Jake McSteen

P Columbus Clingstones

Age 31 LHP 6'0" / 215 lbs AA peak 0.1 · 2027

Overview

AAPROSPECT

MLB%2%

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2024	28	AAMississippi B…	35	4	55	5.89	3.61	24.4%	5.8%	—	K 19.7% · BB 6.4% · FIP 4.64
2025	29	AAATL	11	0	18	2.95	1.79	23.4%	5.2%	—	K 18.9% · BB 5.7% · FIP 2.22
2027PROJ	31	MLBATL	—	—	0	4.23	4.23	21.0%	7.2%	—
2028PROJ31% MLB	32	MLBATL	6	0	6	4.37	4.46	20.8%	7.8%	0.0

Next 2 projected WAR 0.0Projected rows: MLB playing time only, park and league context applied.

Contract

No contract data on file.

CompsRaul Valdes (age 32) · Jeremy Bleich (age 31) · Andrew Barbosa (age 29)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 97105vR 114

ERA4.23

FIP4.23

K%21.0%

BB%7.2%

K-BB%13.8%

Proj IP15

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 15 IP

Grades · Contract

Scouting Grades

K†5050

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	25	MIX MLE	2 levels	22	17	95	413	91	26	13	77%	4.3	16.8%	7.3%	9.5%	4.5%	3.68	5.05	—
2021	25	MIX RAW	2 levels	22	17	95	413	91	26	13	77%	4.3	22.0%	6.3%	15.7%	3.1%	3.68	3.78	—
2022	26	A+ MLE	Rome Braves	37	3	61	263	72	13	10	8%	1.6	21.1%	5.7%	15.4%	5.1%	4.90	4.85	—
2022	26	A+ RAW	Rome Braves	37	3	61	263	72	13	10	8%	1.6	27.4%	4.9%	22.4%	3.8%	4.90	3.51	—
2023	27	AA MLE	Mississippi Braves	40	0	57	248	51	18	10	0%	1.4	16.7%	8.0%	8.7%	6.1%	4.13	6.05	—
2023	27	AA RAW	Mississippi Braves	40	0	57	248	51	18	10	0%	1.4	20.6%	7.3%	13.3%	4.0%	4.13	4.55	—
2024	28	AA MLE	Mississippi Braves	35	4	55	242	59	14	8	11%	1.6	19.7%	6.4%	13.4%	4.4%	5.89	4.64	—
2024	28	AA MLE	Mississippi Braves	35	4	55	242	59	14	8	11%	1.6	19.7%	6.4%	13.4%	4.4%	5.89	4.64	—
2024	28	AA RAW	Mississippi Braves	35	4	55	242	59	14	8	11%	1.6	24.4%	5.8%	18.6%	3.3%	5.89	3.61	—
2025	29	AA MLE	Columbus Clingstones	11	0	18	77	18	4	0	0%	1.7	18.9%	5.7%	13.2%	0.0%	2.95	2.22	—
2025	29	AA MLE	Columbus Clingstones	11	0	18	77	18	4	0	0%	1.7	18.9%	5.7%	13.2%	0.0%	2.95	2.22	—
2025	29	AA RAW	Columbus Clingstones	11	0	18	77	18	4	0	0%	1.7	23.4%	5.2%	18.2%	0.0%	2.95	1.79	—
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	31	MLB	ATL	—	—	0	—	—	—	—	—	—	21.0%	7.2%	13.8%	2.9%	4.23	4.23	—
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	32	MLB MLE	ATL	17	0	18	77	16	6	2	0%	1.1	20.8%	7.8%	13.0%	3.2%	4.37	4.46	+0.0
2028	32	MLB CTX	ATL	6	0	6	25	5	2	1	0%	1.0	20.8%	7.8%	13.0%	3.2%	4.37	4.46	+0.0
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		5	0	6	24	5	2	1	0%	1.1	20.8%	7.8%	13.0%	3.2%	4.37	4.08	+0.0
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		190	0	200	844	175	70	35	0%	1.1	20.8%	7.8%	13.0%	3.2%	4.37	4.08	+1.1
Career	—	MLE		145	24	286	1243	229	85	58	17%	2.0	18.4%	6.8%	11.6%	4.6%	4.41	4.96	+0.0
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		101	17	200	869	160	59	40	17%	2.0	18.4%	6.8%	11.6%	4.6%	4.41	4.96	+0.2

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.

2025 AAColumbus Clingstones · 18 IPFIP 1.78 → 2.22 (+0.44)K% 23.4% → 18.9%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	23.38%	—	×0.810	18.94%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	5.19%	—	×1.100	5.71%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷0.934	×1.200	0.00%

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 87).

Result: FIP 1.78 → 2.22, 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 AAMississippi Braves · 55 IPFIP 3.59 → 4.64 (+1.05)K% 24.4% → 19.7%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	24.38%	—	×0.810	19.75%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	5.79%	—	×1.100	6.36%
HR / BF /BF	3.31%	÷0.906	×1.200	4.38%

Result: FIP 3.59 → 4.64, 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 AAMississippi Braves · 57 IPFIP 4.50 → 6.05 (+1.56)K% 20.6% → 16.7%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	20.56%	—	×0.810	16.66%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	7.26%	—	×1.100	7.98%
HR / BF /BF	4.03%	÷0.793	×1.200	6.10%

Result: FIP 4.50 → 6.05, 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+Rome Braves · 61 IPFIP 3.50 → 4.85 (+1.35)K% 27.4% → 21.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	27.38%	—	×0.770	21.08%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	4.94%	—	×1.150	5.68%
HR / BF /BF	3.80%	÷0.928	×1.250	5.12%

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 86).

Result: FIP 3.50 → 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).

2021 A+Rome Braves · 73 IPFIP 4.12 → 5.56 (+1.44)K% 21.4% → 16.4%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	21.36%	—	×0.770	16.45%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	6.19%	—	×1.150	7.12%
HR / BF /BF	3.72%	÷0.864	×1.250	5.37%

Result: FIP 4.12 → 5.56, 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 AAugusta GreenJackets · 23 IPFIP 2.49 → 3.23 (+0.74)K% 24.4% → 18.1%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	24.44%	—	×0.740	18.09%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	6.67%	—	×1.180	7.87%
HR / BF /BF	1.11%	÷1.192	×1.300	1.21%

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 138).

Result: FIP 2.49 → 3.23, 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
Jake McSteen (OGILVIE)	—	—	4.23	21.0%	7.2%	2.9%	—	4.46	20.8%	13.0%	18	+0.23	—	—	—
Raul Valdes L 2010 · 4.02 FIP	32	SU	4.02	21.4%	9.9%	2.7%	.301	3.14	27.4%	22.5%	78	-0.88	2.29	160	79
Jeremy Bleich L 2018 · 3.69 FIP	31	SU	3.69	20.3%	6.6%	2.7%	.296	4.41	20.1%	13.1%	33	+0.72	3.20	241	78
Andrew Barbosa L 2017 · 4.67 FIP	29	SU	4.67	20.2%	9.6%	3.8%	.301	—	—	—	—	—	2.70	175	75
Nick Hagadone L 2017 · 3.74 FIP	31	SU	3.74	22.6%	9.3%	2.5%	.267	—	—	—	—	—	2.97	141	73
Colt Hynes L 2016 · 3.55 FIP	31	SU	3.55	22.3%	4.8%	3.1%	.353	3.75	14.1%	9.5%	56	+0.20	3.42	169	73
Edward Paredes L 2018 · 3.81 FIP	31	SU	3.81	22.7%	11.9%	2.0%	.351	5.10	21.5%	14.2%	18	+1.29	2.36	130	71
Jason Gurka L 2019 · 5.13 FIP	31	SW	5.13	15.5%	7.6%	4.3%	.382	—	—	—	—	—	2.82	183	71
Adam Liberatore L 2018 · 4.28 FIP	31	SU	4.28	18.6%	9.1%	2.9%	.354	—	—	—	—	—	2.38	124	71
Randy Flores L 2006 · 4.00 FIP	31	SU	4.00	20.4%	9.7%	2.5%	.333	3.30	18.1%	10.5%	93	-0.70	2.51	250	70
Jorge Ibarra L 2017 · 3.09 FIP	29	SU	3.09	19.3%	6.5%	1.4%	.351	—	—	—	—	—	2.55	146	70
Hideki Okajima L 2007 · 3.05 FIP	31	SU	3.05	23.2%	5.5%	2.2%	.234	3.87	20.2%	12.6%	169	+0.82	3.05	238	70
Cory Luebke L 2016 · 3.88 FIP	31	SU	3.88	26.4%	9.1%	3.4%	.354	—	—	—	—	—	2.80	216	69
Brian Moran L 2019 · 3.40 FIP	30	SU	3.40	26.9%	10.0%	2.4%	.269	2.99	25.5%	18.5%	99	-0.41	1.80	421	68
George Sherrill L 2008 · 3.86 FIP	31	SU	3.86	24.3%	11.3%	2.5%	.277	3.38	20.6%	12.4%	141	-0.48	2.74	323	67
Pedro Feliciano L 2008 · 3.90 FIP	31	SU	3.90	21.1%	7.6%	2.9%	.309	3.02	22.1%	14.9%	122	-0.88	2.69	378	67
David Purcey L 2013 · 3.79 FIP	31	SU	3.79	20.4%	11.5%	1.7%	.227	—	—	—	—	—	3.60	206	66
Yuki Matsui L 2024 · 3.63 FIP	28	SU	3.63	26.8%	8.9%	3.0%	.242	4.25	23.9%	12.6%	140	+0.62	3.63	203	66
Kraig Sitton L 2017 · 3.87 FIP	29	SU	3.87	14.7%	6.1%	2.2%	.312	—	—	—	—	—	2.81	166	65
Buddy Boshers L 2019 · 3.73 FIP	31	SU	3.73	25.3%	10.4%	2.6%	.294	—	—	—	—	—	2.76	239	65
Scott Rice L 2013 · 3.10 FIP	31	SU	3.10	19.2%	10.8%	0.5%	.277	3.85	22.1%	5.0%	53	+0.75	3.10	104	64