Larson Kindreich

P Frisco RoughRiders

Age 28 LHP 6'4" / 210 lbs AA

Overview

AAPROSPECT

ETA2029MLB%2%

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2023	24	A+TEX	30	13	70	5.14	4.10	27.9%	16.3%	—	K 21.5% · BB 18.8% · FIP 5.29
2024	25	MIX3 levels	25	0	30	3.03	3.23	31.3%	18.7%	—	K 24.4% · BB 20.4% · FIP 4.16
2025	26	MIX2 levels	42	0	63	3.69	3.61	29.1%	10.4%	—	K 22.2% · BB 10.4% · FIP 4.96
2026	27	No MLB games played
2027PROJ	28	MLBTEX	1	0	1	4.75	4.75	22.7%	11.6%	-0.0
2028PROJ31% MLB	29	MLBTEX	16	0	17	4.79	4.84	22.5%	11.6%	-0.1
2029PROJ51% MLB	30	MLBTEX	22	0	23	4.88	4.98	22.2%	11.7%	-0.1

Next 3 projected WAR -0.2Projected rows: MLB playing time only, park and league context applied.

Contract

No contract data on file.

Scouting grades · 20-80

Stuff50Control45Command50

CompsRyan Verdugo (age 28) · Matt Whitehouse (age 28) · Colton Johnson (age 26)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 107115vR 123

ERA4.75

FIP4.75

K%22.7%

BB%11.6%

K-BB%11.1%

Proj IP69

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 69 IP

Grades · Contract

Scouting Grades

STUF5050

CTRL4545

CMD5050

K†5555

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)
2021	22	ROK MLE	ACL Rangers	6	0	8	33	18	3	0	0%	1.3	54.5%	9.1%	45.5%	0.0%	1.12	-0.35	—
2021	22	ROK RAW	ACL Rangers	6	0	8	33	18	3	0	0%	1.3	54.5%	9.1%	45.5%	0.0%	1.12	-0.27	—
2022	23	MIX MLE	2 levels	18	12	65	282	91	45	4	67%	3.6	24.3%	18.6%	5.7%	1.6%	3.62	4.27	—
2022	23	MIX RAW	2 levels	18	12	65	282	91	45	4	67%	3.6	32.3%	16.0%	16.3%	1.4%	3.62	3.18	—
2023	24	A+ MLE	Hickory Crawdads	30	13	70	312	87	51	7	43%	2.3	21.5%	18.8%	2.7%	3.0%	5.14	5.29	—
2023	24	A+ RAW	Hickory Crawdads	30	13	70	312	87	51	7	43%	2.3	27.9%	16.3%	11.5%	2.2%	5.14	4.10	—
2024	25	MIX MLE	3 levels	25	0	30	134	42	25	1	0%	1.2	24.4%	20.4%	4.0%	1.0%	3.03	4.16	—
2024	25	MIX MLE	3 levels	25	0	30	134	42	25	1	0%	1.2	24.4%	20.4%	4.0%	1.0%	3.03	4.16	—
2024	25	MIX RAW	3 levels	25	0	30	134	42	25	1	0%	1.2	31.3%	18.7%	12.7%	0.7%	3.03	3.23	—
2025	26	MIX MLE	2 levels	42	0	63	268	78	28	8	0%	1.5	22.2%	10.4%	11.8%	4.4%	3.69	4.96	—
2025	26	MIX MLE	2 levels	42	0	63	268	78	28	8	0%	1.5	22.2%	10.4%	11.8%	4.4%	3.69	4.96	—
2025	26	MIX RAW	2 levels	42	0	63	268	78	28	8	0%	1.5	29.1%	10.4%	18.7%	3.0%	3.69	3.61	—
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	28	MLB	TEX	1	0	1	4	1	0	0	0%	1.0	22.7%	11.6%	11.1%	3.1%	4.75	4.75	-0.0
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	29	MLB MLE	TEX	52	0	54	229	51	26	7	0%	1.0	22.5%	11.6%	10.9%	3.3%	4.79	4.84	-0.2
2029	30	MLB MLE	TEX	43	0	46	192	43	22	7	0%	1.1	22.2%	11.7%	10.5%	3.4%	4.88	4.98	-0.2
2028	29	MLB CTX	TEX	16	0	17	72	16	8	2	0%	1.1	22.5%	11.6%	10.9%	3.3%	4.79	4.84	-0.1
2029	30	MLB CTX	TEX	22	0	23	97	22	11	3	0%	1.0	22.2%	11.7%	10.5%	3.4%	4.88	4.98	-0.1
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		38	0	40	170	38	20	6	0%	1.1	22.3%	11.6%	10.7%	3.4%	4.84	4.54	+0.0
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		190	0	200	844	188	99	30	0%	1.1	22.3%	11.6%	10.7%	3.4%	4.84	4.54	+0.0
Career	—	MLE		121	25	236	1029	246	169	27	21%	1.9	23.9%	16.4%	7.4%	2.6%	3.93	4.60	-0.4
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		103	21	200	873	208	144	23	21%	1.9	23.9%	16.4%	7.4%	2.6%	3.93	4.60	-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.

2025 AAFrisco RoughRiders · 51 IPFIP 3.95 → 4.96 (+1.01)K% 27.4% → 22.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	27.35%	—	×0.810	22.16%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.42%	—	×1.100	10.36%
HR / BF /BF	3.59%	÷0.976	×1.200	4.41%

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 95).

Result: FIP 3.95 → 4.96, 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+Hub City Spartanburgers · 12 IPFIP 1.88 → 2.91 (+1.03)K% 37.8% → 29.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	37.78%	—	×0.770	29.09%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	15.56%	—	×1.150	17.89%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷1.215	×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 143).

Result: FIP 1.88 → 2.91, 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+Hickory Crawdads · 17 IPFIP 3.10 → 4.13 (+1.03)K% 29.9% → 23.0%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	29.85%	—	×0.770	22.99%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	13.43%	—	×1.150	15.45%
HR / BF /BF	1.49%	÷1.014	×1.250	1.84%

Result: FIP 3.10 → 4.13, 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 AAFrisco RoughRiders · 11 IPFIP 3.39 → 4.20 (+0.82)K% 32.2% → 26.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	32.20%	—	×0.810	26.08%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	23.73%	—	×1.100	26.10%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷1.080	×1.200	0.00%

Result: FIP 3.39 → 4.20, 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+Hickory Crawdads · 70 IPFIP 4.05 → 5.29 (+1.25)K% 27.9% → 21.5%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	27.88%	—	×0.770	21.47%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	16.35%	—	×1.150	18.80%
HR / BF /BF	2.24%	÷0.948	×1.250	2.96%

Result: FIP 4.05 → 5.29, 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 ADown East Wood Ducks · 38 IPFIP 1.76 → 2.82 (+1.05)K% 34.8% → 25.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	34.81%	—	×0.740	25.76%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	12.66%	—	×1.180	14.94%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷0.912	×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 82).

Result: FIP 1.76 → 2.82, 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).

2022 A+Hickory Crawdads · 27 IPFIP 4.97 → 6.12 (+1.15)K% 29.0% → 22.4%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	29.03%	—	×0.770	22.35%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	20.16%	—	×1.150	23.19%
HR / BF /BF	3.23%	÷1.123	×1.250	3.59%

Result: FIP 4.97 → 6.12, 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 Rangers · 8 IPFIP -0.35 → 1.41 (+1.76)K% 54.5% → 37.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	54.55%	—	×0.680	37.09%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.09%	—	×1.250	11.36%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷1.015	×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 103).

Result: FIP -0.35 → 1.41, 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
Larson Kindreich (OGILVIE)	—	—	4.75	22.7%	11.6%	3.1%	—	4.90	22.4%	10.8%	100	+0.15	—	—	—
Ryan Verdugo L 2015 · 3.61 FIP	28	SU	3.61	19.8%	10.8%	1.5%	.281	3.36	22.7%	17.3%	82	-0.25	3.36	153	83
Matt Whitehouse L 2019 · 4.07 FIP	28	SW	4.07	20.1%	10.9%	2.3%	.339	—	—	—	—	—	3.37	353	80
Colton Johnson L 2024 · 3.92 FIP	26	SU	3.92	20.8%	11.0%	2.1%	.309	4.53	12.2%	-0.4%	48	+0.61	3.92	106	79
Juan Grullon L 2016 · 4.64 FIP	26	SU	4.64	19.8%	10.9%	3.3%	.305	—	—	—	—	—	4.64	134	79
Aaron Brown L 2019 · 4.04 FIP	27	SU	4.04	22.9%	13.5%	2.1%	.317	4.77	19.4%	6.7%	129	+0.73	4.04	269	77
Chad Bell L 2017 · 4.57 FIP	28	SW	4.57	19.4%	8.9%	3.6%	.341	4.38	18.8%	11.4%	57	-0.19	3.39	393	76
Mitchell Tyranski L 2024 · 4.90 FIP	26	SU	4.90	21.0%	12.3%	3.7%	.234	3.46	20.5%	4.0%	57	-1.44	3.46	145	76
Ashur Tolliver L 2016 · 4.19 FIP	28	SU	4.19	21.3%	9.8%	3.0%	.308	5.03	13.8%	-5.1%	35	+0.84	3.49	134	75
Dario Alvarez L 2017 · 3.68 FIP	28	SU	3.68	24.7%	12.4%	2.0%	.336	3.47	20.7%	8.3%	27	-0.21	3.47	160	74
Brendan Nail L 2023 · 4.36 FIP	27	SU	4.36	19.3%	10.5%	2.8%	.262	—	—	—	—	—	3.45	165	74
Randy Keisler L 2005 · 5.07 FIP	29	SW	5.07	16.4%	9.9%	3.8%	.295	5.51	6.5%	0.0%	17	+0.44	5.07	135	73
John Rheinecker L 2007 · 5.13 FIP	28	SW	5.13	16.7%	10.9%	3.8%	.317	—	—	—	—	—	4.14	121	73
Kelly Wunsch L 2000 · 3.65 FIP	28	SU	3.65	19.7%	10.8%	1.5%	.261	4.17	17.6%	5.9%	90	+0.52	3.36	175	72
Stephen Randolph L 2003 · 4.83 FIP	29	SU	4.83	18.5%	14.8%	2.6%	.247	5.69	15.8%	-3.0%	82	+0.86	4.83	155	72
Will Lamb L 2017 · 5.78 FIP	26	SU	5.78	20.0%	14.0%	4.7%	.322	—	—	—	—	—	3.64	178	72
Jake McSteen L 2024 · 4.64 FIP	28	SU	4.64	19.7%	6.4%	4.4%	.348	2.22	18.9%	13.2%	18	-2.42	2.22	286	72
Jordan Harrison L 2019 · 3.80 FIP	28	SU	3.80	19.1%	9.7%	2.0%	.311	—	—	—	—	—	3.80	244	72
Adam Liberatore L 2015 · 3.64 FIP	28	SU	3.64	21.1%	7.3%	2.5%	.267	3.17	23.3%	15.2%	73	-0.47	2.38	124	71
Josh Smoker L 2017 · 4.20 FIP	28	SU	4.20	25.5%	9.4%	3.8%	.329	4.35	20.2%	11.3%	59	+0.15	2.71	230	71
Jimmy Reyes L 2017 · 4.92 FIP	28	SU	4.92	13.8%	8.0%	3.6%	.294	—	—	—	—	—	3.02	200	71

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	56	22.5%	11.6%	1.26	4.80
Valerio De Los Santos ('08)	1.3	51	18.7%	11.5%	1.30	4.57
Fred Lasher ('63-'71, -1 WAR*)	1.0	50	21.5%*	11.9%*	1.05*	4.68*
Bill Wilson ('69-'73, -0 WAR*)	1.3	52	20.3%*	11.5%*	1.13*	4.84*
José Ruiz ('25)	1.4	57	22.3%	10.4%	1.44	4.62
Josias Manzanillo ('04)	1.7	57	20.0%	10.2%	1.21	4.71
Ed Glynn ('75-'85, -0 WAR*)	1.3	53	23.5%*	12.9%*	1.22*	4.69*