Garrett Apker
P Asheville Tourists| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 24 | MIX2 levels | 31 | 1 | 53 | 3.88 | 2.95 | 25.5% | 9.7% | — | K 19.8% · BB 11.2% · FIP 4.01 |
| 2025 | 25 | MIX2 levels | 6 | 0 | 9 | 6.75 | 7.81 | 14.9% | 31.9% | — | K 14.9% · BB 31.9% · FIP 7.05 |
| 2026 | 26 | MIX2 levels | 15 | 2 | 21 | 7.17 | 6.10 | 24.2% | 20.2% | — | K 15.4% · BB 23.0% · FIP 8.46 |
| 2027PROJ | 27 | MLBHOU | — | — | 0 | 5.47 | 5.47 | 20.2% | 15.4% | — | |
| 2028PROJ37% MLB | 28 | MLBHOU | 6 | 0 | 6 | 5.40 | 5.44 | 20.4% | 15.0% | -0.1 |
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) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2023 | 23 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 26 | 9 | 59 | 281 | 62 | 44 | 9 | 35% | 2.3 | 15.0% | 18.8% | -3.8% | 3.7% | 7.58 | 6.24 | — |
| 2023 | 23 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 26 | 9 | 59 | 281 | 62 | 44 | 9 | 35% | 2.3 | 22.1% | 15.7% | 6.4% | 3.2% | 7.58 | 5.21 | — |
| 2024 | 24 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 31 | 1 | 53 | 216 | 55 | 21 | 3 | 3% | 1.7 | 19.8% | 11.2% | 8.6% | 2.1% | 3.88 | 4.01 | — |
| 2024 | 24 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 31 | 1 | 53 | 216 | 55 | 21 | 3 | 3% | 1.7 | 19.8% | 11.2% | 8.6% | 2.1% | 3.88 | 4.01 | — |
| 2024 | 24 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 31 | 1 | 53 | 216 | 55 | 21 | 3 | 3% | 1.7 | 25.5% | 9.7% | 15.7% | 1.4% | 3.88 | 2.95 | — |
| 2025 | 25 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 6 | 0 | 9 | 47 | 7 | 15 | 1 | 0% | 1.6 | 14.9% | 31.9% | -17.0% | 2.1% | 6.75 | 7.05 | — |
| 2025 | 25 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 6 | 0 | 9 | 47 | 7 | 15 | 1 | 0% | 1.6 | 14.9% | 31.9% | -17.0% | 2.1% | 6.75 | 7.05 | — |
| 2025 | 25 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 6 | 0 | 9 | 47 | 7 | 15 | 1 | 0% | 1.6 | 14.9% | 31.9% | -17.0% | 2.1% | 6.75 | 7.81 | — |
| 2026 | 26 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 15 | 2 | 21 | 99 | 24 | 20 | 4 | 13% | 1.4 | 15.4% | 23.0% | -7.6% | 6.8% | 7.17 | 8.46 | — |
| 2026 | 26 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 15 | 2 | 21 | 99 | 24 | 20 | 4 | 13% | 1.4 | 15.4% | 23.0% | -7.6% | 6.8% | 7.17 | 8.46 | — |
| 2026 | 26 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 15 | 2 | 21 | 99 | 24 | 20 | 4 | 13% | 1.4 | 24.2% | 20.2% | 4.0% | 4.0% | 7.17 | 6.10 | — |
| ▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 27 | MLB | HOU | — | — | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 20.2% | 15.4% | 4.7% | 3.2% | 5.47 | 5.47 | — |
| ▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2028 | 28 | MLB MLE | HOU | 15 | 0 | 15 | 65 | 13 | 10 | 2 | 0% | 1.0 | 20.4% | 15.0% | 5.4% | 3.2% | 5.40 | 5.44 | -0.2 |
| 2028 | 28 | MLB CTX | HOU | 6 | 0 | 6 | 25 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 20.4% | 15.0% | 5.4% | 3.2% | 5.40 | 5.44 | -0.1 |
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 5 | 0 | 6 | 24 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 20.4% | 15.0% | 5.4% | 3.2% | 5.40 | 5.05 | -0.0 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 190 | 0 | 200 | 844 | 178 | 143 | 36 | 0% | 1.1 | 20.4% | 15.0% | 5.4% | 3.2% | 5.40 | 5.05 | -1.2 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 78 | 12 | 143 | 643 | 107 | 115 | 23 | 15% | 1.8 | 16.7% | 17.9% | -1.2% | 3.5% | 6.09 | 5.89 | -0.2 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 109 | 17 | 200 | 897 | 150 | 160 | 32 | 15% | 1.8 | 16.7% | 17.9% | -1.2% | 3.5% | 6.09 | 5.89 | -2.1 | |
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 A+Asheville Tourists · 11 IPFIP 6.94 → 8.46 (+1.52)K% 20.0% → 15.4%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 20.00% | — | ×0.770 | 15.40% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 20.00% | — | ×1.150 | 23.00% |
| HR / BF /BF | 5.45% | ÷1.000 | ×1.250 | 6.82% |
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 100).
Result: FIP 6.94 → 8.46, 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).
2026 ROKFCL Astros · 10 IPFIP 4.44 → 6.39 (+1.95)K% 29.5% → 20.1%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 29.55% | — | ×0.680 | 20.09% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 20.45% | — | ×1.250 | 25.57% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.27% | ÷1.000 | ×1.400 | 3.18% |
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 4.44 → 6.39, 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+Asheville Tourists · 7 IPFIP 7.44 → 8.16 (+0.72)K% 10.8% → 8.3%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 10.81% | — | ×0.770 | 8.32% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 29.73% | — | ×1.150 | 34.19% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.70% | ÷1.297 | ×1.250 | 2.61% |
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 159).
Result: FIP 7.44 → 8.16, 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 ALakeland Flying Tigers · 42 IPFIP 3.02 → 4.01 (+0.98)K% 26.8% → 19.8%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 26.79% | — | ×0.740 | 19.82% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 9.52% | — | ×1.180 | 11.24% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.79% | ÷1.099 | ×1.300 | 2.11% |
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 120).
Result: FIP 3.02 → 4.01, 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 Tigers · 11 IPFIP 2.66 → 3.55 (+0.89)K% 20.8% → 14.2%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 20.83% | — | ×0.680 | 14.17% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 10.42% | — | ×1.250 | 13.02% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷0.952 | ×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 90).
Result: FIP 2.66 → 3.55, 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 ALakeland Flying Tigers · 48 IPFIP 5.30 → 6.24 (+0.94)K% 20.3% → 15.0%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 20.26% | — | ×0.740 | 14.99% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 15.95% | — | ×1.180 | 18.82% |
| HR / BF /BF | 3.45% | ÷1.216 | ×1.300 | 3.69% |
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 143).
Result: FIP 5.30 → 6.24, 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 Tigers · 11 IPFIP 3.44 → 5.30 (+1.86)K% 30.6% → 20.8%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 30.61% | — | ×0.680 | 20.82% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 14.29% | — | ×1.250 | 17.86% |
| HR / BF /BF | 2.04% | ÷0.924 | ×1.400 | 3.09% |
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 85).
Result: FIP 3.44 → 5.30, 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).