Head to head · 2026 pitching

John Brebbia vs Nate Pearson

So far in 2026 Nate Pearson has been worth 0.9 more wins. Both lines are computed from play-by-play on the same constants, so they are measured the same way rather than quoted from two sources.

John Brebbia COL

Nate Pearson KC

2026 pitching, season in progress. The stronger figure in each row is highlighted — for ERA, FIP, WHIP and walks that is the lower one.
Statistic	John Brebbia	Nate Pearson
G	3	39
GS	0	0
IP	4.1	44.0
W	0	2
SO	2	40
ERA	10.38	3.07
FIP	8.18	3.42
WHIP	1.62	1.25
K/9	4.2	8.2
BB/9	0.0	4.3
FIP−	195	82
WAR	-0.2	0.7

Career

Totalled over the seasons published here, which is not the same as a whole career: a player who debuted before 2015 begins at 2015, not at his real first game.

Career pitching totals. ERA, WHIP and the per-nine rates are recomputed from the components rather than averaged; FIP needs each season’s own constant and is left to the table above.
Statistic	John Brebbia	Nate Pearson
G	379	162
GS	21	6
IP	382.2	200.2
W	16	11
L	22	8
SV	4	7
SO	416	200
BB	121	95
ERA	4.12	4.71
WHIP	1.25	1.41
K/9	9.8	9.0
BB/9	2.8	4.3
HR/9	1.2	1.3
WAR	3.9	0.3

John Brebbia’s full profile →Nate Pearson’s full profile →

More head to heads

The same seasons, measured against somebody else.

John Brebbia vs

Nate Pearson vs

How these are computed

FIP uses the constant solved from this season’s own runs, and FIP− is park-adjusted against the same league. dbWAR is our own open implementation — not fWAR or bWAR — and the full derivation, including its simplifications, is on the methodology page. To put these two beside a third, the comparison page takes up to four.