PREVIEW Starts 2:20 PM ET · Wrigley Field
September 24, 2026 · NL Cent

Miami Marlins at Chicago Cubs

September 24, 20262:20 PM ETWrigley Field
AWAY
Miami Marlins
76-80
@
HOME
Chicago Cubs
87-69

Probable starters

AWAY · MIA
HOME
TBD

Lineups

Lineups are usually announced ~90 minutes before first pitch. Check back soon.

Hitter season stats

Season-to-date lines for each hitter in the projected lineup, with a Marcel projection (Proj OPS). Season columns are 2026 to date; Proj is a forward-looking estimate, not a result.

AWAY · MIA Projected · top 9 by AB
BATTER 2026 SEASON PROJ OPS
AVGOBPSLGOPSHRRBIK
1 Otto Lopez SS · R .305 .348 .442 .790 11 71 87 .719
2 Xavier Edwards 2B · S .280 .360 .371 .731 6 52 83 .731
3 Jakob Marsee CF · L .230 .349 .359 .708 11 39 122 .746
4 Kyle Stowers 1B · L .237 .328 .445 .773 19 61 159 .739
5 Javier Sanoja 3B · R .291 .330 .454 .784 10 67 37 .736
6 Heriberto Hernández LF · R .228 .313 .440 .753 24 64 130 .739
7 Joe Mack C · L .231 .278 .395 .673 13 48 82 .746
8 Griffin Conine RF · L .256 .350 .481 .831 17 39 90 .722
9 Agustín Ramírez DH · R .235 .323 .368 .691 5 23 57 .734
HOME · CHC Projected · top 9 by AB
BATTER 2026 SEASON PROJ OPS
AVGOBPSLGOPSHRRBIK
1 Nico Hoerner 2B · R .265 .317 .355 .672 8 71 56 .723
2 Pete Crow-Armstrong CF · L .280 .371 .578 .949 45 107 182 .744
3 Alex Bregman 3B · R .262 .352 .452 .804 26 89 101 .738
4 Michael Busch 1B · L .239 .350 .396 .746 20 77 159 .748
5 Seiya Suzuki RF · R .267 .365 .470 .835 25 85 149 .747
6 Ian Happ LF · S .221 .331 .418 .749 24 67 183 .732
7 Dansby Swanson SS · R .220 .303 .412 .715 19 67 107 .713
8 Carson Kelly C · R .264 .344 .386 .730 10 58 66 .712
9 Michael Conforto DH · L .245 .339 .482 .821 15 44 79 .706

Pitcher vs. lineup projection

Projected expected wOBA for each probable starter against the opposing lineup, by batting order. A season-to-date matchup read — forward-looking, not a result.

MIA starter vs Cubs lineup

Tyler Phillips (RHP)

Lineup avg xwOBA .317
  1. 1 NH Nico Hoerner RHB .318
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nico Hoerner
    • Sinker (28% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 440 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (24% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 149 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (20% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 40 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (19% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 91 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (9% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 582 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  2. 2 PC Pete Crow-Armstrong LHB .339
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pete Crow-Armstrong
    • Sinker (28% usage) projects to .345 xwOBA over 211 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (24% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 127 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (20% usage) projects to .345 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (19% usage) projects to .364 xwOBA over 124 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (9% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 515 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  3. 3 AB Alex Bregman RHB .302
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alex Bregman
    • Sinker (28% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 423 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (24% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 109 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Splitter (20% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 34 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (19% usage) projects to .268 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (9% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over 561 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  4. 4 MB Michael Busch LHB .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Busch
    • Sinker (28% usage) projects to .372 xwOBA over 233 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (24% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 117 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (20% usage) projects to .272 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Curveball (19% usage) projects to .254 xwOBA over 124 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (9% usage) projects to .362 xwOBA over 605 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  5. 5 SS Seiya Suzuki RHB .326
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Seiya Suzuki
    • Sinker (28% usage) projects to .378 xwOBA over 360 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (24% usage) projects to .272 xwOBA over 159 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Splitter (20% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 45 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (19% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 110 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (9% usage) projects to .383 xwOBA over 491 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  6. 6 IH Ian Happ SH .333
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ian Happ
    • Sinker (28% usage) projects to .376 xwOBA over 224 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (24% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 107 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (20% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (19% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 130 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (9% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 618 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  7. 7 DS Dansby Swanson RHB .307
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Dansby Swanson
    • Sinker (28% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 314 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (24% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 143 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (20% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 34 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (19% usage) projects to .256 xwOBA over 88 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (9% usage) projects to .368 xwOBA over 484 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  8. 8 CK Carson Kelly RHB .304
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Carson Kelly
    • Sinker (28% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 231 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (24% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 89 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (20% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 17 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (19% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (9% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 341 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  9. 9 MC Michael Conforto LHB .312
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Conforto
    • Sinker (28% usage) projects to .360 xwOBA over 175 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (24% usage) projects to .269 xwOBA over 72 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Splitter (20% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (19% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (9% usage) projects to .362 xwOBA over 444 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
Tyler Phillips vs Cubs: full season matchup breakdown →

Manager comparison

AWAY · MIA
Clayton McCullough
Lineup 4.0 R Bunts 3.8 R IBBs 1.4 R
HOME · CHC
Craig Counsell
Lineup 3.9 R Bunts 2.0 R IBBs 1.8 R

Bullpen availability

AWAY · MIA
  • Available 8
  • Limited 1
  • Rest required 0
  • Inactive 0
HOME · CHC
  • Available 4
  • Limited 1
  • Rest required 0
  • Inactive 0

Recent form

AWAY · MIA
4-6 L3 -11 run diff
LLLWWLWWLL
HOME · CHC
6-4 W2 +22 run diff
WWLWLWLWWL

Season series: 1-2 with MIA listed first across 3 prior meetings.

Pitching & bullpen preview

Probable starters and each bullpen's availability load in the sections above — the Marlins and Cubs staffs going in.

Once the game ends, a full pitching and bullpen breakdown appears here: starter lines, the relief sequence and each arm's role, pitch counts, and where the game turned.

Keep reading

How RunsLeft analyzes games

Standard content on this page comes from the MLB Stats API. The pitching analysis describes how the game was pitched — the starter's line, the bullpen sequence and each arm's role (opener, bulk, setup, closer), pitch counts as a fatigue signal, and the leverage context where the game turned. Reliever roles are inferred from how the manager used each arm up to that date. It describes structure and constraints; it does not grade the manager.

Read the full methodology.