Matt Mikulski
P Cedar Rapids Kernels| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 24 | A+SF | 33 | 7 | 67 | 6.75 | 5.54 | 21.3% | 16.2% | — | K 16.4% · BB 18.6% · FIP 6.17 | |
| 2024 | 25 | A+SF | 37 | 0 | 60 | 5.58 | 5.28 | 19.9% | 14.9% | — | K 15.3% · BB 17.1% · FIP 6.18 | |
| 2025 | 26 | MIX2 levels | 18 | 0 | 21 | 7.84 | 5.37 | 21.9% | 24.6% | — | K 19.5% · BB 27.8% · FIP 4.98 | |
| 2026 | 27 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2027PROJ | 28 | MLBMIN | — | — | 0 | 5.66 | 5.66 | 20.2% | 18.0% | — | ||
| 2028PROJ30% MLB | 29 | MLBMIN | 4 | 0 | 4 | 5.61 | 5.66 | 20.3% | 17.4% | -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) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2021 | 22 | ROK MLE | ACL Giants Black | 4 | 4 | 5 | 20 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 100% | 1.2 | 25.0% | 15.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 1.80 | 2.89 | — |
| 2021 | 22 | ROK RAW | ACL Giants Black | 4 | 4 | 5 | 20 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 100% | 1.2 | 25.0% | 15.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 1.80 | 2.90 | — |
| 2022 | 23 | A MLE | San Jose Giants | 22 | 18 | 79 | 367 | 96 | 31 | 12 | 82% | 3.6 | 19.4% | 10.0% | 9.4% | 4.0% | 6.95 | 4.92 | — |
| 2022 | 23 | A RAW | San Jose Giants | 22 | 18 | 79 | 367 | 96 | 31 | 12 | 82% | 3.6 | 26.2% | 8.4% | 17.7% | 3.3% | 6.95 | 3.82 | — |
| 2023 | 24 | A+ MLE | Eugene Emeralds | 33 | 7 | 67 | 334 | 71 | 54 | 11 | 21% | 2.0 | 16.4% | 18.6% | -2.2% | 3.8% | 6.75 | 6.17 | — |
| 2023 | 24 | A+ RAW | Eugene Emeralds | 33 | 7 | 67 | 334 | 71 | 54 | 11 | 21% | 2.0 | 21.3% | 16.2% | 5.1% | 3.3% | 6.75 | 5.54 | — |
| 2024 | 25 | A+ MLE | Eugene Emeralds | 37 | 0 | 60 | 276 | 55 | 41 | 9 | 0% | 1.6 | 15.3% | 17.1% | -1.7% | 4.0% | 5.58 | 6.18 | — |
| 2024 | 25 | A+ MLE | Eugene Emeralds | 37 | 0 | 60 | 276 | 55 | 41 | 9 | 0% | 1.6 | 15.3% | 17.1% | -1.7% | 4.0% | 5.58 | 6.18 | — |
| 2024 | 25 | A+ RAW | Eugene Emeralds | 37 | 0 | 60 | 276 | 55 | 41 | 9 | 0% | 1.6 | 19.9% | 14.9% | 5.1% | 3.3% | 5.58 | 5.28 | — |
| 2025 | 26 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 18 | 0 | 21 | 114 | 25 | 28 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 19.5% | 27.8% | -8.4% | 0.0% | 7.84 | 4.98 | — |
| 2025 | 26 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 18 | 0 | 21 | 114 | 25 | 28 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 19.5% | 27.8% | -8.4% | 0.0% | 7.84 | 4.98 | — |
| 2025 | 26 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 18 | 0 | 21 | 114 | 25 | 28 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 21.9% | 24.6% | -2.6% | 0.9% | 7.84 | 5.37 | — |
| ▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 28 | MLB | MIN | — | — | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 20.2% | 18.0% | 2.2% | 2.9% | 5.66 | 5.66 | — |
| ▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2028 | 29 | MLB MLE | MIN | 14 | 0 | 15 | 62 | 13 | 11 | 2 | 0% | 1.1 | 20.3% | 17.4% | 2.9% | 3.1% | 5.61 | 5.66 | -0.2 |
| 2028 | 29 | MLB CTX | MIN | 4 | 0 | 4 | 17 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 20.3% | 17.4% | 2.9% | 3.1% | 5.61 | 5.66 | -0.0 |
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 4 | 0 | 4 | 19 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 20.3% | 17.4% | 2.9% | 3.1% | 5.61 | 5.28 | -0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 190 | 0 | 200 | 844 | 180 | 135 | 45 | 0% | 1.1 | 20.3% | 17.4% | 2.9% | 3.1% | 5.61 | 5.28 | -1.7 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 114 | 29 | 231 | 1111 | 195 | 181 | 39 | 25% | 2.0 | 17.6% | 16.3% | 1.3% | 3.5% | 6.51 | 5.58 | -0.2 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 99 | 25 | 200 | 962 | 169 | 156 | 33 | 25% | 2.0 | 17.6% | 16.3% | 1.3% | 3.5% | 6.51 | 5.58 | -2.6 | |
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 A+Cedar Rapids Kernels · 18 IPFIP 4.03 → 4.98 (+0.95)K% 25.3% → 19.5%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 25.26% | — | ×0.770 | 19.45% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 24.21% | — | ×1.150 | 27.84% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷0.962 | ×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 92).
Result: FIP 4.03 → 4.98, 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+Eugene Emeralds · 60 IPFIP 5.09 → 6.18 (+1.10)K% 19.9% → 15.3%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 19.93% | — | ×0.770 | 15.34% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 14.86% | — | ×1.150 | 17.08% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.26% | ÷1.010 | ×1.250 | 4.04% |
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 102).
Result: FIP 5.09 → 6.18, 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+Eugene Emeralds · 67 IPFIP 5.16 → 6.17 (+1.01)K% 21.3% → 16.4%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 21.26% | — | ×0.770 | 16.37% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 16.17% | — | ×1.150 | 18.59% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.29% | ÷1.076 | ×1.250 | 3.83% |
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 115).
Result: FIP 5.16 → 6.17, 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).
2022 ASan Jose Giants · 79 IPFIP 3.76 → 4.92 (+1.17)K% 26.2% → 19.4%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 26.16% | — | ×0.740 | 19.36% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 8.45% | — | ×1.180 | 9.97% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.27% | ÷1.063 | ×1.300 | 4.00% |
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 113).
Result: FIP 3.76 → 4.92, 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 ROKACL Giants Black · 5 IPFIP 2.89 → 4.04 (+1.15)K% 25.0% → 17.0%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 25.00% | — | ×0.680 | 17.00% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 15.00% | — | ×1.250 | 18.75% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷1.222 | ×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 144).
Result: FIP 2.89 → 4.04, 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).