Engert Garcia
P Charleston RiverDogs| Year | Age | Lvl / Team | G | GS | IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | WAR | MLE rates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 23 | ROKDSL Tampa Bay | 11 | 9 | 46 | 1.58 | 2.22 | 24.9% | 4.4% | — | K 16.9% · BB 5.5% · FIP 3.13 | |
| 2024 | 24 | ATB | 19 | 6 | 53 | 3.74 | 3.33 | 21.6% | 14.2% | — | K 15.9% · BB 16.8% · FIP 4.25 | |
| 2025 | 25 | MIX2 levels | 21 | 1 | 33 | 5.18 | 4.62 | 18.4% | 20.4% | — | K 12.9% · BB 27.2% · FIP 5.94 | |
| 2026 | 26 | No MLB games played | ||||||||||
| 2027PROJ | 27 | MLBTB | — | — | 0 | 5.81 | 5.81 | 19.2% | 18.7% | — | ||
| 2028PROJ36% MLB | 28 | MLBTB | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5.71 | 5.75 | 19.5% | 17.9% | -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 | ROK MLE | DSL Tampa Bay | 11 | 9 | 46 | 181 | 45 | 8 | 2 | 82% | 4.2 | 16.9% | 5.5% | 11.4% | 1.4% | 1.58 | 3.13 | — |
| 2023 | 23 | ROK RAW | DSL Tampa Bay | 11 | 9 | 46 | 181 | 45 | 8 | 2 | 82% | 4.2 | 24.9% | 4.4% | 20.4% | 1.1% | 1.58 | 2.22 | — |
| 2024 | 24 | A MLE | Charleston RiverDogs | 19 | 6 | 53 | 232 | 50 | 33 | 1 | 32% | 2.8 | 15.9% | 16.8% | -0.8% | 0.7% | 3.74 | 4.25 | — |
| 2024 | 24 | A MLE | Charleston RiverDogs | 19 | 6 | 53 | 232 | 50 | 33 | 1 | 32% | 2.8 | 15.9% | 16.8% | -0.8% | 0.7% | 3.74 | 4.25 | — |
| 2024 | 24 | A RAW | Charleston RiverDogs | 19 | 6 | 53 | 232 | 50 | 33 | 1 | 32% | 2.8 | 21.6% | 14.2% | 7.3% | 0.4% | 3.74 | 3.33 | — |
| 2025 | 25 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 21 | 1 | 33 | 152 | 28 | 31 | 1 | 5% | 1.6 | 12.9% | 27.2% | -14.2% | 0.9% | 5.18 | 5.94 | — |
| 2025 | 25 | MIX MLE | 2 levels | 21 | 1 | 33 | 152 | 28 | 31 | 1 | 5% | 1.6 | 12.9% | 27.2% | -14.2% | 0.9% | 5.18 | 5.94 | — |
| 2025 | 25 | MIX RAW | 2 levels | 21 | 1 | 33 | 152 | 28 | 31 | 1 | 5% | 1.6 | 18.4% | 20.4% | -2.0% | 0.7% | 5.18 | 4.62 | — |
| ▸ 2027 season — projected remainder (no 2027 stats recorded) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 27 | MLB | TB | — | — | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 19.2% | 18.7% | 0.5% | 2.9% | 5.81 | 5.81 | — |
| ▸ Career projection (2028+) — MLB context, MLB playing time (IP × MLB%) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2028 | 28 | MLB MLE | TB | 14 | 0 | 15 | 62 | 12 | 11 | 2 | 0% | 1.0 | 19.5% | 17.9% | 1.6% | 3.0% | 5.71 | 5.75 | -0.2 |
| 2028 | 28 | MLB CTX | TB | 5 | 0 | 5 | 21 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0% | 1.0 | 19.5% | 17.9% | 1.6% | 3.0% | 5.71 | 5.75 | -0.1 |
| ▸ Career totals — MLB only (actual + projected) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Career | — | RAW | 5 | 0 | 5 | 22 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0% | 1.1 | 19.5% | 17.9% | 1.6% | 3.0% | 5.71 | 5.37 | -0.1 | |
| / 200 IP | — | RAW | 190 | 0 | 200 | 844 | 151 | 151 | 38 | 0% | 1.1 | 19.5% | 17.9% | 1.6% | 3.0% | 5.71 | 5.37 | -1.9 | |
| Career | — | MLE | 51 | 16 | 132 | 565 | 87 | 90 | 5 | 31% | 2.6 | 15.4% | 16.0% | -0.5% | 1.0% | 3.35 | 4.35 | -0.2 | |
| / 200 IP | — | MLE | 77 | 24 | 200 | 858 | 133 | 137 | 8 | 31% | 2.6 | 15.4% | 16.0% | -0.5% | 1.0% | 3.35 | 4.35 | -2.7 | |
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 ACharleston RiverDogs · 26 IPFIP 4.98 → 5.94 (+0.96)K% 17.5% → 12.9%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 17.46% | — | ×0.740 | 12.92% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 23.02% | — | ×1.180 | 27.16% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.79% | ÷1.159 | ×1.300 | 0.89% |
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 132).
Result: FIP 4.98 → 5.94, 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).
2025 ROKFCL Rays · 7 IPFIP 2.13 → 2.99 (+0.87)K% 23.1% → 15.7%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 23.08% | — | ×0.680 | 15.69% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 7.69% | — | ×1.250 | 9.62% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.00% | ÷0.809 | ×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 62).
Result: FIP 2.13 → 2.99, 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 ACharleston RiverDogs · 53 IPFIP 3.32 → 4.25 (+0.93)K% 21.6% → 15.9%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 21.55% | — | ×0.740 | 15.95% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 14.22% | — | ×1.180 | 16.78% |
| HR / BF /BF | 0.43% | ÷0.824 | ×1.300 | 0.68% |
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 3.32 → 4.25, 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 ROKDSL Tampa Bay · 46 IPFIP 2.17 → 3.13 (+0.96)K% 24.9% → 16.9%
| Component | Raw | Park ÷ | Level factor × | = MLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K% /BF | 24.86% | — | ×0.680 | 16.91% |
| BB% (unintentional) /BF | 4.42% | — | ×1.250 | 5.52% |
| HR / BF /BF | 1.10% | ÷1.121 | ×1.400 | 1.38% |
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 124).
Result: FIP 2.17 → 3.13, 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).