PITCHER MATCHUP

Brandon Woodruff vs Chicago Cubs

How the Chicago Cubs's current regulars (top 9 by at-bats) project against Brandon Woodruff's season-to-date arsenal — not the posted lineup for any single game.

Brandon Woodruff's arsenal

Throws RHPvs LHH xwOBA .232vs RHH xwOBA .265Seasons 2026–2025
Four-Seam Fastball 37%Sinker 25%Changeup 19%Cutter 14%Curveball 4%Sweeper 1%

How the Chicago Cubs's regulars project

Projected expected wOBA for each of the Chicago Cubs's top-9-by-AB hitters against Brandon Woodruff, by batting order. A season-to-date read — lower favors the pitcher.

Lineup avg xwOBA .329
  1. 1 NH Nico Hoerner RHB .315
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nico Hoerner
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 538 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 398 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 151 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 129 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 84 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  2. 2 AB Alex Bregman RHB .321
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alex Bregman
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 521 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 387 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over 128 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 110 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .244 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  3. 3 MB Michael Busch LHB .340
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Busch
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .362 xwOBA over 552 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .352 xwOBA over 216 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 186 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .347 xwOBA over 139 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 112 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  4. 4 PC Pete Crow-Armstrong LHB .337
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pete Crow-Armstrong
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 463 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 188 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 195 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .341 xwOBA over 109 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .347 xwOBA over 112 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  5. 5 IH Ian Happ SH .329
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ian Happ
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 589 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .371 xwOBA over 206 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .265 xwOBA over 293 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .351 xwOBA over 135 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 120 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  6. 6 DS Dansby Swanson RHB .332
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Dansby Swanson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .351 xwOBA over 477 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .360 xwOBA over 307 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .260 xwOBA over 165 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .355 xwOBA over 126 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 88 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  7. 7 SS Seiya Suzuki RHB .348
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Seiya Suzuki
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .356 xwOBA over 450 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .397 xwOBA over 322 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 137 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 117 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 99 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 CK Carson Kelly RHB .314
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Carson Kelly
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 313 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 208 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 87 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 71 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 46 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  9. 9 MC Michael Conforto LHB .329
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Conforto
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 420 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .367 xwOBA over 162 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .258 xwOBA over 164 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

No meeting currently scheduled — this is a durable season matchup read.