Spencer Stockton
P Louisville Bats| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 26 | MIX2 levels | 32 | 2 | 64 | 3.50 | 3.36 | 25.3% | 9.3% | — | K 20.2% · BB 10.3% · FIP 4.18 | |
| 2023 | 27 | AACIN | 28 | 0 | 43 | 3.56 | 4.12 | 25.8% | 11.0% | — | K 20.9% · BB 12.1% · FIP 5.00 | |
| 2024 | 28 | AAACIN | 12 | 0 | 20 | 7.65 | 6.85 | 16.8% | 14.7% | — | K 14.5% · BB 13.3% · FIP 6.42 | |
| 2025 | 29 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2026 | 30 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2027PROJ | 31 | MLBCIN | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4.71 | 4.71 | 20.7% | 10.2% | -0.0 | ||
| 2028PROJ37% MLB | 32 | MLBCIN | 6 | 0 | 6 | 4.81 | 4.90 | 20.5% | 10.5% | -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 | 23 | ROK MLE | AZL Reds | 6 | 4 | 34 | 133 | 41 | 5 | 0 | 67% | 5.6 | 21.0% | 4.7% | 16.3% | 0.0% | 2.14 | 1.93 | — |
| 2019 | 23 | ROK RAW | AZL Reds | 6 | 4 | 34 | 133 | 41 | 5 | 0 | 67% | 5.6 | 30.8% | 3.8% | 27.1% | 0.0% | 2.14 | 1.11 | — |
| 2021 | 25 | A+ MLE | Dayton Dragons | 26 | 9 | 72 | 306 | 74 | 25 | 8 | 35% | 2.8 | 18.6% | 9.4% | 9.2% | 3.4% | 5.62 | 4.59 | — |
| 2021 | 25 | A+ RAW | Dayton Dragons | 26 | 9 | 72 | 306 | 74 | 25 | 8 | 35% | 2.8 | 24.2% | 8.2% | 16.0% | 2.6% | 5.62 | 3.53 | — |
| 2022 | 26 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 32 | 2 | 64 | 269 | 68 | 25 | 6 | 6% | 2.0 | 20.2% | 10.3% | 9.9% | 2.7% | 3.50 | 4.18 | — |
| 2022 | 26 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 32 | 2 | 64 | 269 | 68 | 25 | 6 | 6% | 2.0 | 25.3% | 9.3% | 16.0% | 2.2% | 3.50 | 3.36 | — |
| 2023 | 27 | AA MLE | Chattanooga Lookouts | 28 | 0 | 43 | 182 | 47 | 20 | 6 | 0% | 1.5 | 20.9% | 12.1% | 8.8% | 3.9% | 3.56 | 5.00 | — |
| 2023 | 27 | AA RAW | Chattanooga Lookouts | 28 | 0 | 43 | 182 | 47 | 20 | 6 | 0% | 1.5 | 25.8% | 11.0% | 14.8% | 3.3% | 3.56 | 4.12 | — |
| 2024 | 28 | AAA MLE | Louisville Bats | 12 | 0 | 20 | 95 | 16 | 14 | 5 | 0% | 1.7 | 14.5% | 13.3% | 1.2% | 5.2% | 7.65 | 6.42 | — |
| 2024 | 28 | AAA MLE | Louisville Bats | 12 | 0 | 20 | 95 | 16 | 14 | 5 | 0% | 1.7 | 14.5% | 13.3% | 1.2% | 5.2% | 7.65 | 6.42 | — |
| 2024 | 28 | AAA RAW | Louisville Bats | 12 | 0 | 20 | 95 | 16 | 14 | 5 | 0% | 1.7 | 16.8% | 14.7% | 2.1% | 5.3% | 7.65 | 6.85 | — |
| ▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 31 | MLB | CIN | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0% | 1.0 | 20.7% | 10.2% | 10.5% | 3.1% | 4.71 | 4.71 | -0.0 |
| ▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2028 | 32 | MLB MLE | CIN | 16 | 0 | 17 | 72 | 15 | 8 | 2 | 0% | 1.1 | 20.5% | 10.5% | 10.0% | 3.3% | 4.81 | 4.90 | -0.1 |
| 2028 | 32 | MLB CTX | CIN | 6 | 0 | 6 | 25 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 20.5% | 10.5% | 10.0% | 3.3% | 4.81 | 4.90 | -0.0 |
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 6 | 0 | 6 | 26 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 20.5% | 10.5% | 10.0% | 3.3% | 4.81 | 4.52 | +0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 190 | 0 | 200 | 844 | 160 | 96 | 32 | 0% | 1.1 | 20.5% | 10.5% | 10.0% | 3.3% | 4.81 | 4.52 | +0.1 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 104 | 15 | 233 | 985 | 191 | 97 | 30 | 14% | 2.2 | 19.4% | 9.9% | 9.5% | 3.0% | 4.33 | 4.37 | -0.1 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 89 | 13 | 200 | 845 | 164 | 83 | 26 | 14% | 2.2 | 19.4% | 9.9% | 9.5% | 3.0% | 4.33 | 4.37 | -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 AAALouisville Bats · 20 IPFIP 6.43 → 6.42 (−0.02)K% 16.8% → 14.5%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 16.84% | — | ×0.860 | 14.48% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 14.74% | — | ×0.900 | 13.26% |
| HR / BF /BF | 5.26% | ÷1.111 | ×1.100 | 5.21% |
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 122).
Result: FIP 6.43 → 6.42, 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 AAChattanooga Lookouts · 43 IPFIP 4.12 → 5.00 (+0.88)K% 25.8% → 20.9%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 25.82% | — | ×0.810 | 20.92% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 10.99% | — | ×1.100 | 12.09% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.30% | ÷1.017 | ×1.200 | 3.89% |
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 103).
Result: FIP 4.12 → 5.00, 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 AAChattanooga Lookouts · 49 IPFIP 3.95 → 4.81 (+0.86)K% 24.4% → 19.8%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 24.40% | — | ×0.810 | 19.77% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 10.53% | — | ×1.100 | 11.58% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.87% | ÷0.990 | ×1.200 | 3.48% |
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 98).
Result: FIP 3.95 → 4.81, 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 A+Dayton Dragons · 15 IPFIP 1.34 → 1.99 (+0.65)K% 28.3% → 21.8%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 28.33% | — | ×0.770 | 21.82% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 5.00% | — | ×1.150 | 5.75% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷1.058 | ×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 112).
Result: FIP 1.34 → 1.99, 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+Dayton Dragons · 72 IPFIP 3.53 → 4.59 (+1.06)K% 24.2% → 18.6%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 24.18% | — | ×0.770 | 18.62% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 8.17% | — | ×1.150 | 9.40% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.61% | ÷0.960 | ×1.250 | 3.41% |
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 92).
Result: FIP 3.53 → 4.59, 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 Reds · 34 IPFIP 0.97 → 1.93 (+0.95)K% 30.8% → 21.0%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 30.83% | — | ×0.680 | 20.96% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 3.76% | — | ×1.250 | 4.70% |
| 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 0.97 → 1.93, 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).