Jordan Geber

P Binghamton Rumble Ponies

Age 28 RHP 6'3" / 205 lbs AA

Overview

AAPROSPECT

MLB%2%

Year	Age	Lvl / Team	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	K%	BB%	WAR	MLE rates
2024	25	MIX3 levels	25	13	89	3.83	3.76	17.3%	7.6%	—	K 14.0% · BB 8.0% · FIP 4.48
2025	26	MIX2 levels	20	6	35	3.57	4.20	20.3%	10.8%	—	K 16.8% · BB 10.6% · FIP 4.33
2026	27	MIX2 levels	17	6	41	5.27	5.25	18.5%	16.4%	—	K 14.5% · BB 17.8% · FIP 5.97
2027PROJ	28	MLBNYM	—	—	0	5.51	5.51	16.1%	13.5%	—
2028PROJ31% MLB	29	MLBNYM	6	0	6	5.47	5.52	16.6%	13.3%	-0.1

Next 2 projected WAR -0.1Projected rows: MLB playing time only, park and league context applied.

Contract

No contract data on file.

Career WAR0.0 WAR median (P10 0.0 / P90 0.0, comp-based) · star 0% · didn't stick 99%

CompsAlex Caldera (age 29) · Jared Fernandez (age 29) · Orlando Rodriguez (age 27)

2027 FULL-SEASON PROJECTIONrates below = full-season projection

showingPROJ

wRC+ AGAINSTvL 138130vR 122

ERA5.51

FIP5.51

K%16.1%

BB%13.5%

K-BB%2.6%

Proj IP25

Value2027 · WAR

Runs saved vs league avg · 25 IP

Grades · Contract

Scouting Grades

K†4040

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)
2022	23	MIX MLE	2 levels	7	4	29	131	28	12	6	57%	4.1	15.3%	10.7%	4.6%	3.4%	5.59	5.03	—
2022	23	MIX RAW	2 levels	7	4	29	131	28	12	6	57%	4.1	21.4%	9.2%	12.2%	4.6%	5.59	5.10	—
2023	24	MIX MLE	4 levels	15	7	62	250	54	10	8	47%	4.1	17.2%	5.2%	12.0%	3.6%	4.21	4.26	—
2023	24	MIX RAW	4 levels	15	7	62	250	54	10	8	47%	4.1	21.6%	4.0%	17.6%	3.2%	4.21	3.52	—
2024	25	MIX MLE	3 levels	25	13	89	381	66	29	8	52%	3.6	14.0%	8.0%	6.0%	2.8%	3.83	4.48	—
2024	25	MIX MLE	3 levels	25	13	89	381	66	29	8	52%	3.6	14.0%	8.0%	6.0%	2.8%	3.83	4.48	—
2024	25	MIX RAW	3 levels	25	13	89	381	66	29	8	52%	3.6	17.3%	7.6%	9.7%	2.1%	3.83	3.76	—
2025	26	MIX MLE	2 levels	20	6	35	158	32	17	4	30%	1.8	16.8%	10.6%	6.2%	2.4%	3.57	4.33	—
2025	26	MIX MLE	2 levels	20	6	35	158	32	17	4	30%	1.8	16.8%	10.6%	6.2%	2.4%	3.57	4.33	—
2025	26	MIX RAW	2 levels	20	6	35	158	32	17	4	30%	1.8	20.3%	10.8%	9.5%	2.5%	3.57	4.20	—
2026	27	MIX MLE	2 levels	17	6	41	189	35	31	5	35%	2.4	14.5%	17.8%	-3.3%	3.4%	5.27	5.97	—
2026	27	MIX MLE	2 levels	17	6	41	189	35	31	5	35%	2.4	14.5%	17.8%	-3.3%	3.4%	5.27	5.97	—
2026	27	MIX RAW	2 levels	17	6	41	189	35	31	5	35%	2.4	18.5%	16.4%	2.1%	2.6%	5.27	5.25	—
▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded)
2027	28	MLB	NYM	—	—	0	—	—	—	—	—	—	16.1%	13.5%	2.6%	3.1%	5.51	5.51	—
▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%)
2028	29	MLB MLE	NYM	17	0	18	75	12	10	2	0%	1.0	16.6%	13.3%	3.3%	3.2%	5.47	5.52	-0.2
2028	29	MLB CTX	NYM	6	0	6	25	4	3	1	0%	1.0	16.6%	13.3%	3.3%	3.2%	5.47	5.52	-0.1
▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected)
Career	—	RAW		5	0	6	23	4	3	1	0%	1.1	16.6%	13.3%	3.3%	3.2%	5.47	5.14	-0.0
/ 200 IP	—	RAW		190	0	200	844	144	108	36	0%	1.1	16.6%	13.3%	3.3%	3.2%	5.47	5.14	-1.4
Career	—	MLE		84	36	257	1109	170	108	34	43%	3.1	15.3%	9.7%	5.6%	3.1%	4.31	4.73	-0.2
/ 200 IP	—	MLE		65	28	200	864	133	84	27	43%	3.1	15.3%	9.7%	5.6%	3.1%	4.31	4.73	-2.2

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.

2026 AABinghamton Rumble Ponies · 38 IPFIP 5.18 → 5.97 (+0.80)K% 17.9% → 14.5%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	17.88%	—	×0.810	14.48%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	16.20%	—	×1.100	17.82%
HR / BF /BF	2.79%	÷1.000	×1.200	3.35%

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 100).

Result: FIP 5.18 → 5.97, 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 AABinghamton Rumble Ponies · 23 IPFIP 2.19 → 2.62 (+0.44)K% 21.6% → 17.5%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	21.65%	—	×0.810	17.54%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	7.22%	—	×1.100	7.94%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷0.990	×1.200	0.00%

Result: FIP 2.19 → 2.62, 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 AAASyracuse Mets · 12 IPFIP 7.25 → 7.05 (−0.20)K% 18.0% → 15.5%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	18.03%	—	×0.860	15.51%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	16.39%	—	×0.900	14.75%
HR / BF /BF	6.56%	÷1.167	×1.100	6.18%

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 133).

Result: FIP 7.25 → 7.05, 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).

2024 AABinghamton Rumble Ponies · 61 IPFIP 3.96 → 4.86 (+0.90)K% 15.8% → 12.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	15.85%	—	×0.810	12.84%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	7.55%	—	×1.100	8.30%
HR / BF /BF	2.26%	÷0.834	×1.200	3.26%

Result: FIP 3.96 → 4.86, 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+Brooklyn Cyclones · 16 IPFIP 1.47 → 2.00 (+0.53)K% 24.2% → 18.6%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	24.19%	—	×0.770	18.63%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	3.23%	—	×1.150	3.71%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷1.341	×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 168).

Result: FIP 1.47 → 2.00, 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).

2024 AAASyracuse Mets · 13 IPFIP 5.37 → 5.48 (+0.11)K% 16.7% → 14.3%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	16.67%	—	×0.860	14.33%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	12.96%	—	×0.900	11.67%
HR / BF /BF	3.70%	÷1.059	×1.100	3.85%

Result: FIP 5.37 → 5.48, 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+Brooklyn Cyclones · 33 IPFIP 4.32 → 5.37 (+1.05)K% 24.4% → 18.8%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	24.44%	—	×0.770	18.82%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	6.67%	—	×1.150	7.67%
HR / BF /BF	4.44%	÷1.054	×1.250	5.27%

Result: FIP 4.32 → 5.37, 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 AABinghamton Rumble Ponies · 18 IPFIP 1.67 → 1.94 (+0.27)K% 16.9% → 13.7%

Component	Raw	Park ÷	Level factor ×	= MLE
K% /BF	16.92%	—	×0.810	13.71%
BB% (unintentional) /BF	0.00%	—	×1.100	0.00%
HR / BF /BF	0.00%	÷0.925	×1.200	0.00%

Result: FIP 1.67 → 1.94, 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).

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
Jordan Geber (OGILVIE)	—	—	5.51	16.1%	13.5%	3.1%	—	5.52	16.6%	3.3%	18	+0.01	—	—	—
Alex Caldera R 2015 · 5.57 FIP	29	SW	5.57	10.4%	13.1%	3.1%	.333	4.54	11.9%	0.8%	84	-1.03	4.54	120	77
Jared Fernandez R 2001 · 4.66 FIP	29	SW	4.66	8.8%	10.5%	1.8%	.267	3.95	14.0%	5.6%	89	-0.71	3.57	101	76
Orlando Rodriguez R 2023 · 4.67 FIP	27	SW	4.67	13.7%	10.6%	2.5%	.252	—	—	—	—	—	4.40	119	76
Jon Leicester R 2007 · 4.44 FIP	28	SP-	4.44	11.0%	9.0%	2.1%	.292	—	—	—	—	—	3.76	113	74
Dennis O'Grady R 2015 · 4.95 FIP	26	SW	4.95	13.5%	11.0%	2.9%	.339	—	—	—	—	—	3.62	157	73
Eddie Bonine R 2009 · 5.60 FIP	28	SW	5.60	13.1%	7.6%	4.8%	.306	4.54	8.6%	2.0%	68	-1.06	4.40	129	73
Nolan Sanburn R 2017 · 4.55 FIP	26	SW	4.55	15.0%	10.4%	2.5%	.310	—	—	—	—	—	3.82	169	72
Jason García R 2021 · 4.76 FIP	28	SP-	4.76	17.7%	13.5%	2.6%	.349	—	—	—	—	—	4.16	356	72
Carlos Torres R 2010 · 4.50 FIP	27	SW	4.50	18.3%	11.3%	2.8%	.438	3.89	20.1%	13.2%	139	-0.61	2.89	604	71
Luis Niebla R 2017 · 5.12 FIP	26	SP-	5.12	11.6%	13.2%	2.4%	.336	—	—	—	—	—	3.37	156	71
Jeff Manship R 2013 · 5.11 FIP	28	SW	5.11	12.9%	7.9%	3.8%	.298	3.57	20.0%	11.7%	137	-1.54	2.83	250	70
Josh Roeder R 2019 · 4.71 FIP	26	SW	4.71	15.1%	8.7%	3.3%	.264	—	—	—	—	—	4.71	175	70
Clay Condrey R 2003 · 5.41 FIP	27	SP-	5.41	14.9%	10.1%	4.2%	.303	4.07	13.1%	7.4%	29	-1.34	3.18	250	70
Aldo Montes R 2017 · 4.96 FIP	27	SP-	4.96	12.4%	8.5%	3.3%	.322	4.69	18.2%	7.6%	75	-0.27	4.69	210	70
Dustin Antolin R 2017 · 4.35 FIP	27	SW	4.35	16.2%	14.4%	1.4%	.368	—	—	—	—	—	2.95	159	70
Bradin Hagens R 2018 · 4.92 FIP	29	SP-	4.92	14.9%	9.9%	3.3%	.341	5.46	13.2%	0.6%	66	+0.54	3.79	254	69
Juan Paniagua R 2017 · 4.75 FIP	27	SW	4.75	12.9%	13.9%	1.8%	.375	—	—	—	—	—	4.57	151	69
Todd Wellemeyer R 2007 · 4.74 FIP	28	SW	4.74	17.0%	10.8%	3.1%	.270	4.86	15.5%	6.4%	373	+0.12	3.35	615	69
Brad Allen R 2016 · 5.82 FIP	27	SW	5.82	14.7%	13.2%	4.2%	.272	—	—	—	—	—	4.25	149	69
Zach Stewart R 2015 · 4.43 FIP	28	SP-	4.43	14.4%	8.3%	2.7%	.322	5.17	11.7%	2.1%	51	+0.74	4.27	194	69