PREVIEW Starts 7:15 PM ET · Truist Park
September 24, 2026 · NL East

Cincinnati Reds at Atlanta Braves

September 24, 20267:15 PM ETTruist Park
AWAY
Cincinnati Reds
72-84
@
HOME
Atlanta Braves
92-64

Probable starters

AWAY · CIN
HOME · ATL

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 · CIN Projected · top 9 by AB
BATTER 2026 SEASON PROJ OPS
AVGOBPSLGOPSHRRBIK
1 Sal Stewart 1B · R .268 .334 .470 .804 32 110 147 .753
2 Elly De La Cruz SS · S .285 .366 .515 .881 28 74 167 .761
3 JJ Bleday LF · L .215 .325 .415 .740 23 57 116 .725
4 Matt McLain 2B · R .184 .274 .334 .608 15 39 133 .729
5 Eugenio Suárez DH · R .209 .305 .423 .728 24 69 161 .728
6 Tyler Stephenson C · R .246 .327 .411 .738 15 54 123 .723
7 Dane Myers CF · R .260 .347 .372 .719 7 26 79 .708
8 Ke'Bryan Hayes 3B · R .145 .200 .232 .432 5 9 48 .696
9 Jose Trevino C · R .216 .220 .338 .558 5 19 29 .695
HOME · ATL Projected · top 9 by AB
BATTER 2026 SEASON PROJ OPS
AVGOBPSLGOPSHRRBIK
1 Matt Olson 1B · L .253 .324 .506 .830 40 89 169 .764
2 Ozzie Albies 2B · S .242 .298 .402 .700 22 72 97 .723
3 Michael Harris II CF · L .289 .318 .486 .804 26 85 117 .737
4 Mauricio Dubón LF · R .273 .318 .394 .712 11 70 72 .701
5 Austin Riley 3B · R .220 .292 .360 .652 17 69 193 .741
6 Drake Baldwin C · L .282 .356 .456 .812 24 77 129 .749
7 Ronald Acuña Jr. RF · R .260 .352 .463 .815 20 55 101 .776
8 Mike Yastrzemski LF · L .231 .313 .393 .706 12 40 94 .711
9 Dominic Smith DH · L .255 .312 .376 .688 8 44 46 .713

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.

CIN starter vs Braves lineup

Brady Singer (RHP)

Lineup avg xwOBA .318
  1. 1 MO Matt Olson LHB .333
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Matt Olson
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .367 xwOBA over 321 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 261 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (10% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 131 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .342 xwOBA over 188 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (7% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 670 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  2. 2 OA Ozzie Albies SH .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ozzie Albies
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 243 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 156 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (10% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 96 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 124 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (7% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over 505 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  3. 3 MH Michael Harris II LHB .312
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Harris II
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 303 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 219 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (10% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 134 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 109 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (7% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 421 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  4. 4 MD Mauricio Dubón RHB .312
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Mauricio Dubón
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 246 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 198 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (10% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 126 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 113 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (7% usage) projects to .293 xwOBA over 406 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  5. 5 AR Austin Riley RHB .300
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Austin Riley
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 262 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .263 xwOBA over 207 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (10% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 152 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 107 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (7% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 484 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  6. 6 DB Drake Baldwin LHB .339
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Drake Baldwin
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 216 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 134 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (10% usage) projects to .357 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 68 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (7% usage) projects to .365 xwOBA over 257 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  7. 7 RA Ronald Acuña Jr. RHB .362
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ronald Acuña Jr.
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .404 xwOBA over 219 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 119 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (10% usage) projects to .363 xwOBA over 76 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 90 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (7% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 355 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 MY Mike Yastrzemski LHB .306
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Mike Yastrzemski
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 193 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 164 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (10% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 70 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .352 xwOBA over 104 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (7% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 530 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  9. 9 DS Dominic Smith LHB .289
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Dominic Smith
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 142 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over 93 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (10% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 46 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 62 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (7% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 246 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
Brady Singer vs Braves: full season matchup breakdown →
ATL starter vs Reds lineup

Tyler Mahle (RHP)

Lineup avg xwOBA .308
  1. 1 SS Sal Stewart RHB .333
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Sal Stewart
    • Four-Seam Fastball (48% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 180 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (29% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 23 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .354 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 106 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  2. 2 ED Elly De La Cruz SH .343
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Elly De La Cruz
    • Four-Seam Fastball (48% usage) projects to .377 xwOBA over 617 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Splitter (29% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .362 xwOBA over 149 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 220 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  3. 3 JB JJ Bleday LHB .308
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. JJ Bleday
    • Four-Seam Fastball (48% usage) projects to .341 xwOBA over 454 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Splitter (29% usage) projects to .242 xwOBA over 80 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .345 xwOBA over 102 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 199 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  4. 4 MM Matt McLain RHB .299
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Matt McLain
    • Four-Seam Fastball (48% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 281 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (29% usage) projects to .268 xwOBA over 27 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .353 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .255 xwOBA over 200 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  5. 5 ES Eugenio Suárez RHB .318
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Eugenio Suárez
    • Four-Seam Fastball (48% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 548 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (29% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 106 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 293 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  6. 6 TS Tyler Stephenson RHB .301
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Tyler Stephenson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (48% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 378 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (29% usage) projects to .254 xwOBA over 35 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 89 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .258 xwOBA over 187 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  7. 7 DM Dane Myers RHB .289
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Dane Myers
    • Four-Seam Fastball (48% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 252 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (29% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 14 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 115 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 KH Ke'Bryan Hayes RHB .282
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ke'Bryan Hayes
    • Four-Seam Fastball (48% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 297 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Splitter (29% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 21 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .275 xwOBA over 84 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .255 xwOBA over 189 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  9. 9 JT Jose Trevino RHB .298
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jose Trevino
    • Four-Seam Fastball (48% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 202 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (29% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 11 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 110 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
Tyler Mahle vs Reds: full season matchup breakdown →

Manager comparison

AWAY · CIN
Terry Francona
Lineup 3.1 R Bunts 2.2 R IBBs 4.4 R
HOME · ATL
Walt Weiss
Lineup 4.2 R Bunts 1.3 R IBBs 3.1 R

Bullpen availability

AWAY · CIN
  • Available 6
  • Limited 2
  • Rest required 1
  • Inactive 0
HOME · ATL
  • Available 7
  • Limited 1
  • Rest required 0
  • Inactive 0

Recent form

AWAY · CIN
3-7 L2 -41 run diff
LLWLWLLWLL
HOME · ATL
7-3 W3 +12 run diff
WWWLWLLWWW

Pitching & bullpen preview

Probable starters and each bullpen's availability load in the sections above — the Reds and Braves 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.