Miguel Cienfuegos

P El Paso Chihuahuas

Age 30 LHP 6'4" / 195 lbs AAA

Overview

AAAPROSPECT

ETA2029MLB%10%

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2024	27	MIX3 levels	27	19	124	5.36	4.52	15.5%	7.6%	—	K 12.4% · BB 7.9% · FIP 5.19
2025	28	MIX2 levels	30	6	69	4.33	2.77	19.4%	8.8%	—	K 16.4% · BB 8.1% · FIP 2.95
2026	29	AAASD	31	2	49	7.35	5.08	18.8%	11.5%	—	K 16.2% · BB 10.4% · FIP 5.11
2027PROJ	30	MLBSD	6	0	6	5.24	5.24	14.0%	10.7%	-0.0
2028PROJ37% MLB	31	MLBSD	14	0	15	5.27	5.35	14.5%	10.9%	-0.1
2029PROJ55% MLB	32	MLBSD	16	0	17	5.37	5.49	14.7%	11.2%	-0.2

Next 3 projected WAR -0.3Projected rows: MLB playing time only, park and league context applied.

Contract

No contract data on file.

Scouting grades · 20-80

Stuff35Control45Command35

Career WAR0.0 WAR median (P10 -0.0 / P90 0.0, comp-based) · star 0% · didn't stick 98%

CompsKelvin Marte (age 29) · John Rheinecker (age 28) · Enrique Lechuga (age 29)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 116125vR 133

ERA5.24

FIP5.24

K%14.0%

BB%10.7%

K-BB%3.2%

Proj IP58

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 58 IP

Grades · Contract

Scouting Grades

STUF3535

CTRL4545

CMD3535

K†3030

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)
2023	26	MIX MLE	3 levels	18	16	78	338	62	30	7	89%	4.3	13.6%	10.5%	3.1%	3.4%	4.04	5.12	—
2023	26	MIX RAW	3 levels	18	16	78	338	62	30	7	89%	4.3	18.3%	8.9%	9.5%	2.1%	4.04	3.83	—
2024	27	MIX MLE	3 levels	27	19	124	542	84	41	17	70%	4.6	12.4%	7.9%	4.6%	3.9%	5.36	5.19	—
2024	27	MIX MLE	3 levels	27	19	124	542	84	41	17	70%	4.6	12.4%	7.9%	4.6%	3.9%	5.36	5.19	—
2024	27	MIX RAW	3 levels	27	19	124	542	84	41	17	70%	4.6	15.5%	7.6%	7.9%	3.1%	5.36	4.52	—
2025	28	MIX MLE	2 levels	30	6	69	294	57	26	1	20%	2.3	16.4%	8.1%	8.3%	0.4%	4.33	2.95	—
2025	28	MIX MLE	2 levels	30	6	69	294	57	26	1	20%	2.3	16.4%	8.1%	8.3%	0.4%	4.33	2.95	—
2025	28	MIX RAW	2 levels	30	6	69	294	57	26	1	20%	2.3	19.4%	8.8%	10.5%	0.3%	4.33	2.77	—
2026	29	AAA MLE	El Paso Chihuahuas	31	2	49	234	44	27	8	6%	1.6	16.2%	10.4%	5.8%	3.8%	7.35	5.11	—
2026	29	AAA MLE	El Paso Chihuahuas	31	2	49	234	44	27	8	6%	1.6	16.2%	10.4%	5.8%	3.8%	7.35	5.11	—
2026	29	AAA RAW	El Paso Chihuahuas	31	2	49	234	44	27	8	6%	1.6	18.8%	11.5%	7.3%	3.4%	7.35	5.08	—
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	30	MLB	SD	6	0	6	25	4	3	1	0%	1.0	14.0%	10.7%	3.2%	2.9%	5.24	5.24	-0.0
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	31	MLB MLE	SD	38	0	40	168	24	18	5	0%	1.0	14.5%	10.9%	3.6%	3.1%	5.27	5.35	-0.3
2029	32	MLB MLE	SD	30	0	31	133	20	15	4	0%	1.0	14.7%	11.2%	3.5%	3.3%	5.37	5.49	-0.3
2028	31	MLB CTX	SD	14	0	15	63	9	7	2	0%	1.1	14.5%	10.9%	3.6%	3.1%	5.27	5.35	-0.1
2029	32	MLB CTX	SD	16	0	17	72	11	8	2	0%	1.1	14.7%	11.2%	3.5%	3.3%	5.37	5.49	-0.2
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		30	0	32	135	20	15	4	0%	1.1	14.6%	11.1%	3.5%	3.2%	5.32	5.05	-0.2
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		190	0	200	844	125	94	25	0%	1.1	14.6%	11.1%	3.5%	3.2%	5.32	5.05	-1.2
Career	—	MLE		106	43	320	1408	199	126	42	41%	3.0	14.2%	9.0%	5.2%	3.0%	5.12	4.69	-0.7
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		66	27	200	880	125	79	26	41%	3.0	14.2%	9.0%	5.2%	3.0%	5.12	4.69	-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.

2026 AAAEl Paso Chihuahuas · 49 IPFIP 4.85 → 5.11 (+0.26)K% 18.8% → 16.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	18.80%	—	×0.860	16.17%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	11.54%	—	×0.900	10.38%
HR / BF /BF	3.42%	÷1.000	×1.100	3.76%

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 100).

Result: FIP 4.85 → 5.11, 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 AAAEl Paso Chihuahuas · 53 IPFIP 3.19 → 3.29 (+0.10)K% 17.2% → 14.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	17.24%	—	×0.860	14.83%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	10.34%	—	×0.900	9.31%
HR / BF /BF	0.43%	÷0.981	×1.100	0.48%

Result: FIP 3.19 → 3.29, 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).

2025 AASan Antonio Missions · 16 IPFIP 1.19 → 1.67 (+0.48)K% 27.4% → 22.2%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	27.42%	—	×0.810	22.21%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	3.23%	—	×1.100	3.55%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷0.950	×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 90).

Result: FIP 1.19 → 1.67, 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 AASan Antonio Missions · 56 IPFIP 4.50 → 5.44 (+0.94)K% 18.2% → 14.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	18.22%	—	×0.810	14.76%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	5.67%	—	×1.100	6.23%
HR / BF /BF	4.05%	÷0.953	×1.200	5.10%

Result: FIP 4.50 → 5.44, 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+Fort Wayne TinCaps · 46 IPFIP 3.78 → 4.63 (+0.85)K% 15.5% → 11.9%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	15.51%	—	×0.770	11.94%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	6.42%	—	×1.150	7.38%
HR / BF /BF	2.14%	÷0.916	×1.250	2.92%

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 83).

Result: FIP 3.78 → 4.63, 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 AAAEl Paso Chihuahuas · 22 IPFIP 5.60 → 5.57 (−0.03)K% 9.3% → 8.0%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	9.26%	—	×0.860	7.96%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	13.89%	—	×0.900	12.50%
HR / BF /BF	2.78%	÷1.078	×1.100	2.84%

Result: FIP 5.60 → 5.57, 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+Fort Wayne TinCaps · 59 IPFIP 4.43 → 5.63 (+1.20)K% 16.0% → 12.3%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	15.95%	—	×0.770	12.28%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	9.34%	—	×1.150	10.74%
HR / BF /BF	2.72%	÷0.848	×1.250	4.02%

Result: FIP 4.43 → 5.63, 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 ALake Elsinore Storm · 12 IPFIP 1.78 → 2.56 (+0.78)K% 27.5% → 20.3%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	27.45%	—	×0.740	20.31%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	7.84%	—	×1.180	9.25%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷1.121	×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 124).

Result: FIP 1.78 → 2.56, 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).

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
Miguel Cienfuegos (OGILVIE)	—	—	5.24	14.0%	10.7%	2.9%	—	5.41	14.6%	3.5%	71	+0.17	—	—	—
Kelvin Marte L 2017 · 4.74 FIP	29	SW	4.74	16.1%	11.4%	2.8%	.300	5.25	12.0%	1.2%	71	+0.51	3.44	360	80
John Rheinecker L 2007 · 5.13 FIP	28	SW	5.13	16.7%	10.9%	3.8%	.317	—	—	—	—	—	4.14	121	75
Enrique Lechuga L 2015 · 4.70 FIP	29	SP-	4.70	10.0%	10.5%	2.0%	.354	3.78	10.5%	4.4%	59	-0.92	3.78	137	74
Jimmy Reyes L 2017 · 4.92 FIP	28	SU	4.92	13.8%	8.0%	3.6%	.294	—	—	—	—	—	3.02	200	71
Tyler Alexander L 2021 · 5.27 FIP	29	SW	5.27	15.7%	10.7%	3.9%	.272	—	—	—	—	—	5.27	128	71
Kyle Hunter L 2017 · 4.50 FIP	28	SU	4.50	14.0%	6.1%	3.3%	.335	—	—	—	—	—	4.32	188	71
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	70
Andy Otero L 2022 · 4.36 FIP	30	SW	4.36	14.5%	8.9%	2.5%	.308	—	—	—	—	—	2.86	200	69
Andrew Barbosa L 2017 · 4.67 FIP	29	SU	4.67	20.2%	9.6%	3.8%	.301	—	—	—	—	—	2.70	175	67
Luke Westphal L 2021 · 4.70 FIP	32	SP-	4.70	22.7%	13.1%	3.4%	.321	4.58	21.9%	7.6%	95	-0.12	2.97	294	65
Chris Michalak L 2001 · 4.92 FIP	30	SP-	4.92	11.0%	8.2%	3.1%	.291	4.71	7.0%	-4.3%	14	-0.21	4.71	186	65
Bobby Jones L 2002 · 5.24 FIP	30	SU	5.24	14.3%	12.7%	3.2%	.295	—	—	—	—	—	4.01	321	65
Eric DuBose L 2005 · 5.45 FIP	29	SW	5.45	12.6%	14.1%	3.0%	.253	—	—	—	—	—	3.92	178	63
Tommy Phelps L 2004 · 4.80 FIP	30	SW	4.80	19.4%	8.3%	4.2%	.286	3.98	13.2%	5.7%	23	-0.82	3.39	120	62
Stephen Randolph L 2004 · 5.69 FIP	30	SU	5.69	15.8%	18.8%	2.8%	.252	5.97	28.2%	9.0%	13	+0.28	4.83	155	62
Danny Wirchansky L 2024 · 4.47 FIP	27	SP-	4.47	16.2%	7.4%	3.3%	.246	5.88	13.0%	0.2%	68	+1.41	4.47	179	61
Miguel Pena L 2019 · 5.08 FIP	28	SW	5.08	16.0%	7.0%	4.4%	.369	—	—	—	—	—	2.98	282	61
Chad Bell L 2018 · 4.38 FIP	29	SU	4.38	18.8%	7.4%	3.5%	.341	—	—	—	—	—	3.39	393	57
Keith Hessler L 2018 · 4.96 FIP	29	SU	4.96	19.8%	13.3%	3.4%	.348	—	—	—	—	—	3.31	228	57
Tom Martin L 2000 · 4.16 FIP	30	SU	4.16	14.7%	9.1%	2.1%	.274	4.29	21.8%	12.3%	68	+0.12	3.40	303	57

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	0.6	43	14.3%	10.9%	1.18	5.28
Brian Stokes ('10)	1.0	52	14.5%	10.1%	1.22	5.27
Rodney Myers ('04)	1.2	60	15.0%	10.3%	1.05	5.07
Tom Martin ('07)	1.6	53	15.8%	10.1%	1.02	4.92
Daryl Patterson ('68-'74, -1 WAR*)	1.2	46	18.3%*	11.2%*	1.27*	5.03*
Kevin Hickey ('81-'91, 0 WAR*)	1.2	47	17.7%*	10.2%*	1.10*	4.27*
Bob Macdonald ('90-'96, 1 WAR*)	1.2	59	18.3%*	9.8%*	1.20*	4.32*