD | — | — | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 21.0% | 18.6% | 2.4% | 2.6% | 5.47 | 5.47 | — |
| ▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2028 | 27 | MLB MLE | LAD | 22 | 0 | 23 | 96 | 20 | 17 | 3 | 0% | 1.0 | 21.2% | 17.7% | 3.5% | 2.7% | 5.38 | 5.39 | -0.2 |
| 2028 | 27 | MLB CTX | LAD | 9 | 0 | 9 | 38 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 21.2% | 17.7% | 3.5% | 2.7% | 5.38 | 5.39 | -0.1 |
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 8 | 0 | 9 | 36 | 8 | 6 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 21.2% | 17.7% | 3.5% | 2.7% | 5.38 | 5.01 | -0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 190 | 0 | 200 | 844 | 187 | 140 | 23 | 0% | 1.1 | 21.2% | 17.7% | 3.5% | 2.7% | 5.38 | 5.01 | -1.1 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 108 | 1 | 120 | 583 | 129 | 125 | 11 | 1% | 1.1 | 22.1% | 21.5% | 0.7% | 1.8% | 5.92 | 4.94 | -0.2 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 180 | 2 | 200 | 972 | 215 | 209 | 18 | 1% | 1.1 | 22.1% | 21.5% | 0.7% | 1.8% | 5.92 | 4.94 | -2.0 | |
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.
2026 AATulsa Drillers · 34 IPFIP 3.68 → 4.35 (+0.67)K% 23.8% → 19.3%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 23.81% | — | ×0.810 | 19.29% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 17.86% | — | ×1.100 | 19.64% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.60% | ÷1.000 | ×1.200 | 0.71% |
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 100).
Result: FIP 3.68 → 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).
2025 A+Great Lakes Loons · 36 IPFIP 3.61 → 4.78 (+1.17)K% 30.9% → 23.8%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 30.86% | — | ×0.770 | 23.76% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 17.14% | — | ×1.150 | 19.71% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.71% | ÷0.992 | ×1.250 | 2.16% |
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 98).
Result: FIP 3.61 → 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).
2024 ARancho Cucamonga Quakes · 34 IPFIP 4.67 → 6.03 (+1.36)K% 27.8% → 20.6%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 27.81% | — | ×0.740 | 20.58% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 20.71% | — | ×1.180 | 24.44% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.37% | ÷1.072 | ×1.300 | 2.87% |
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 114).
Result: FIP 4.67 → 6.03, 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 A+Great Lakes Loons · 7 IPFIP 2.61 → 3.28 (+0.67)K% 23.1% → 17.8%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 23.08% | — | ×0.770 | 17.77% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 11.54% | — | ×1.150 | 13.27% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷1.036 | ×1.250 | 0.00% |
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 107).
Result: FIP 2.61 → 3.28, 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 ARancho Cucamonga Quakes · 9 IPFIP 3.10 → 4.34 (+1.24)K% 33.3% → 24.7%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 33.33% | — | ×0.740 | 24.67% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 22.22% | — | ×1.180 | 26.22% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷1.025 | ×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 105).
Result: FIP 3.10 → 4.34, 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).