Luis Hernandez
P Charleston RiverDogs| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 21 | ROKTB | 12 | 10 | 45 | 3.60 | 3.59 | 24.5% | 11.2% | — | K 16.7% · BB 14.0% · FIP 4.94 | |
| 2023 | 22 | ROKTB | 12 | 1 | 28 | 3.81 | 2.61 | 29.8% | 13.0% | — | K 20.2% · BB 16.2% · FIP 4.09 | |
| 2024 | 23 | MIX2 levels | 20 | 0 | 42 | 3.43 | 4.58 | 28.6% | 13.7% | — | K 22.3% · BB 18.2% · FIP 6.85 | |
| 2025 | 24 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2026 | 25 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2027PROJ | 26 | MLBTB | — | — | 0 | 4.76 | 4.76 | 23.2% | 12.4% | — | ||
| 2028PROJ36% MLB | 27 | MLBTB | 6 | 0 | 6 | 4.74 | 4.75 | 23.2% | 12.1% | -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) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2022 | 21 | ROK MLE | DSL Rays | 12 | 10 | 45 | 196 | 48 | 22 | 4 | 83% | 3.8 | 16.7% | 14.0% | 2.6% | 2.7% | 3.60 | 4.94 | — |
| 2022 | 21 | ROK RAW | DSL Rays | 12 | 10 | 45 | 196 | 48 | 22 | 4 | 83% | 3.8 | 24.5% | 11.2% | 13.3% | 2.0% | 3.60 | 3.59 | — |
| 2023 | 22 | ROK MLE | FCL Rays | 12 | 1 | 28 | 131 | 39 | 17 | 1 | 8% | 2.4 | 20.2% | 16.2% | 4.0% | 1.2% | 3.81 | 4.09 | — |
| 2023 | 22 | ROK RAW | FCL Rays | 12 | 1 | 28 | 131 | 39 | 17 | 1 | 8% | 2.4 | 29.8% | 13.0% | 16.8% | 0.8% | 3.81 | 2.61 | — |
| 2024 | 23 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 20 | 0 | 42 | 182 | 52 | 25 | 7 | 0% | 2.1 | 22.3% | 18.2% | 4.1% | 6.1% | 3.43 | 6.85 | — |
| 2024 | 23 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 20 | 0 | 42 | 182 | 52 | 25 | 7 | 0% | 2.1 | 22.3% | 18.2% | 4.1% | 6.1% | 3.43 | 6.85 | — |
| 2024 | 23 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 20 | 0 | 42 | 182 | 52 | 25 | 7 | 0% | 2.1 | 28.6% | 13.7% | 14.8% | 3.8% | 3.43 | 4.58 | — |
| ▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 26 | MLB | TB | — | — | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 23.2% | 12.4% | 10.8% | 3.0% | 4.76 | 4.76 | — |
| ▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2028 | 27 | MLB MLE | TB | 17 | 0 | 18 | 74 | 17 | 9 | 2 | 0% | 1.0 | 23.2% | 12.1% | 11.1% | 3.1% | 4.74 | 4.75 | -0.0 |
| 2028 | 27 | MLB CTX | TB | 6 | 0 | 6 | 25 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 23.2% | 12.1% | 11.1% | 3.1% | 4.74 | 4.75 | -0.0 |
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 6 | 0 | 6 | 27 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 23.2% | 12.1% | 11.1% | 3.1% | 4.74 | 4.37 | +0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 190 | 0 | 200 | 844 | 189 | 94 | 31 | 0% | 1.1 | 23.2% | 12.1% | 11.1% | 3.1% | 4.74 | 4.37 | +0.4 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 44 | 11 | 115 | 509 | 100 | 82 | 18 | 25% | 2.6 | 19.6% | 16.1% | 3.5% | 3.5% | 3.59 | 5.40 | -0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 76 | 19 | 200 | 883 | 173 | 142 | 31 | 25% | 2.6 | 19.6% | 16.1% | 3.5% | 3.5% | 3.59 | 5.40 | -0.5 | |
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 ACharleston RiverDogs · 35 IPFIP 4.62 → 6.85 (+2.23)K% 30.1% → 22.3%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 30.13% | — | ×0.740 | 22.29% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 15.38% | — | ×1.180 | 18.15% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.85% | ÷0.824 | ×1.300 | 6.07% |
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 65).
Result: FIP 4.62 → 6.85, 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).
2024 ROKFCL Rays · 7 IPFIP 4.07 → 5.55 (+1.48)K% 19.2% → 13.1%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 19.23% | — | ×0.680 | 13.08% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 3.85% | — | ×1.250 | 4.81% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.85% | ÷1.002 | ×1.400 | 5.37% |
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 4.07 → 5.55, 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 ROKFCL Rays · 28 IPFIP 2.65 → 4.09 (+1.44)K% 29.8% → 20.2%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 29.77% | — | ×0.680 | 20.24% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 12.98% | — | ×1.250 | 16.22% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.76% | ÷0.911 | ×1.400 | 1.17% |
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 82).
Result: FIP 2.65 → 4.09, 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 ROKDSL Rays · 45 IPFIP 3.57 → 4.94 (+1.37)K% 24.5% → 16.7%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 24.49% | — | ×0.680 | 16.65% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 11.22% | — | ×1.250 | 14.03% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.04% | ÷1.065 | ×1.400 | 2.68% |
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 113).
Result: FIP 3.57 → 4.94, 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).