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 .330
  1. 1 NH Nico Hoerner RHB .316
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nico Hoerner
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 582 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 443 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 162 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 141 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 91 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  2. 2 PC Pete Crow-Armstrong LHB .342
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pete Crow-Armstrong
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 517 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .348 xwOBA over 212 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .359 xwOBA over 221 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 122 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .357 xwOBA over 124 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  3. 3 AB Alex Bregman RHB .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alex Bregman
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 561 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 424 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over 141 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 129 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  4. 4 MB Michael Busch LHB .340
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Busch
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .362 xwOBA over 606 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .352 xwOBA over 234 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 209 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .347 xwOBA over 146 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 124 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  5. 5 SS Seiya Suzuki RHB .348
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Seiya Suzuki
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .364 xwOBA over 491 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .386 xwOBA over 363 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 148 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 127 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 110 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  6. 6 IH Ian Happ SH .328
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ian Happ
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 619 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .369 xwOBA over 224 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 321 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .347 xwOBA over 143 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .345 xwOBA over 130 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  7. 7 DS Dansby Swanson RHB .332
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Dansby Swanson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .351 xwOBA over 484 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 314 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .259 xwOBA over 168 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 127 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 88 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  8. 8 CK Carson Kelly RHB .310
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Carson Kelly
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 341 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 231 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 96 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  9. 9 MC Michael Conforto LHB .331
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Conforto
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 444 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .360 xwOBA over 176 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .271 xwOBA over 179 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 82 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 76 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.