Carson Rudd
P Chattanooga Lookouts| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 24 | A+CIN | 21 | 15 | 66 | 4.64 | 4.19 | 27.2% | 11.3% | — | K 21.0% · BB 13.0% · FIP 5.53 | |
| 2024 | 25 | AACIN | 33 | 5 | 77 | 3.04 | 3.79 | 25.2% | 16.9% | — | K 20.4% · BB 18.6% · FIP 4.45 | |
| 2025 | 26 | MIX3 levels | 26 | 0 | 44 | 7.51 | 4.61 | 13.2% | 13.2% | — | K 10.9% · BB 15.5% · FIP 4.97 | |
| 2026 | 27 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2027PROJ | 28 | MLBCIN | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5.41 | 5.41 | 17.4% | 14.8% | -0.0 | ||
| 2028PROJ31% MLB | 29 | MLBCIN | 6 | 0 | 6 | 5.38 | 5.43 | 17.7% | 14.5% | -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) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2021 | 22 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 7 | 4 | 16 | 73 | 25 | 9 | 2 | 57% | 2.3 | 25.4% | 10.6% | 14.8% | 2.0% | 5.51 | 3.39 | — |
| 2021 | 22 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 7 | 4 | 16 | 73 | 25 | 9 | 2 | 57% | 2.3 | 34.2% | 12.3% | 21.9% | 2.7% | 5.51 | 3.28 | — |
| 2022 | 23 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 28 | 3 | 50 | 222 | 71 | 30 | 10 | 11% | 1.8 | 24.1% | 15.8% | 8.4% | 5.5% | 5.72 | 6.05 | — |
| 2022 | 23 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 28 | 3 | 50 | 222 | 71 | 30 | 10 | 11% | 1.8 | 32.0% | 13.5% | 18.5% | 4.5% | 5.72 | 4.65 | — |
| 2023 | 24 | A+ MLE | Dayton Dragons | 21 | 15 | 66 | 283 | 77 | 32 | 10 | 71% | 3.1 | 21.0% | 13.0% | 7.9% | 4.6% | 4.64 | 5.53 | — |
| 2023 | 24 | A+ RAW | Dayton Dragons | 21 | 15 | 66 | 283 | 77 | 32 | 10 | 71% | 3.1 | 27.2% | 11.3% | 15.9% | 3.5% | 4.64 | 4.19 | — |
| 2024 | 25 | AA MLE | Chattanooga Lookouts | 33 | 5 | 77 | 337 | 85 | 57 | 4 | 15% | 2.3 | 20.4% | 18.6% | 1.8% | 1.3% | 3.04 | 4.45 | — |
| 2024 | 25 | AA MLE | Chattanooga Lookouts | 33 | 5 | 77 | 337 | 85 | 57 | 4 | 15% | 2.3 | 20.4% | 18.6% | 1.8% | 1.3% | 3.04 | 4.45 | — |
| 2024 | 25 | AA RAW | Chattanooga Lookouts | 33 | 5 | 77 | 337 | 85 | 57 | 4 | 15% | 2.3 | 25.2% | 16.9% | 8.3% | 1.2% | 3.04 | 3.79 | — |
| 2025 | 26 | MIX MLE | 3 levels | 26 | 0 | 44 | 212 | 28 | 28 | 3 | 0% | 1.7 | 10.9% | 15.5% | -4.6% | 1.5% | 7.51 | 4.97 | — |
| 2025 | 26 | MIX MLE | 3 levels | 26 | 0 | 44 | 212 | 28 | 28 | 3 | 0% | 1.7 | 10.9% | 15.5% | -4.6% | 1.5% | 7.51 | 4.97 | — |
| 2025 | 26 | MIX RAW | 3 levels | 26 | 0 | 44 | 212 | 28 | 28 | 3 | 0% | 1.7 | 13.2% | 13.2% | 0.0% | 1.4% | 7.51 | 4.61 | — |
| ▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 28 | MLB | CIN | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 1.0 | 17.4% | 14.8% | 2.6% | 2.8% | 5.41 | 5.41 | -0.0 |
| ▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2028 | 29 | MLB MLE | CIN | 18 | 0 | 18 | 78 | 14 | 11 | 2 | 0% | 1.0 | 17.7% | 14.5% | 3.3% | 2.9% | 5.38 | 5.43 | -0.2 |
| 2028 | 29 | MLB CTX | CIN | 6 | 0 | 6 | 25 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 17.7% | 14.5% | 3.3% | 2.9% | 5.38 | 5.43 | -0.1 |
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 5 | 0 | 6 | 24 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0% | 1.2 | 17.7% | 14.5% | 3.3% | 2.9% | 5.38 | 5.05 | -0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 190 | 0 | 200 | 844 | 139 | 139 | 35 | 0% | 1.1 | 17.7% | 14.5% | 3.3% | 2.9% | 5.38 | 5.05 | -1.2 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 115 | 27 | 254 | 1127 | 223 | 175 | 34 | 23% | 2.2 | 19.8% | 15.5% | 4.3% | 3.0% | 4.93 | 5.07 | -0.2 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 91 | 21 | 200 | 887 | 176 | 138 | 27 | 23% | 2.2 | 19.8% | 15.5% | 4.3% | 3.0% | 4.93 | 5.07 | -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.
2025 AAChattanooga Lookouts · 33 IPFIP 4.45 → 4.97 (+0.52)K% 13.5% → 10.9%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 13.46% | — | ×0.810 | 10.90% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 14.10% | — | ×1.100 | 15.51% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.28% | ÷1.021 | ×1.200 | 1.51% |
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 104).
Result: FIP 4.45 → 4.97, 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 AAALouisville Bats · 6 IPFIP 3.87 → 3.82 (−0.05)K% 9.1% → 7.8%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 9.09% | — | ×0.860 | 7.82% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 12.12% | — | ×0.900 | 10.91% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷0.901 | ×1.100 | 0.00% |
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 80).
Result: FIP 3.87 → 3.82, 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+Dayton Dragons · 5 IPFIP 5.12 → 5.89 (+0.77)K% 17.4% → 13.4%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 17.39% | — | ×0.770 | 13.39% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 8.70% | — | ×1.150 | 10.00% |
| HR / BF /BF | 4.35% | ÷1.124 | ×1.250 | 4.84% |
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 125).
Result: FIP 5.12 → 5.89, 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 AAChattanooga Lookouts · 77 IPFIP 3.76 → 4.45 (+0.69)K% 25.2% → 20.4%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 25.22% | — | ×0.810 | 20.43% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 16.91% | — | ×1.100 | 18.61% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.19% | ÷1.089 | ×1.200 | 1.31% |
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 118).
Result: FIP 3.76 → 4.45, 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+Dayton Dragons · 66 IPFIP 4.17 → 5.53 (+1.35)K% 27.2% → 21.0%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 27.21% | — | ×0.770 | 20.95% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 11.31% | — | ×1.150 | 13.00% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.53% | ÷0.951 | ×1.250 | 4.65% |
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 90).
Result: FIP 4.17 → 5.53, 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 · 24 IPFIP 6.46 → 8.00 (+1.54)K% 28.2% → 21.7%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 28.21% | — | ×0.770 | 21.72% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 11.97% | — | ×1.150 | 13.76% |
| HR / BF /BF | 7.69% | ÷1.058 | ×1.250 | 9.09% |
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 6.46 → 8.00, 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 ADaytona Tortugas · 26 IPFIP 2.50 → 3.89 (+1.39)K% 36.2% → 26.8%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 36.19% | — | ×0.740 | 26.78% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 15.24% | — | ×1.180 | 17.98% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.95% | ÷0.883 | ×1.300 | 1.40% |
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 77).
Result: FIP 2.50 → 3.89, 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 ADaytona Tortugas · 16 IPFIP 2.15 → 3.39 (+1.24)K% 34.3% → 25.4%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 34.33% | — | ×0.740 | 25.40% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 8.96% | — | ×1.180 | 10.57% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.49% | ÷0.969 | ×1.300 | 2.00% |
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 94).
Result: FIP 2.15 → 3.39, 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).