Zach Bryant

P Frisco RoughRiders

Age 29 RHP 6'1" / 210 lbs AA

Overview

AAPROSPECT

ETA2029MLB%2%

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2024	26	MIX2 levels	23	3	34	4.76	4.25	22.4%	9.2%	—	K 18.0% · BB 9.6% · FIP 4.85
2025	27	AABOS	32	0	48	6.14	3.95	23.3%	9.8%	—	K 18.8% · BB 10.7% · FIP 4.51
2026	28	AATEX	39	0	57	5.34	4.57	17.0%	10.4%	—	K 13.8% · BB 11.5% · FIP 5.17
2027PROJ	29	MLBTEX	1	0	1	5.35	5.35	15.3%	11.7%	-0.0
2028PROJ31% MLB	30	MLBTEX	14	0	15	5.36	5.43	15.7%	11.7%	-0.1
2029PROJ51% MLB	31	MLBTEX	19	0	20	5.44	5.54	15.9%	11.9%	-0.2

Next 3 projected WAR -0.4Projected rows: MLB playing time only, park and league context applied.

Contract

No contract data on file.

Scouting grades · 20-80

Stuff45Control45Command45

Career WAR0.0 WAR median (P10 0.0 / P90 0.0, comp-based) · star 0% · didn't stick 98%

CompsEder Llamas (age 29) · Wirfin Obispo (age 30) · Beck Wheeler (age 28)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 135127vR 119

ERA5.35

FIP5.35

K%15.3%

BB%11.7%

K-BB%3.6%

Proj IP69

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 69 IP

Grades · Contract

Scouting Grades

STUF4545

CTRL4545

CMD4545

K†3030

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)
2019	21	ROK MLE	AZL Cubs 2	5	0	8	32	11	3	0	0%	1.6	34.4%	9.4%	25.0%	0.0%	1.12	1.38	—
2019	21	ROK RAW	AZL Cubs 2	5	0	8	32	11	3	0	0%	1.6	34.4%	9.4%	25.0%	0.0%	1.12	1.48	—
2021	23	A+ MLE	Greenville Drive	37	0	48	195	65	18	6	0%	1.3	25.7%	10.6%	15.1%	4.3%	3.54	4.65	—
2021	23	A+ RAW	Greenville Drive	37	0	48	195	65	18	6	0%	1.3	33.3%	9.2%	24.1%	3.1%	3.54	3.14	—
2022	24	AA MLE	Portland Sea Dogs	28	0	33	154	30	24	9	0%	1.2	15.8%	17.1%	-1.4%	7.0%	7.64	7.77	—
2022	24	AA RAW	Portland Sea Dogs	28	0	33	154	30	24	9	0%	1.2	19.5%	15.6%	3.9%	5.8%	7.64	7.01	—
2024	26	MIX MLE	2 levels	23	3	34	152	34	14	5	13%	1.5	18.0%	9.6%	8.4%	3.7%	4.76	4.85	—
2024	26	MIX MLE	2 levels	23	3	34	152	34	14	5	13%	1.5	18.0%	9.6%	8.4%	3.7%	4.76	4.85	—
2024	26	MIX RAW	2 levels	23	3	34	152	34	14	5	13%	1.5	22.4%	9.2%	13.2%	3.3%	4.76	4.25	—
2025	27	AA MLE	Portland Sea Dogs	32	0	48	215	50	21	6	0%	1.5	18.8%	10.7%	8.1%	3.0%	6.14	4.51	—
2025	27	AA MLE	Portland Sea Dogs	32	0	48	215	50	21	6	0%	1.5	18.8%	10.7%	8.1%	3.0%	6.14	4.51	—
2025	27	AA RAW	Portland Sea Dogs	32	0	48	215	50	21	6	0%	1.5	23.3%	9.8%	13.5%	2.8%	6.14	3.95	—
2026	28	AA MLE	Frisco RoughRiders	39	0	57	259	44	27	7	0%	1.5	13.8%	11.5%	2.3%	3.2%	5.34	5.17	—
2026	28	AA MLE	Frisco RoughRiders	39	0	57	259	44	27	7	0%	1.5	13.8%	11.5%	2.3%	3.2%	5.34	5.17	—
2026	28	AA RAW	Frisco RoughRiders	39	0	57	259	44	27	7	0%	1.5	17.0%	10.4%	6.6%	2.7%	5.34	4.57	—
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	29	MLB	TEX	1	0	1	4	1	0	0	0%	1.0	15.3%	11.7%	3.6%	3.1%	5.35	5.35	-0.0
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	30	MLB MLE	TEX	45	0	48	201	32	24	7	0%	1.1	15.7%	11.7%	4.0%	3.3%	5.36	5.43	-0.5
2029	31	MLB MLE	TEX	36	0	38	162	26	19	6	0%	1.1	15.9%	11.9%	4.0%	3.5%	5.44	5.54	-0.4
2028	30	MLB CTX	TEX	14	0	15	63	10	7	2	0%	1.1	15.7%	11.7%	4.0%	3.3%	5.36	5.43	-0.1
2029	31	MLB CTX	TEX	19	0	20	84	13	10	3	0%	1.1	15.9%	11.9%	4.0%	3.5%	5.44	5.54	-0.2
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		33	0	35	146	23	17	5	0%	1.0	15.8%	11.8%	4.0%	3.4%	5.41	5.11	-0.2
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		190	0	200	844	133	98	29	0%	1.1	15.8%	11.8%	4.0%	3.4%	5.41	5.11	-1.3
Career	—	MLE		164	3	229	1007	189	117	40	2%	1.4	18.8%	11.7%	7.1%	3.9%	5.23	5.16	-0.9
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		143	3	200	879	165	103	35	2%	1.4	18.8%	11.7%	7.1%	3.9%	5.23	5.16	-2.2

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.

2026 AAFrisco RoughRiders · 57 IPFIP 4.47 → 5.17 (+0.70)K% 17.0% → 13.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	16.99%	—	×0.810	13.76%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	10.42%	—	×1.100	11.47%
HR / BF /BF	2.70%	÷1.000	×1.200	3.24%

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 4.47 → 5.17, 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 AAPortland Sea Dogs · 48 IPFIP 3.91 → 4.51 (+0.61)K% 23.3% → 18.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	23.26%	—	×0.810	18.84%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.77%	—	×1.100	10.74%
HR / BF /BF	2.79%	÷1.119	×1.200	2.99%

Result: FIP 3.91 → 4.51, 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 AAPortland Sea Dogs · 28 IPFIP 4.07 → 4.85 (+0.78)K% 22.2% → 18.0%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	22.22%	—	×0.810	18.00%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	8.73%	—	×1.100	9.60%
HR / BF /BF	3.17%	÷1.018	×1.200	3.74%

Result: FIP 4.07 → 4.85, 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 Red Sox · 6 IPFIP 4.72 → 6.71 (+1.98)K% 23.1% → 15.7%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	23.08%	—	×0.680	15.69%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	11.54%	—	×1.250	14.42%
HR / BF /BF	3.85%	÷0.952	×1.400	5.66%

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 90).

Result: FIP 4.72 → 6.71, 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 AAPortland Sea Dogs · 33 IPFIP 6.64 → 7.77 (+1.14)K% 19.5% → 15.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	19.48%	—	×0.810	15.78%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	15.58%	—	×1.100	17.14%
HR / BF /BF	5.84%	÷1.004	×1.200	6.98%

Result: FIP 6.64 → 7.77, 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+Greenville Drive · 48 IPFIP 3.14 → 4.65 (+1.50)K% 33.3% → 25.7%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	33.33%	—	×0.770	25.67%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.23%	—	×1.150	10.62%
HR / BF /BF	3.08%	÷0.891	×1.250	4.31%

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 78).

Result: FIP 3.14 → 4.65, 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 ROKAZL Cubs 2 · 8 IPFIP 1.38 → 2.61 (+1.23)K% 34.4% → 23.4%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	34.38%	—	×0.680	23.38%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.38%	—	×1.250	11.72%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷1.000	×1.400	0.00%

Result: FIP 1.38 → 2.61, 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
Zach Bryant (OGILVIE)	—	—	5.35	15.3%	11.7%	3.1%	—	5.48	15.8%	4.0%	86	+0.13	—	—	—
Eder Llamas R 2015 · 4.84 FIP	29	SU	4.84	12.3%	8.8%	3.0%	.261	3.64	11.3%	4.6%	120	-1.20	3.23	171	85
Wirfin Obispo R 2015 · 4.80 FIP	30	SU	4.80	18.6%	12.2%	3.1%	.292	1.31	28.6%	24.5%	126	-3.49	1.30	218	85
Beck Wheeler R 2017 · 5.40 FIP	28	SU	5.40	15.3%	12.2%	3.7%	.347	—	—	—	—	—	3.46	173	84
Grant Black R 2023 · 5.49 FIP	29	SU	5.49	15.9%	11.3%	4.2%	.352	—	—	—	—	—	4.46	215	83
Angel Castro R 2015 · 4.50 FIP	32	SU	4.50	15.9%	8.0%	3.1%	.268	4.28	13.6%	5.5%	231	-0.22	3.51	292	83
Willie Eyre R 2007 · 4.53 FIP	29	SU	4.53	13.7%	9.1%	2.6%	.306	2.87	11.1%	5.5%	18	-1.66	2.87	164	83
Gregory Infante R 2016 · 4.47 FIP	29	SU	4.47	19.0%	12.3%	2.6%	.333	3.43	22.5%	15.8%	120	-1.04	2.97	230	82
Santiago Casilla R 2009 · 4.44 FIP	29	SU	4.44	15.0%	9.4%	2.6%	.324	3.29	22.1%	13.0%	170	-1.15	2.76	647	82
Wil Browning R 2017 · 4.44 FIP	28	SU	4.44	17.9%	13.1%	2.2%	.359	—	—	—	—	—	2.14	162	80
Jim Miller R 2012 · 4.56 FIP	30	SU	4.56	20.9%	11.8%	3.1%	.243	3.95	18.8%	14.7%	74	-0.61	3.95	140	80
Brian Bass R 2009 · 4.70 FIP	27	SU	4.70	13.5%	9.8%	2.8%	.321	—	—	—	—	—	4.70	176	80
Jason Boyd R 2002 · 5.81 FIP	29	SU	5.81	13.7%	10.7%	4.6%	.290	4.74	15.0%	3.7%	65	-1.07	3.68	128	80
Thad Weber R 2013 · 5.18 FIP	28	SU	5.18	16.4%	13.1%	3.3%	.244	4.52	12.2%	6.0%	308	-0.66	4.40	378	79
Jose Casilla R 2016 · 4.65 FIP	27	SU	4.65	13.0%	8.0%	3.0%	.314	—	—	—	—	—	3.06	104	79
Mike Adams R 2022 · 5.36 FIP	27	SU	5.36	17.1%	11.2%	4.2%	.326	—	—	—	—	—	3.65	109	79
Brandon Cunniff R 2017 · 4.79 FIP	28	SU	4.79	20.1%	11.6%	3.5%	.275	6.80	13.9%	-1.9%	30	+2.01	3.89	180	79
Jesus Adrian Castillo R 2015 · 4.37 FIP	31	SU	4.37	9.8%	9.5%	1.6%	.307	3.52	13.2%	7.9%	80	-0.85	2.23	173	78
Ronald Peña R 2021 · 4.49 FIP	29	SU	4.49	16.5%	10.4%	2.7%	.288	—	—	—	—	—	3.72	187	78
Kyle McMyne R 2017 · 4.84 FIP	27	SU	4.84	12.5%	12.8%	2.1%	.330	—	—	—	—	—	3.93	181	78
Chris Jefferson R 2024 · 5.65 FIP	27	SU	5.65	16.4%	13.6%	4.0%	.308	—	—	—	—	—	3.53	140	78

Career Comps

Completed MLB careers (no pro action in 2+ yrs) whose totals — actual + projected — most resemble this player's. Pool: 1,234 reliever careers (754 from 1990-2025 + 480 historical, 1901-2023), also matched on career-to-date at the same age. * Historical (Lahman) careers: rates era-adjusted to 2001-24 league levels; WAR is an OGILVIE proxy.

Player	162s	IP/yr	K%	BB%	HR/9	ERA
OGILVIE CAREER PROJECTION	0.8	52	15.6%	11.7%	1.25	5.38
Brian Stokes ('10)	1.0	52	14.5%	10.1%	1.22	5.27
Rodney Myers ('04)	1.2	60	15.0%	10.3%	1.05	5.07
Valerio De Los Santos ('08)	1.3	51	18.7%	11.5%	1.30	4.57
Daryl Patterson ('68-'74, -1 WAR*)	1.2	46	18.3%*	11.2%*	1.27*	5.03*
Bill Wilson ('69-'73, -0 WAR*)	1.3	52	20.3%*	11.5%*	1.13*	4.84*
Gene Harris ('89-'95, -1 WAR*)	1.2	40	20.0%*	12.5%*	0.98*	4.96*